The ‘Trump Report’ Is a Russian Provocation

putin920x537It is part of Russia’s strategy to disrupt U.S. politics and institutions for years to come.

National Review, By David Satter, January 12, 2017:

Missing from the Intelligence Report: The Word ‘Podesta’

podestaDisclosure of embarrassing information should not be confused with disinformation.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, January 8, 2017:

There is a word missing from the non-classified report issued Friday, in which three intelligence agencies assess “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.” The FBI, CIA, and NSA elide any mention of . . . “Podesta.”

Seems like a pretty significant omission — not just because of how the 2016 campaign played out but also in light of the intelligence community’s recent history of politicizing its analyses.

The report is replete with references to Russian “cyber espionage,” “covert intelligence,” “false-flag,” “propaganda,” and “influence” operations by which Vladimir Putin is alleged to have tried to put his thumb on the electoral scale. Very sinister stuff, to be sure. But when the public hears these terms, it thinks of spies, misdirection, disinformation campaigns — i.e., schemes intended to deceive the target audience. People don’t instantly think, “Oh, you mean an effort to publicize true but embarrassing information”; they don’t read “covert operation” and say to themselves, “That must mean they subjected only one side of a political contest to a high level of scrutiny.” That’s the kind of behavior people associate with the American media, not the Kremlin.

The three intelligence agencies’ report pointedly declines to tell us what specific information gives them such “high confidence” that they know the operation of Vladimir Putin’s mind. They plead that the nature of their work does not allow for that: To tell us how they know what they purport to know would compromise intelligence methods and sources.

Fair enough. The problem, though, is that if you’re essentially going to say, “Trust us,” you have to have proven yourself trustworthy over time.

Here, we are talking about a community whose own analysts have complained that their superiors distort their reports for political purposes. In just the past few years, they have told us that they had “high confidence” that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003; that the NSA was not collecting metadata on millions of Americans; and that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, “largely secular” organization. We have learned that the Obama administration intentionally perpetrated a disinformation campaign — complete with a compliant media “echo chamber” — to sell the public on the Iran nuclear deal (and the fiction that Iran’s regime was moderating). We have seen U.S. intelligence and law enforcement complicit in the Obama administration’s schemes to convince the public that “violent extremism,” not radical Islam, is the explanation for terrorist attacks; that a jihadist mass-murder attack targeting soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan was “workplace violence”; that al-Qaeda had been “decimated”; that the threat of the ISIS “jayvee” team was exaggerated; and that the Benghazi massacre was not really a terrorist attack but a “protest” gone awry over an anti-Muslim video.

I can attest that the intelligence agencies overflow with patriotic Americans who do the quiet, perilous, thankless work that saves American lives. We can acknowledge this incontestable fact and still observe that, on this record, the intelligence community as an institution cannot very well expect that “Trust us” is going to get them very far.

Which brings us back to what the new report studiously avoids mentioning.

The vaporous assertion that Putin’s regime was up to “espionage” and “covert ops” in order to “denigrate” Mrs. Clinton might naturally be presumed to imply that Putin was promoting smears. Such an impression — if that’s what the agencies were aiming to create — would have been contradicted by mentioning “Podesta,” as in John Podesta, the top Obama White House and Clinton-campaign official whose private e-mails were hacked. To bring up Podesta might remind the public that this was not a disinformation campaign. What was revealed here was true information that Podesta and his correspondents would understandably have preferred to keep private.

As President Obama likes to say, let me be clear. I am not endorsing hacking, cyber-theft, and the publication of private information. Unlike some conservatives now infatuated with scoundrels like Julian Assange (and even Putin!), I continue to regard enemies of the United States as, well, enemies of the United States. They are not to be trusted, regardless of whose ox they happen to be goring as their allegiances and calculations twist and turn.

My point is that Putin did not plant a slanderous story that top Clinton aides were, say, spouting anti-Catholic bigotry. What he did was orchestrate the release of authentic e-mails, in one of which top Clinton aides were in fact spouting anti-Catholic bigotry.

I will give Democrats the benefit of the doubt that, if the shoe were on the other foot, they would condemn the theft — a benefit they probably do not rate given their praise of Edward Snowden and their historic efforts (the Carter administration, Ted Kennedy) to seek Soviet interference in the American political system when it stood to help their electoral prospects. But I am quite certain Democrats would have no sympathy for Republicans over any political damage if the latter were caught saying unsavory things. In such an instance, victorious Democrats would not tolerate a suggestion that the “the election had been hacked”; they’d say, “Republicans got caught being Republicans.”

The new report may be entirely right — I think it is — that Putin tries to meddle in American and European elections and that he has preferences about the outcomes. Yet it is written in a way that enables the Left to spin it as support for the fallacy that Putin “hacked the election.” It gives Democrats ammunition to continue prattling about how the Russians used “espionage” and “covert operations” “aimed at the US election” in order to “influence” the result; and that Putin wanted Trump to win, according to our “highly confident” agencies. The Left can even cite the agencies’ intriguing but inchoate conclusion that the Kremlin “accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards” — a conclusion that a cynic, believing the intelligence community might be just a teensy bit political, might figure was included in the report to undercut Trump’s refrain that the hacking had nothing to do with the electoral process.

The agencies, of course, would deny any political agenda. And perhaps they don’t have one — personally, I don’t have “high confidence” that I can read their minds as well as they can apparently read Putin’s. Nevertheless, when you read the report carefully, it is like a media report: It feeds the “hack the election” theme, but it does not actually say Putin hacked the election.

Indeed, when you look for the fire under all the smoke, you find the agencies saying, “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” And while the report repeatedly asserts that Russia wanted to “influence” the election, it elaborates that Russia’s main aim is to “undermine the U.S.-led democratic order” and “faith in the US democratic process” (an unremarkable finding that, by the way, is of a piece with the contention of Trump national-security adviser Mike Flynn that the Russian regime is anti-American principally because it opposes democracy).

The report concludes that while Putin appears to have been rooting for Trump, the Russians assumed Clinton was going to win and were mainly trying to undermine the effectiveness of her anticipated presidency, not swing the election to Trump. And even the conclusion that Putin was rooting for Trump is partially based on speculation (“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because” he blames her for protests against his regime), along with heavy doses of hypothesis (Putin is said to have: liked “Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia”; seen Trump’s election as a potential pathway “to achieve an international coalition against the Islamic State”; “had many positive experiences working with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia”; etc.).

Note: all this agency guesswork appears to be based on publicly available information that you and I — without any access to super-secret intelligence sources and methods — could have done on our own. It doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know, or couldn’t already have surmised.

And what about those dark suggestions about Russian penetration of “multiple state or local electoral boards,” and that “since early 2014, Russian intelligence has researched [ooh!] US electoral processes and related technology and equipment”? Well, if you read on, you find that the report is at pains to concede that the Department of Homeland Security “assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.”

In other words, Putin did not hack the election.

In light of the report’s emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as the “espionage” victim, it is worth noting a couple of other nuggets. The agencies acknowledge that Kremlin spies “conducted cyber operations against . . . targets associated with both major US political parties” (emphasis added). In fact, Russia “collected against” anyone and everyone “viewed as likely to shape future US policies” — including “US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups.”

In making the concession that “Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets,” the agencies are quick to caveat that, whatever Putin may have done to Republicans, it was not “comparable” to his “disclosure campaign” against Democrats. But is that necessarily because he wanted the Republicans to win?

Again, reading the report closely, we learn that while the Russians apparently “targeted” the Republican party, they actually succeeded in “gain[ing] access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks” — access they maintained for about a year. And note that, just as the agencies refrain from any discussion of the Podesta motherlode, they also choose not to tell us anything about the quantity or quality of the information obtained from Republicans. We’re just vaguely told that Russia’s Republican disclosures were not “comparable” to its Democratic disclosures. But that might be indicative of a motive only if the information acquired from each party was comparable. Isn’t it possible that the disclosures were not comparable because the stuff Putin got on the GOP was not nearly as copious or juicy as what he got on the Dems?

Or . . . let’s assume for argument’s sake that the information Russia acquired was comparable — let’s assume that they have something on Trump, or on some Republican as relatively high-level as Podesta, that would stoke the same kind of press frenzy as the tens of thousands of Podesta e-mails. If the report is correct that Putin was convinced Hillary would win and wanted to cripple her presidency from the start, wouldn’t it be logical that he’d more heavily disclose what he had on the Dems? What would be the point of trying to cripple the anticipated Republican loser? Wouldn’t Putin keep his powder dry on the GOP — hold whatever he’s got for future damage or blackmail purposes, save it for a time when it would be more useful?

I’m speculating about Putin’s motives, and I don’t have “high confidence” that I know what they were. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

Before the agencies’ report was issued, most of us knew that Russia is an adversary obsessed with America, that it aggressively spies against us and endeavors to influence any aspect of American affairs that could advantage it. We also knew Russia did not “hack the election.” The underwhelming intelligence report on Russia’s meddling in our election changes none of that.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Also see:

U.S. Intel Report Says Putin Led ‘Cyber-Enabled Disclosure Operation’ to Help Elect Trump, Discredit Clinton

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, January 6, 2017:

The CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency concluded in a report made public Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed a covert intelligence campaign to boost the election of Donald Trump while seeking to discredit Hillary Clinton.

The 23-page unclassified report is part of a longer secret study into a wide-ranging cyber and disinformation campaign similar to the activities during the Cold War of the Soviet KGB intelligence service.

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” the report said.

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

The combined cyber and intelligence operation “reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the worldwide effects that mass disclosures of U.S. government and other private data—such as those conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have achieved in recent years, and their understanding of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to maximize the impact of compromising information,” the report said.

The report warned that Russia will continue “cyber-enabled disclosure operations” to achieve foreign policy goals with relative ease and without causing significant damage to Russian interests.

“We assess Russian intelligence services will continue to develop capabilities to provide Putin with options to use against the United States, judging from past practice and current efforts,” the report said.

The report noted that immediately after the Nov. 8 election, Russia launched an email spearphishing campaign targeting U.S. government employees and Americans at think tanks and non-governmental organizations involved in national security, defense, and foreign policy.

“This campaign could provide material for future influence efforts as well as foreign intelligence collection on the incoming administration’s goals and plans,” the report said.

The report is based in part on top-secret NSA electronic intercepts and analysis of Russian spy tradecraft and other aspects of the operation by CIA and FBI intelligence analysts.

The report also states specifically that the three agencies “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.”

President-elect Trump, who was briefed on the top-secret report on Friday, stated on Twitter that he left the briefing convinced that Russian covert action had no impact on the election.

“While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines,” Trump said.

He noted that Russian attempts to hack the Republican National Committee were unsuccessful as a result of better cyber security than used by the DNC.

The declassified report is titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections” and will likely fuel the political debate among some Democrats who have sought to discredit Trump’s election victory.

According to the report, Russia and Putin sought to influence the presidential election in a bid to “undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order.”

However, the effort in 2016 began with major cyber intrusions in the summer and “demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

Regarding Trump, the agencies concluded that Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for Trump, a judgment the three agencies gauged with “high confidence.”

U.S. officials familiar with the classified version of the report said intelligence indicated Russian officials celebrated Trump’s stunning Nov. 8 election upset, Reuters reported.

The influence program involved “discrediting” Clinton through leaking information obtained from hacks against the DNC and political figures like John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager.

The report also said the Russians “aspired” to boost Trump’s election prospects by discrediting and contrasting Clinton unfavorably with Trump. In that judgment, the CIA and FBI voiced high confidence, but the NSA said it had only moderate confidence.

The operation evolved over the course of the election campaign and intensified when it appeared Clinton was likely to win. The report said at that point the Russians’ influence campaign sought to focus on undermining her future presidency.

“Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls,’” the report said.

The main conduits for Russian intelligence, specifically the GRU military intelligence service, were hackers using the online persona Guccifer 2.0 and the website DCLeaks.com. Another main conduit for hacked “victim data” was the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks that the report says cooperated closely with Russia’s main propaganda outlet, RT, formerly Russian Television.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News this week that Russia was not the source of the information published by the website. Assange did not reveal who the source was that provided the leaked information.

The report provides details on WikiLeaks close ties to RT.

Additionally, Russian hackers broke into multiple state and local election boards, but did not penetrate systems involved in vote tallying.

The entire influence campaign was orchestrated by senior Kremlin officials and disseminated to Russia’s state-run “propaganda machine,” a combination of both traditional media outlets and social media, including St. Petersburg group Internet Research Agency, to operate a troll network. The operation is funded by a Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence.

The report concluded that Moscow will use the lessons of the campaign in future influence operations worldwide, including U.S. allies and their elections.

The campaign to influence the election represented a “significant escalation” compared to past Russian influence operations in terms of directness, level of activity, and scope of effort over past election meddling.

Russian deep cover “illegal” intelligence operatives expelled from the United States in 2010 revealed Moscow’s bid to influence the 2008 election.

Also, during the 1970s, the Soviet KGB “recruited a Democratic Party activist who reported information about then-presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter’s campaign and foreign policy plans,” the report said.

Putin’s motive for the campaign was part ideological and part revenge for what the Russian leader believes is U.S. backing for mass democratic protests against his regime in 2011 and 2012. Putin also “holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him,” the report said.

Putin in June avoided directly praising Trump as part of the campaign in order to avoid having the campaign backfire in the United States.

Still, Putin during the presidential campaign voiced preference for Trump because he believes the president-elect is more willing to work with Russia and because he perceived Trump would adopt policies more favorable to Russia related to Syria and Ukraine.

By contrast, Putin criticized Clinton for her “aggressive rhetoric,” the report said.

Moscow also believed Trump as president would assist Moscow’s plan to build an international coalition against the Islamic State terror group.

“Putin has had many positive experiences working with western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia, such as former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder,” the report said.

Russian diplomats also were employed in publicly denouncing the U.S. electoral process and were ready to question the results if Clinton had been elected.

On social media, pro-Kremlin bloggers also had prepared a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #DemocracyRIP on election night.

The disinformation and influence operation was based on “years of investment” by the Russians and based on experiences used in influencing former Soviet states that Moscow is seeking to control in what is termed the “near abroad.”

“By their nature, Russian influence campaigns are multifaceted and designed to be deniable because they use a mix of agents of influence, cutouts, front organizations, and false-flag operations,” the report said.

An example was the takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 that used a combination of military forces and information warfare operations.

In the presidential campaign operations, leaks from cyber attacks, intrusions into state and local election networks, and overt propaganda were used. Russian intelligence agencies “both informed and enabled the influence campaign,” the report said.

In addition to the DNC and Podesta’s email, the Russians targeted the primary election campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups likely to be involved in shaping future policies.

For the DNC, Russian intelligence gained access from July 2015 until at least June 2016, with the GRU launching aggressive attacks beginning in March 2016.

“By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC,” the report said.

The information was provided to Guccifer 2.0 who claimed to be a Romanian hacker who the report says was likely Russian and probably more than one person.

DCLeaks.com began spreading GRU hacked data in June.

Contrary to Assange’s claims this week, the report said: “We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.”

“Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity,” the report said. “Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”

The report noted that in September Putin denied state-level involvement in the Russian campaign to hack the election and stated publicly that it was more important to focus on the leaked data than the source of the leaks.

On Russian ties to WikiLeaks, the report said the Kremlin’s main international propaganda outlet, RT, “actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.”

“RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT,” the report said.

RT also had an exclusive partnership with WikiLeaks that involved access to secret information. Additionally, RT provided sympathetic coverage of Assange and “provides him a platform to denounce the United States,” the report said.

Sputnik, an online outlet, along with a network of social media trolls are also part of the Moscow propaganda machine.

According to the report, Russian media viewed Trump’s election victory as validating Putin’s advocacy of global populist movements and an example of Western liberalism’s “collapse.”

Negative Russian propaganda coverage of Clinton included highlighting her bout with pneumonia in August.

An RT interview with Assange in August also suggested that Clinton and the Islamic State were funded by the same money. Additional reporting by RT focused on the Clinton Foundation and how all of the foundation’s funds went to the Clintons.

***

Also see:

Fake news and MSM deception example 247698-b9E AP News

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Vlad Tepes blog, January 5, 2017 by Eeyore

According to this site, there are four kinds of lies.

Falsification, exaggeration, omission, equivocation.

Today, AP News provided us with a magnificent example of lie by omission.

First, for those that missed it, you may want to look at a story Nash Montana posted last night here at Vlad. Our title for it was:

Four Chicago Thugs Arrested for Kidnapping Torturing White Special Needs Kid

It is incomplete. But not deceptive. Incomplete because all the perps were black and it was clearly a race hate crime against white people as much as any crime can be a “hate crime.” The title could have said, “In hate crime” at the end and been more complete. But it was not deceptive as all the facts including the video are included in the post.

Now lets look at AP News tweet on the same story:

And now their coverage:

safariscreensnapz002

Once again, the MSM shows it is operating on a narrative at the expense of truth, likely to create an outcome, as opposed to informing the public as to real world events.

Is this a product of Obama’s office of the CVE?

Very possibly. Or is it a function of Bill Whittle’s observation that the Frankfurt School narrative is just how people think now and not a deep conspiracy?

Not in this case. This, and thousands of other examples of MSM deception are too well crafted to be a product of how a person thinks. This was a most deliberate attempt to sanitize salient facts out of the reporting of the event to create a predetermined impression in the reader.

As people get more and more aware of this kind of highly Marxist approach to information management, agencies that actually give demonstrably true information and analysis which has predictive value, like Gates of Vienna for example, are being labeled as “fake news” and software and legal measures are being created to make sure the public no longer has easy access to it.

This of course is the guaranteed path of Marxism or any system that seeks to supplant what is true, with what is conforming to an ideology. At some point, you have to use increasing levels of force to keep people talking and thinking in a conformist, non-diverse manner in accordance with the official doctrine. It starts with labeling non-compliant analysis and reporting as fake, and then applies software filters like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube do to varying degrees and with varying means. (Youtube no longer allows non-leftist independent journalists or analysis to monetize their videos) and inevitably will criminalize non compliance beginning with selectively enforced “hate-crimes” laws and reeducation camps and sooner or later boils down to just killing us.

Because it always does.

Just ask ‘Uncle Joe’.

[UPDATE: HEAVY.COM has this additional information about the event, the people, and the charges. The event was worse than reported by pretty much anyone]

For an understanding of the CVE, please see the following videos:

Propaganda THEN and NOW

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, January 4, 2017:

On January 5, 1919 Germany’s National Socialist Party (NAZI) formed as the German Farmers’ Party. When the Nazi party took over power in Germany in 1933, Adolf Hitler created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment under the rule of Joseph Goebbels.

The Nazi’s ability to turn public opinion through its control of the media, film, education, and the like gave it momentum inside Germany to do much of its work to prepare for war and brutally slaughter the “unwanteds” inside that nation.

How does a nation get to the point it is willing to allow millions to be killed in the ways the Nazis did?

It begins with propaganda.  The Nazis and Communists were masters of propaganda.  And so are the leaders of today’s Islamic Movement.

In the war of narratives, the Islamic Movement seeks to present the image that the “moderate” muslims are a much better option than the violent jihadis of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, et al, thus driving American leaders into the arms of “suit-wearing jihadis” with whom they can and do work.

The problem is that both sides are hostile enemies of the United States.

The enemy’s success in the propaganda/information campaign can easily be identified by the fact that 15 years after 9/11/01 America’s leaders still think there are different definitions of “jihad” in Islamic Law (sharia) – one of the many results of a long propaganda campaign by our enemy.  This particular one pounds the drum stating the “Islam means ‘peace’.”

It is a matter of fact that ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MAS (Muslim American Society), MSA (Muslim Students Association), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), and many other Islamic organizations are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States with the mission of waging “civilization jihad” to destroy western civilization and replace our government with an Islamic government.

It is a matter of fact that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is a Hamas organization, meaning it is a terrorist organization, and it is a fact that CAIR’s leader, Nihad Awad, is the driving force behind the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  Awad created the USCMO (U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations) comprised of many of the prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations with him, Nihad Awad, at the head (functionally if not practically).

And these are the organizations behind the major propaganda operations in America today.

The following is a mere sampling of propaganda/information operations currently underway inside the United States:

coexist2

Campaign:  “COEXIST” bumper sticker.

Details:  Produced, in part, by International ANSWER, a hard-left organization whose “Steering Committee” was created 3 days after 9/11 and includes the National Muslim Students Association.

Purpose:  Moral relativism.  To show Islam is no different from Judaism or Christianity and simply wants to “coexist” (not assimilate) with the rest of society.

muslim-day

Campaign:  Muslim Day at State Capitals

Details:  Sponsored by Hamas (dba CAIR).  This is a day when muslims flood state capitals to, in their words, “meet state legislators, discuss issues of concern and help bring about positive social change.”

Purpose:  A show of force and intimidation at state capitals to give the impression muslims can win or lose elections for state legislators, and therefore, state legislators should submit to their demands.


Campaign:  Paid trips to Saudi Arabia for Members of Congress.

Details:  Saudi Arabia and their representatives take Member of Congress overseas to Saudi Arabia on 10 day trips to show legislators how “progressive” the Kingdom is towards business and other parts of its society.

Purpose:  To show Members of Congress a facade of the true Saudi Arabia so they have a favorable impression of the nation and will be softer on their actions when legislative matters involving the Kingdom arise.  It pits those who speak factual truth about Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism, sharia, and anti-American efforts against the Congressmen’s newfound personal experience in the Kingdom.

The same campaign exists at the state level for trips to Turkey sponsored by Turkish Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Turquoise Foundation, Holy Dove Foundation, and others.

myjihad

Campaign:  “My Jihad”

Details:  This series of videos, billboards, signs, and advertisements produced by Hamas (dba CAIR) shows muslims sharing about their various forms of jihad – doing their homework, helping others, and other such things.

Purpose:  To give the impression that jihad is defined as anything but “warfare against non-Muslims” to establish the power of Islam despite the fact all Islamic law defines it as such.


Campaign:  After “terrorist attacks” Americans should be most concerned with “backlash” against muslims

Details:  Following attacks against U.S. citizens by muslim jihadis, leaders from the Islamic community speak on television telling America they fear for their lives because of the constant backlash against them from non-Muslims despite the fact FBI information reveals this phenomenon does not exist.  U.S. Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, who wore a hijab during the Olympics, publicly stated, “I don’t feel safe in America.”

Purpose:  To get our law enforcement, national leadership, and citizens to focus on protecting the Muslim community instead of the seeing that the problem is IN the Muslim community.

 

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-2-04-56-am

 

Campaign:  Interfaith Outreach/Family of Abraham

abra

Details:  Primarily led by ISNA and ICNA, the Interfaith Outreach movement targets churches and synagogues of all denominations to come together under the belief that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one God and three Abrahamic faiths.  They adjust their message for Catholics, protestants, and other denominations to get the message to strike home more effectively.

Purpose:  To subvert religious institutions which are the backbone of American society. It should be noted that by the very fact Christian organizations engage in interfaith outreach with the Muslim Brotherhood, they have to surrender their core doctrinal beliefs to meet muslims at a place which often puts them in positions of heresy.  This furthers the MB’s broader strategy of destroying the non-muslim citizens’ faith in their religious leaders.


Campaign:  Muslim Jewish Advisory Council

Details:  Formed by the AJC (American Jewish Committee) and ISNA, this organization purports to be designed to fight Islamophobia and anti-semitism.  It should be noted that in the US v HLF, the U.S. government identified ISNA as the “nucleus” of the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel.

Purpose:  To further subvert the Jewish community, and its leadership around the narrative that both Jews and Muslims are being persecuted.  The muslim intent is for Jewish leaders to protect the Muslim community from the kind of persecution similar what happened to Jews in Germany during World War II.  It appears to be working as many Jewish leaders and organizations in America today openly support and defend Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leaders and organizations – the very people who seek their destruction.

shariah_billboard

Campaigns:  Sharia / Islam: Got Questions? Billboards.

Details:  Billboards around the United States have been used to promote Sharia and Islam and give citizens a means to ask questions.  These campaigns, as many of the billboards openly state, are sponsored by ICNA.

Purpose:  To normalize Islam and Sharia in our society in preparation for Islam to rule our society under Sharia.


Campaign:  Control Hollywood’s Depiction of Muslims in Film and Television

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affair’s Council (MPAC) in Los Angeles work diligently to ensure muslims are only portrayed in a positive light in both TV shows and film.  They have strong-armed producers, even before films were in production, based on the scripts.  One example: “Sum of All Fears” – storyline was originally muslim terrorists but, because of pressure from CAIR, the antagonists were portrayed as Nazis in the film.

Purpose:  To ensure Americans only see Islam in a positive light and to keep the factual teachings of Islam – “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them…” (Koran 9:5) – from ever coming to light.


Campaign:  Amazon commercial with Priest and Imam

Details:  Amazon released a commercial just prior to Thanksgiving Day 2016 depicting an older priest and imam hugging each other and sharing time together as close friends.  They both use amazon.com to purchase gifts each other (knee pads) to make it easier when they pray.  The commercial ends with the two praying in their respective places of worship using their knee pads.

Purpose:  This commercial was made in partnership with Amazon, ICNA, and the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain).  Since the MCB is one of the top two largest MB organizations in Britain, and ICNA is part of the MB Movement in North America, we know there is a nefarious purpose for this commercial.  The Muslim Brotherhood does not do willy nilly.  This commercial is meant to affect long-term attitudes in the West with regards to relations with the muslim community.  It portrays the Islamic culture as being relatively the same as Western culture and easy to get along with, completely ignoring the diametrically opposed ways of life between the two.


Campaign:  Islamophobin Gum

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) created a gum and a campaign to back it up which is humorously supposed to cure Islamophobia.

Purpose:  To ostracize anyone who speaks truth about Islam and to make it easier for people to accept the growing influence of Islam in our society.

These are but a few examples of the propaganda being poured out onto American society today.

To be clear, easily identified enemies of the United States are behind these propaganda campaigns, and many others. With a large percentage of U.S. media supporting the jihadis in the United States, there is no major counter-messaging to this nonsense.

Propaganda is necessarily made up of lies.  Truth is the only answer.

Only citizens armed with the truth about what Islam is can defend our society from the growing cancer of Islam here, and reach out in wisdom and love to free muslims from a system which necessarily enslaves them.

For more truth, join UTT at http://www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com.

UTT Throwback Thursday: On 9/11 In Steps the Enemy to Tell Us How to Fight the Enemy

bush-with-alamoudiUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 8, 2016:

Thanks to Karl Rove and Grover Norquist, American President George W. Bush was able to turn to his left and right after the jihadi attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 and find any of a number of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas and/or Al Qaeda leaders (suit-wearing jihadis) to tell him how to fight the war.

bush-with-al-arian

khan-and-norquistRepublican strategist Grover Norquist and Muslim Brother Suhail Khan (who was working in the White House on 9/11).  Khan is the son of Mahboob Khan, one of the most prolific Muslim Brotherhood leaders in North America in the 1960’s to 1980’s.  Suhail also served as an assistant to two consecutive Secretaries of the Treasury with a Secret Clearance and continues to pass himself off as a “conservative Republican.”

bush-with-nihad-awad-and-saffuriPresident Bush’s visit to the Islamic Center of Washington (DC) after 9/11.  On the right is Hamas Leader Nihad Awad (CAIR), and on the left is Khalid Saffuri (deputy to Al Qaeda operative Alamoudi)

bush-with-imam-muzammil-siddiqiImam Muzammil Siddiqi, a senior MB leader in the U.S. – who is currently the Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Fiqh Council of North America – at the memorial for 9/11 victims at the National Cathedral on 9/14/01

If you want to know how and why America lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – despite President Bush’s strong stand after 9/11 and our military’s heroic efforts and great battlefield victories – it is because every time the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, military Generals and Admirals, leaders in our national security apparatus, and others turned for advice on how to proceed in the war or in any of our counterterrorism matters domestically, they were talking to the enemy.

And we still are.

Homeland Security Chief Speaks At Hamas Front’s Confab; Shares Stage with Holocaust Denier, Muslim Brotherhood Leader

Screen-Shot-2016-09-04-at-8.48.38-PM

The DHS head told the group which worked to finance Hamas, “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 4, 2016:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson — whose job it is to protect America from terrorists — spoke at the annual gathering of an Islamic group the Department of Justice considered a terrorist front on Saturday, where he heaped praise and unearned legitimacy on his dubious host.

After traveling to Chicago as a featured speaker at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention, Johnson took the stage and boasted, “I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention.”

There’s a reason for that: ISNA has been identified by the U.S. Justice Department as a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian terrorist branch Hamas.

Still, Johnson said, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

U.S. prosecutors would argue that’s nothing to be proud of: In 2008, they listed Johnson’s host as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing trial in U.S. history. Despite repeated efforts to expunge its name from the list in court appeals, ISNA still remains on the list today.  Responding to an appeal by ISNA and other Muslim groups to remove it from the list, federal judge Jorge Solis ruled that, “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The federal terrorism case, U.S. vs. the Holy Land Foundation, resulted in guilty verdicts on all 108 felony counts against HLF and five of its leaders, who conspired to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian terrorists, including suicide bombers.

ISNA was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas,” said U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks in a federal court document. “HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA.”

Jacks said HLF leaders sent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Hamas terrorists through bank accounts controlled by ISNA and its financial arm, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Hamas was designated a global terrorist group in 1995 by President Clinton.

Added Jacks: “The evidence introduced at trial established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood,” whose “ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder recognized Jacks for “exceptional service” in a 2010 Justice Department awards ceremony. So the Obama administration does not dispute the merits of the terrorism case in which ISNA was implicated.

Johnson said his appearance at the ISNA event was part of carrying out a “priority” set by President Obama to “build bridges to American Muslim communities.”

“Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens,” he said. “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

Instead, Johnson portrayed Muslims as victims of counterterrorism efforts, comparing the scrutiny of Muslim-Americans in terrorism cases to the historic discrimination suffered by African-Americans.

“I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself,” he said. “I see a similar struggle that my African-American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.”

On a more personal note, Johnson compared the suspicion Muslim-Americans have fallen under — after Muslim-Americans launched recent deadly terrorism attacks in Boston, Chattanooga, Tenn., San Bernardino County, Calif., and Orlando — to the “McCarthyism” he said his grandfather experienced in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Charles S. Johnson was investigated for his ties to the Communist Party by the House Un-American Activities Committee following his hiring of known Communist operatives as president of Fisk University and defending them after they had been exposed as subversives. Johnson also faced questioning about his own membership in communist fronts.

In addition, ISNA’s convention program shows Johnson was listed to participate in a breakout session calling on Muslims to “turn the tide, confront our challenges and seize our opportunities.” The panel included Tariq Ramadan, who was formally barred from entering the U.S. in 2006 “for providing material support to a terrorist organization” — until, that is, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the ban on his visa. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the son of the important Brotherhood leader Said Ramadan.

Also listed on the ISNA panel with Johnson was Khizr Khan, the Sharia law advocate who famously took the stage at the Democrat National Convention and complained about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations tied to terrorism. In a treatise on the merits of Sharia law, Khan “gratefully acknowledged” Said Ramadan as a source expert on the subject.

In his speech, Johnson called Khan and his hijab-clad wife “American heroes.”

Also listed as “featured speakers” at ISNA’s 53rd annual convention were Jamal Badawi, a founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who was listed among unindicted co-conspirators who helped HLF raise money for Hamas terrorists, and Muzammil Siddiqi, a Muslim cleric who currently chairs NAIT, the bank for the Brotherhood in America and the custodian of most of the mosques in America.

In 1995, Siddiqi defended jihad and praised suicide bombers: “Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.”

During a 2000 anti-Israel rally outside the White House, Siddiqi openly threatened the US with violence if it continued to support Israel. “America has to learn … if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? … If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

Listed alongside DHS Secretary Johnson was Imam Yasir Qadhi, who has called the Holocaust “false propaganda” and described Jews as “crooked-nosed.”

Also see:

One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood’s surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to “know the enemy,” fell under the Brotherhood’s influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42]

UTT Throwback Thursday: John McCain Awards ISIS Leader & Iranian-Born Muslim Takes Over FBI WMD Program

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 1, 2016:

This kind of crazy stuff only happens at the highest levels of the United States government.  In different decades people would call it “Treason,” but in today’s world…nothing.

Here is today’s UTT Throwback Thursday.  A look back at some news that matters in this war.

John McCain Loves Him Some ISIS

US Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT), John McCain (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC) give AQ/ISIS Leader Abdelhakim Belhadj an award for being a wonderful human being

US Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT), John McCain (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC) give AQ/ISIS Leader Abdelhakim Belhadj an award for being a wonderful human being

To say Senator John McCain cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys would be the understatement of the century.  Abdelhakim Belhaj was the leader of Al Qaeda in Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), and the target of a rendition operation by the U.S. government.  Belhaj was returned to Libya and spent seven years in prison because he is a senior jihadi leader and everyone knew it. Before that and now, as the reasoning must go, he was/is a “moderate Muslim.”

To be “bipartisian,” Mrs. Clinton also had her own part in this.  As Secretary of State her office coordinated the shipment of weapons/arms from Libya to Syria that went to ISIS fighters.  Ambassador Stephens, who was killed in Benghazi, met directly with Belhaj.

Adbelhakim Belhaj is “moderate” – just like Abdurahman Alamoudi, Anwar al Awlaki, and all the rest who turn out to be Al Qaeda or ISIS after they have worked with the U.S. Congress, White House, and everyone else in our government.

***

FBI’s Assistant Director for The Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate was an Iranian Born Muslim

vahid-768x922

Where do you even go with this?

Dr. Vahid Majidi is an Iranian-born Muslim.  He was the FBI’s Assistant Director for their WMD Program from 2006-2012?  And Iranians are very proud of him.

Don’t worry though, Dr. Majidi is no longer with the FBI.  He is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters.

Somewhere in Tehran, Islamabad, Riyadh, and elsewhere in the Islamic world, Muslim leaders must be laughing uncontrollably at how easy this war is for them.

Hillary First Broached Saudi Visa Deal During Visit to Huma Abedin’s Mom’s Saudi Madrassa

abedin-clinton

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudis soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure, hitting a record 108,578 per year in 2013.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 31, 2016:

Earlier this month, CounterJihad.com broke the story that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in cutting a special deal with the Saudi government to reverse post-9/11 restrictions on Saudi visas, triggering an unprecedented explosion in Saudi students entering the US. CJ has since learned that the seeds of this major change in immigration policy — one with serious national security implications — were planted during a 2010 visit by Clinton to a Saudi college founded by her top aide’s radical Muslim mother — a college that turns out to have direct ties to terrorists.

Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin arranged the trip to the radical Saudi school, overruling concerns by diplomatic security, in what was yet another example of Abedin, a self-described “devout Muslim” whose family has direct ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, playing an outsize role in influencing US policy when it comes to the Middle East and Muslim empowerment.

The policy reversal appears to have had its roots in a speech Clinton gave at the Dar al-Hekma girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Abedin, whose mother, Saleha Abedin, helped found the school and currently serves as its dean. Abedin also runs the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which seeks to boost Muslim immigration rates in the the U.S. and other Western countries, while also propagating Sharia law in those nations.

“You know that after 9/11, the United States closed its borders to students from around the world, and the number of Saudi students studying in our country fell dramatically,” Clinton lamented in her talk before the elder Abedin and her students. “Well, I am very pleased that we are now back to the levels that we had before 9/11.”

“But I am not satisfied,” Clinton quickly added. “I would like to see more exchanges, and more of them being two-way exchanges, where American students and American faculty come here, to Saudi Arabia, as well as going from here to there.”

Clinton delivered on her promise, big-time.

Despite evidence Saudi terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping broker a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

All told, the Obama administration has opened the floodgates to more than 709,000 Saudi nationals, most of whom applied for student or business visas, records show.

It’s as if 9/11 never happened and 15 Saudi terrorists never infiltrated the country on rubber-stamped visas. The surge represents a major shift from changes in immigration policy made in the wake of 9/11, when the number of visas issued to Saudi Arabians plummeted 69.7%. In fiscal 2002, Saudi visas slowed to a relative trickle of just 14,126.

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Saudi immigration was tightened after it was revealed that the State Department’s Visa Express program benefited some of the Saudi hijackers on 9/11. Less known is that two other al-Qaida-tied Saudi nationals visiting America on student visas also took advantage of the lax policy. It turns out that, according to the recently released 29 pages detailing Saudi involvement in 9/11, these other young Saudi men made a “dry run” to test airline security ahead of the 9/11 hijackings.

Dar al-Hekma, which is Arabic for House of Infinite Islamic Wisdom, was co-founded and funded by a federal designated terrorist — Yaseen Kadi — and by key Saudi bankers named as defendants in the 9/11 lawsuit, as well as members of the bin Laden family, according to a list of “establishers” and “trustees” the school published on its website after it first opened in 1999.

It turns out that the burka-clad girls who gathered at the Saudi women’s college to hear Clinton speak heckled her in Arabic, as Huma and her mother stood by, according to accounts reported at the time in the Arabic press.

Also see:

UTT Historical Throwback: Al Qaeda’s Abdurahman Alamoudi Advised Two U.S. Presidents

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug.24, 2016:

Abdurahman Alamoudi was considered the “pillar of the Muslim community” in Washington, D.C.

Abdurahman Alamoudi

Abdurahman Alamoudi created and/or led nearly two dozen of the largest Islamic organizations in North America, was a “Good Will Ambassador” for the U.S. Department of State, created the Muslim Chaplain program for the Department of Defense, worked with the Department of Education to determine what went into American public school texts discussing Islam, and met with U.S. leaders across the spectrum.

Alamoudi2

And Abdurahman Alamoudi was a financier for Al Qaeda.

Alamoudi was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in 2003 with $340,000 cash he got from the Libyan government for the global jihad.  He said he found it outside his hotel room.  He was extradited to the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) where he pled guilty to an 18 count indictment.

The U.S. Treasury Department’s press release dated July 14, 2005 stated:

“In 2003, MIRA (Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia) and (Al Qaeda affiliate Saad al) Faqih received approximately $1 million in funding through Abdulrahman Alamoudi. According to information available to the U.S. Government, the September 2003 arrest of Alamoudi was a severe blow to al Qaida, as Alamoudi had a close relationship with al Qaida and had raised money for al Qaida in the United States. In a 2004 plea agreement, Alamoudi admitted to his role in an assassination plot targeting the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and is currently serving a 23 year sentence.”

Alamoudi was also caught on video in 1999 speaking adjacent to the White House grounds publicly declaring he is a fan of Hamas and Hizbollah – both designated terrorist organizations – to the loud cheer of the Muslims attending.  It should be noted this behavior did not get him fired from his positions inside the U.S. government.

Let’s review:  Abdurahman Alamoudi was the Islamic advisor to President Clinton and then went on to work with the Bush administration.  Alamoudi created the Muslim Chaplain Program at the DoD, worked as a Good Will Ambassador for the State Department, was widely recognized as a “moderate Muslim,” had unfettered access to the highest levels of power in our government, publicly pronounced his support of terrorist organizations and was an Al Qaeda financier who plotted with two UK-based Al Qaeda operatives to kill Saudi Crown prince Abdullah, who went on to become King Abdullah.

[Note:  The U.S. government also considered Imam Anwar al-Awlaki a “moderate Muslim” and he gave presentations at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capital, and worked with government officials.  That lasted right up until he was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011.]

Many of the Muslim chaplains assigned by Alamoudi are still working with our military.  The numerous Islamic organizations that Alamoudi created and led, and the individuals who worked with him providing material support to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, can still be found walking the streets of Washington, D.C., the halls of Congress, working with the national security staffs, and elsewhere in America.

This dangerous pattern of our leaders and our media lifting up and proclaiming leaders in the Islamic community “prominent moderate Muslims” continues today.

Funny how so far they all turn out to be terrorists.

Huma Abedin’s Successful Influence Operations

huma-1-640x480Paul Sperry reports at the New York Post that a Clinton spokesman denies Huma Abedin played an active role in the editing of the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs. The Journal is decidedly pro-sharia. The question of Huma’s position on Women’s  rights in view of her past ties is relevant as Hillary Clinton has made it a campaign issue.

Brian Lilley comments on the story at Rebel Media:

And now, in today’s White House press briefing, Fox News’ James Rosen asks about Huma:

What we should also be focusing on is evidence of a successful influence operation on Hillary Clinton as laid out in a 2013 article by Andrew McCarthy titled “The Huma Unmentionables”

Excerpt:

In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University

has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

  • The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
  • The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but amember of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
  • On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

Also see:

Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for 10 years

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 21 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.

One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.

However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.

Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.

“‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.

“By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,” she argued, “Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.”

“Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”

She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.

She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”

She opposed the UN conference widening the scope of the definition of the family to include “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”

Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,”she said in a recent profile in Vogue.

Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Huma Abedin is Clinton’s longest-serving and, by all accounts, most loyal aide. The devout, Saudi-raised Muslim started working for her in the White House, then followed her to the Senate and later the State Department. She’s now helping run Clinton’s presidential campaign as vice chair and may end up back in the White House.

The contradictions are hard to reconcile. The campaign is not talking, despite repeated requests for interviews.

Until now, these articles which Abedin helped edit and publish have remained under wraps. Perhaps Clinton was unaware she and her mother took such opposing views.

But that’s hard to believe. Her closest adviser served as an editor for that same Saudi propaganda organ for a dozen years. The same one that in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, while claiming “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

And in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human-rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”

If fighting for women’s rights is one of Clinton’s greatest achievements, why has she retained as her closest adviser a woman who gave voice to harsh Islamist critiques of her Beijing platform?

Paul Sperry is author of  “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

WikiLeaks Game Can Turn Kremlin Fortress Into Glass House

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with permanent members of the Security Council at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 11, 2016. (ALEXEI DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images)

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with permanent members of the Security Council at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 11, 2016. (ALEXEI DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images)

Forbes, by J. Michael Waller, Aug. 16, 2016: (h/t Kyle Shideler)

For the first time since the 1950s, Russian subversion of the American political process has become a presidential campaign issue.

The Kremlin’s latest act of espionage-driven propaganda–document dump of Democratic National Committee emails via WikiLeaks–achieved its desired effect of immediate politicization. We should step back to learn two lessons, and creatively fight back.

The first lesson

Lesson one: Moscow’s subversion of American democracy is nothing new. The Soviet KGB and its successor entities have picked favorites in the past, and at crucial points in history, some American politicians and officials wittingly or unwittingly collaborated. One need only look at the Soviet penetration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration through controlled agents of influence. FBI reports and congressional hearings at the time, Communist defectors and turncoat Soviet intelligence officers, and more recent revelations from Soviet archives and the U.S. Army Signal Corps’ decrypted Venona transcripts prove this beyond any doubt.

Present-day political figures also colluded with the Soviets against their own country. A shining example is Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the 1980s, after honeymooning in the USSR, Sanders collaborated with the U.S. section of the World Peace Council, a major Soviet front organization that was working to push America to disarm unilaterally and surrender allies to Soviet aggression.

In ways far more damaging than Sanders’ fringe activism, distinguished members of the Clinton political clan benefited from relations with the KGB. The two primary Russia hands for Bill Clinton’s administration owed their political or professional fortunes to Soviet agents. The first was vice president Al Gore, whose father, also a senator, benefited greatly from his special relationship with Soviet agent Armand Hammer in a way that arguably groomed the younger Gore to lead Clinton’s Russia team. The second was Bill Clinton’s roommate at Oxford, Strobe Talbott, who as a cub reporter for Time magazine in Moscow, received the break of his life from Victor Louis, a KGB agent whose job was to recruit rising star journalists. We don’t know whether Talbott allowed the KGB to compromise him, but when asked about it during his Senate confirmation hearing to become deputy secretary of state in 1994, Talbott declined to answer.

Lesson two

The second lesson from the DNC WikiLeaks affair is that history shows that when American leaders resist and make Moscow pay a price, the Kremlin backs off. Strategic-minded leaders, as President Ronald Reagan proved, can even turn tables on the perpetrators and defeat them.

Which is why we should be focusing, not on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but on the current commander-in-chief. Barack Obama has done nothing to discourage Russian misbehavior that led to the WikiLeaks dump. His passivity arguably encouraged it. He now has the pretext to do something.

Obama is the only person on earth who can respond in-kind to the Putin regime’s egregious intervention in the American democratic process. Putin and his inner circle are vulnerable to exposure of their own shameful actions, habits, actions and fetishes. In the electronic age, the Kremlin fortress has become a glass house.

Next steps

For starters, Obama should order the intelligence community to compile properly-sanitized dumps of emails and social media among select targets in Putin’s inner circle. The personal electronic communications should expose the widely-suspected but seldom proven details of the staggering corruption at the top of the Russian gangster state, including Putin’s family members and loyalists. Judiciously selected, the exposures will show Putin and others that we, too, can play hardball.

If disciplined enough, the U.S. can outplay the Putin-WikiLeaks team. Russia’s political system is far less resilient than ours. The increasingly-centralized yet divided Russian Federation is potentially much more fragile and vulnerable to public exposure of the colossal scale of greed and organized criminal behavior of its national leadership.

And then there are national cultural norms that no present Russian leader could politically survive once the glass of invincibility is electronically shattered. Above almost all else, Putin nurses a deep-seated hostility to male homosexuality. Putin-centric political elites could never endure the humiliation and ridicule following a skillful intelligence dump of their private emails, text messages, social media posts, photos and Web browser histories.

No doubt Putin and his inner circle anticipated a cost-free scheme to embarrass Hillary Clinton and, by extension, Obama. If that is the case, all Americans who strive for political authority are wearing an electronic “kick me” sign on their backs. They should expect Russia and other powers like China to be scooping up and storing their electronic communication for future use. We can’t allow that to continue.

For the sake of America’s democratic society, Obama must strike back hard at Putin and his inner circle. Now.

Mr. Waller is a founding editorial board member of NATO’s Defence Strategic Communications journal. His books include “Secret Empire: The KGB In Russia Today.”

Seeing Information Warfare in the Midst of Media Coverage of Attacks

Screen-Shot-2016-07-14-at-10.27.06-PM-768x404

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, July 15, 2016:

Last night, a Muslim yelling “Allah u Akbar” drove a truck into a crowd at Bastille Day celebrations (July 14th) in Nice, France killing nearly 80 people and wounding many more.

The American media responded in lock-step, especially Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who marched suit-wearing jihadis like Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation forward to explain why the attack was not representative of “true Islam” and that the only path forward is for America and its leaders to work with “real Muslims” if we are to find “solutions” to this “problem.”

Note:  Suit-wearing jihadis never talk about utterly defeating our enemies.

The enemy is engaging us in the information battlespace and we do not even know it.

Quilliam Foundation, based in England, is yet another Islamic organization which propagates all sorts of information about the “terrorism” threat the West faces, but serves the enemy strategy by ensuring Western leaders never associate the events of Nice, Paris, Orlando, San Bernadino, Boston, Ft. Hood, et al, with Islam.

Maajid Nawaz is a self-professed “former fundamentalist Muslim” who is now helping “educate” all of us on “true Islam” and the difference between ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the rest of the Muslim community.

Quilliam is an enemy propaganda organization that keeps those who listen to it from ever identifying the threat.  If you cannot identify the threat, you cannot target the threat.  If you cannot target the threat, you cannot defeat it.

Megan Kelly asked Maajid Nawaz about France banning the “face-veil” to wit Nawaz responded with:

“It’s not gone over well among those who believe – and there’s a austere fundamentalist strand within Islam, a Salafist strand within Islam, mainly found in Saudi Arabia – who believe women are obliged within the religion to cover their faces.  I must emphasize that’s a strand within Islam, but the jihadists subscribe to that strand.”

Lets unpack this, because to the untrained ear, this might sound reasonable.

First, the word “fundamentalist” is a word used in the West to describe a group of American Christians from the late 19th and early 20th century.  Islamic propagandists sew it into the discussion because they know most non-Muslims will equate the comparison inside Christianity to the same – yet nonexistent relationship – within Islam.

Secondly, there is nowhere in Islam – not at the first grade level in U.S. or European Islamic schools, nor at the doctrinal level such as Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt – that does not teach it is the duty of Muslims to wage jihad when they have the strength and ability to do so until the entire world is under Islamic rule.

While certain nations ensure sharia (Islamic Law) is enforced more than others, that does not change what the law says nor does it change the authority of sharia in the life of a Muslim.

Maajid Nawaz knows this, and is lying about it.

The jihadists “subscribe to the strand” of Islam that teaches jihad and subjugating women because it is the only version of Islam that exists on the planet.

Mr. Nawaz, Where is the Mystical Peaceful Version of Islam Taught?

Megan Kelly asked Mr. Nawaz, “How do we fight the ideology?”

Nawaz responded with, “They will find any excuse to attack anywhere, but they do look for these excuses of course…We have to galvanize civil society to push back against this ideology so that people in the long term aren’t recruited and don’t join this phenomenon.  That requires recognizing it, naming it – ‘Islamist extremism’ – and then putting forth a strategy that can isolate it from Islam as a religion, and then start utilizing Muslim and non-Muslim communities to stand together to push back against it as we have done as we’ve done against racism in the West as we’ve done with homophobia and anti-Semitism.”

And there the other shoe drops.  According the Quilliam Foundation…

  1. America must separate what the jihadis are doing from true Islam (an impossibility)
  2. Then we must work with the “good” Muslims, like all of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda (Abdurahman Alamoudi for instance), and Hamas (CAIR) leaders for instance
  3. The non-Muslims (targets of the jihadis) must work together with the Jihadis to end Islamophobia (a operational term created by the Muslim Brotherhood’s IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) to put the West back on their heals just like “homophobia” did)

Funny how this sounds just like the rest of the jihadi network’s advice to us since 9/11, and since 9/11, the jihadi problem has become more severe, not lessened, indicating this strategy of relying on the Muslim community to solve this problem is a complete failure.

The Global Islamic Movement is fighting a war primarily in the Information Battlespace.  Information warfare is propaganda, subversion, political warfare, influence operations, recruitments, espionage, counterintelligence, and much more.

Suit-wearing jihadis are telling us stories (read: “LIES”) to get us to do everything but take a hard look at Islam and Sharia.

***

Watch Dr. Qanta Ahmed, aka “Misdiagnosis”  @MissDiagnosis, whitewash Sharia:

Media Matters – Muslim Columnist Slams Newt Gingrich’s “Ignorance” In Wake Of Nice Attack (video)

Qanta Ahmed: “Gingrich Does Not Even Understand Sharia, Though He’s Not Alone In His Ignorance”

AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): I want to get your reaction. Newt Gingrich said we should, quote, “frankly test every person here who is of Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported.” He goes on to say “anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony.”

QANTA AHMED: I saw that. I watched him say all of those words. So, it’s very discouraging when you’re a Muslim here in the United States, as am I, as are about three and a half million other people, every time this happens, all Muslims are dehumanized. How are you going to test me? How are you going to test me? If you say — Gingrich does not even understand Sharia, though he’s not alone in his ignorance. The whole narrative in the 18 months we’ve been talking does not understand what Sharia means. Which means I live a God-centered life. It is not the same as the principles even of certain nations —

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): All right. 

AHMED: Or of certain terrorists.