Hillary’s health: Emails show Clinton obsessed with sleep, “exotic drugs”

clinton-health-thumbnailThe Rebel Media, by Ezra Levant, August 26, 2016

Four years ago, she had a concussion, and a blood clot in her brain sent her to the hospital. Later, her head was still so injured that she was seeing double. That’s why she wore those Fresnel prism glasses: to counter double-vision.

Have you seen that video of her apparently having a seizure while being asked a question? The Clinton spin doctors say that’s just a joke. Really?

And then there’s the guy who is always with her, but he’s not Secret Service. He’s a paramedic — you can see by the badge he sometimes wears. He carries an injection device, maybe it’s anti-seizure medication. He’s been seen talking her through a stressful situation.

Why does Hillary Clinton always wear the strangest pant suits that look like they’re specifically made to order. Are they tailored to conceal things underneath? A medical device?

Here’s an e-mail that Clinton originally hid from the public, that was released only after a court ordered it. In it, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide, says her boss is “often confused” and needs to take naps.

That topic comes up a lot.

I typed the word “sleep” into a searchable archive of Clinton e-mails, the ones a court ordered the State Department to disclose.

WATCH to see what I found.

There were a lot of troubling results:

Clinton herself says she’s “chronically exhausted”. Her staff calls her a “champion napper”.

And then there’s her email about the symptoms of “decision fatigue.” Another about Provigil, a drug “often prescribed to treat excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and multiple sclerosis.”

That’s just the beginning…

Being president is the most stressful job in the world. You need energy — both physical and mental.

What exactly is wrong with Hillary Clinton? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed before the election.

Why isn’t the mainstream media interested in covering it?

Also see:

How America Will Be Attacked: Irregular Warfare, the Islamic State, Russia, and China

mr-article2bThe Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Aug. 26, 2016:

An article I wrote that was published in the latest issue of Military Review: The Professional Journal of the US Army. The articles is a primer on the roots of unconventional war theories behind the current Islamic insurgency being conducted by the Islamic State, Russia’s current approach to warfare, and the progress of Chinese unrestricted warfare.

HOW AMERICA WILL BE ATTACKED: IRREGULAR WARFARE, THE ISLAMIC STATE, RUSSIA, AND CHINA

“[The Future Operating Environment] “will feature the erosion of sovereignty, weakened developing states, the empowerment of small groups or individuals, and an increasingly contested narrative environment favoring agile nonstate actors and state actors demonstrating persistent proficiency in the irregular domain.” —ARSOF Operating Concept: Future Operating Environment, U.S. Army Special Operations Command

“You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.”—Apocryphally attributed to Leon Trotsky

As this paper is being written, the U.S. national security establishment is under significant internal and external pressures: internally from the consequences of prosecuting the longest war in the Republic’s history, which has seen unprecedented post-Cold War operational tempos, matched by constant downsizing of our forces and sustainment budgets; externally from the events occurring in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Africa, which has included the rise the Islamic State (IS), the most powerful jihadist organization of the modern age, and the concurrent displacement of more than sixty-five million refugees, a historic world record surpassing even World War II. These pressures are not going to abate, which will most probably lead to the reality of our armed forces having to accomplish more missions with less resources.

At the same time, both nonstate and nation-state adversaries of the United States who have become supremely adept at exploiting irregular warfare (IW) and unconventional modes of attack will exploit these forces. This article is an introduction to three of the most important enemies we face today and who we will also face in the future, and how these actors use IW and unconventional warfare (UW) against our interests: the Islamic State, China, and Russia. . . . (read the article)

No Saudi Money for American Mosques

saudi duplicityMEF, by Daniel Pipes, originally at The HillAugust 22, 2016:

Saudi Arabia may be the country in the world most different from the United States, especially where religion is concerned. An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.

Consider those differences: Secularism is a bedrock U.S. principle, enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment; in contrast, the Koran and Sunna are the Saudi constitution, enshrined as the Basic Law’s first article.

Anyone can build a religious structure of whatever nature in the United States, so the Saudis fund mosque after mosque. In the kingdom, though, only mosques are allowed; it hosts not a single church – or, for that matter, synagogue, or Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Baha’i temple. Hints going back nearly a decade that the Saudis will allow a church have not born fruit but seem to serve as delaying tactics.

Pray any way you wish in America, so long as you do not break the law. Non-Muslims who pray with others in Saudi Arabia engage in an illicit activity that could get them busted, as though they had participated in a drug party.

The United States, obviously, has no sacred cities open only to members of a specific faith. KSA has two of them, Mecca and Medina; trespassers who are caught will meet with what the Saudi authorities delicately call “severe punishment.”

With only rare (and probably illegal) exceptions, the U.S. government does not fund religious institutions abroad (and those exceptions tend to be for Islamic institutions). In contrast, the Saudi monarchy has spent globally an estimated US $100 billion to spread its Wahhabi version of Islam. Products of Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools and mosques have often been incited to political violence against non-Muslims.

The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism. For example, a 2005 Freedom House report reviewed some of the extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions and concluded that it poses “a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself.” The monarchy has also given multiple and generous grants to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most aggressive and effective Islamist organization in the United States.

Freedom House blew the lid off of Saudi funding of extremism in 2005.

Freedom House blew the lid off of Saudi funding of extremism in 2005.

This discrepancy, a version of which exists in every Western country, demands a solution. Some Western governments have taken ad hoc, provisional steps to address it.

• In 2007, the Australian government turned down a Saudi request to send funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia to help build a new mosque. “Obviously we don’t want to see any extremist organisation penetrate into Australia,” explained then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Eight years later, Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks affirmed the kingdom’s intense interest in influencing Islamic politics in Australia.

• In 2008, the Saudis offered to finance construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, prompting three Russian Orthodox groups to write an open letter to then-King Abdullah suggesting that his kingdom lift its ban on churches.

• In 2010, Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støreturned down Saudi funding for a mosque on the grounds that the Saudi kingdom lacks religious freedom.

• In July, reeling from multiple attacks over 18 months that killed 236 people on French soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused about prohibiting foreign funding of mosques “for a period of time to be determined,” provoking an intense debate.

These one-off responses may satisfy voters but they had almost no impact. That requires something more systematic – legislation.

Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the “Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act,” makes it unlawful for “foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.” Hello, Saudi Arabia!

To “promote a religion” includes funding “religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.” Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

The bill needs more work: it omits mention of religious buildings, offers no criteria for seizure of property, and does not indicate who would do the seizing. But it offers an important beginning. I commend it and urge its urgent consideration and adoption.

Americans cannot abide aggressive unilateral actions by Riyadh (or, for that matter, Tehran and Doha) exploiting their oil bonanza to smother the secularist principles basic to Western life. We must protect ourselves.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

immigration-ideological-test-islamists-can-be-denied-admission-b

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 20, 2016:

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:

U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.”

“Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life.

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo).

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America.

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality.

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

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

Also see:

Is Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” That Far Off Existing US Policies

ct-donald-trump-extreme-vetting-immigrants-20160817Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Aug. 16, 2016:

While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump’s new “extreme” vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump’s proposals. They may not be that far off.

To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of “Islamic sympathizers” to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

  • Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
  • Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
  • Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
  • Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
  • Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
  • Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
  • Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
  • Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
  • Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

  • Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask  if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

***

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Failures: A Recent History

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 15, 2016:

On Monday, fifty Republican national security veteransreleased a letter saying that none of them will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. They said in their letter that Trump would be a “dangerous President” on foreign policy and national security.

Monday also marked the 2-year anniversary of the war launched by the U.S. against Islamic State. NBC recently released a map showing the global expansion of Islamic State, showing how the U.S. policy to defeat them clearly has failed.

According to NBC:

U.S. State Department documents indicated that in 2014, when the U.S. military began its campaign to destroy the extremists, there were only seven nations in which the fledgling state was operating. A map from the National Counterterrorism Center shows the worldwide expansion of ISIS as of August 2016. By 2015, according to the State Department’s own numbers, there were nearly double that — 13 countries. The current briefing map shows 18 countries where  ISIS is fully operational. The map also displays a new category — “aspiring branches” — and lists six countries where  they’re taking root: Egypt, Indonesia, Mali, the Philippines, Somalia and Bangladesh.

We are currently facing a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East not seen since WWII. In 1945, Democratic President Harry Truman used the atomic bomb against the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending WWII, killing over 150,000 people. Truman stated that he did it to save lives and end the war. He argued that it wasn’t an option to prolong the war resulting in more bloodshed. President Obama has done nothing in the Syrian conflict and little in the global war on Islamic State, which has resulted in over400,000 deaths in Syria alone and displacing millions under his Presidency. Prolonging the war costs lives and money.

A do-nothing foreign policy as we have seen under President Obama and Hillary’s State Department is dangerous, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump would win and end the war against Islamic State, ultimately saving lives.

It is Hillary Clinton that has a proven record of a dangerous foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she has a consistent track record of supporting our enemies and alienating our allies.

A short list of Hillary’s policies that have jeopardized American national security include: undermining the service and sacrifice of thousands of men and women in uniform by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops; supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of Islamic State; supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt,UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined America’s Muslim allies; refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria; undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009; and supporting the Iran Nuclear deal.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram in Nigeria, which was named the deadliest terrorist organization in 2015, a terrorist group. She not only refused, but she hindered the efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation.

The FBI, CIA and Justice Department wanted Boko Haram designated but, ultimately, the State Department opposed the designation despite hard evidence from our Intelligence services.

Clinton’s refusal to designate them a FTO could be because of conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and a Nigerian businessman. Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian businessman with Lebanese dual citizenship and land developer, gave $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation throughout the years and pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009 through the Chagoury Group. He hosted former President Bill Clinton in Nigeria as head of the Clinton Foundation.

Chagoury would have a financial interest in the impact on Nigeria that would have followed a FTO designation. The FTO designation would affect his developments in Nigeria.

Boko Haram is responsible for kidnapping over 260 young female students in 2014. If the designation for Boko Haram occurred sooner, the search for the girls could have started sooner. Boko Haram gained significant footing and expanded during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Boko Haram has killed more than 20,000 people and displaced 2 million.

Hillary calls herself a “champion of women’s rights,” but did not designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization despite being responsible for killing and kidnapping thousands of people, including women and children, using them as sex slaves and suicide bombers.

One of the most strategic consequential failures of the Hillary State Department was in 2009 when the U.S. undermined the Iranian Green Revolution. Not only did the U.S. do nothing to help the opposition against the terrorist Iranian regime, but US funding was cut for democratic organizations/programs in Iran under Clinton’s State Department. Democracy funding under the State Department continued in countries like Egypt, where the US supported “democratic” opposition groups which led to the removal of US ally Mubarak, but were cut for opposition groups that were pro-western against a terrorist regime.

According to a Wall Street Journal article published in October 2009, democratic organizations that were funded under the Bush Administration were cut under Hillary’s State Department. The article states

Less widely known is that Freedom House, the nonpartisan watchdog group founded in 1941, also lost State Department funding. It applied in April for significant funds to support initiatives including Gozaar, its Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights, and was turned down in July. Since 2006, Freedom House had received over $2 million from the U.S. and European governments for Iran-related efforts. “We might have to close Gozaar if we run out of money,” deputy executive director Thomas O. Melia told us this week…then there’s the International Republican Institute (IRI), which for several years received State Department support to train Iranian reformers and connect them to like-minded activists in Europe and elsewhere. IRI’s recent application for funds was denied, an IRI official told us last week.

The article continued saying, “In a recent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Iran policy, seven congressmen including Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Bob Inglis (R., S.C.), and James Moran (D., Va.), wrote: ‘We are particularly concerned by reports that the State Department and USAID are being ‘extremely cautious’ in their funding decisions, have stopped funding projects, and have approved no new strategy for promoting civil society and the rule of law.’ Mrs. Clinton has not responded.”

The war in Libya is another one of Hillary’s greatest foreign policy mistakes, leading to thousands killed and millions displaced. Gaddafi was not a good man, but he had a stake in the global war on terrorism after he allegedly dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. In 2007, the United States removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism andresumed normal diplomatic relations.

Under Gaddafi, Islamists were consistently trying to overthrow his regime, so he had an interest in standing up against Islamist terrorists, using state force against them. Libyan intelligence worked with the CIA and the US intelligence during the Iraq war to arrest members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

The LIFG has been a U.S. designated terrorist organization since 2004. According to aWest Point study conducted in 2007, Libya contributed far more foreign fighters in Iraq to fight American troops per capita than any other country.

It was Hillary Clinton’s State Department that gave a contract to the February 17th Martyrs Brigade in Libya to protect America’s Consulate, who were known sympathizers to Al Qaeda and are main suspects in the Benghazi attack on the U.S. consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

In Afghanistan, Hillary undermined American and Afghan troops by leading and spearheading the negotiations with the Taliban, pushing for an office in Qatar while the Taliban refused. She led negotiations with the Taliban while they were killing American troops.

As Secretary of State, the US failed to secure the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIS – undermining the sacrifice that thousands of Americans gave in securing victory in the war.

In Yemen, Hillary Clinton met with one of the leading members of the opposition, Tawakkol Karman, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen and was a leader in the overthrow of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime. Hillary Clinton stated, “”the United States supports a democratic transition in Yemen and the rights of the people of Yemen – men and women – to choose their own leaders and futures.”  The White House issued a statement supporting the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution that called for a peaceful transition in Yemen, stating, “a united and unambiguous signal to President Saleh that he must respond to the aspirations of the Yemeni people by transferring power immediately.” Today, Yemen is a failed state and fighting a proxy war, another disaster of Hillary’s Arab Spring.

The Middle East is on fire because of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration’s policies of fighting against the rule of law and supporting those that break the law – creating anarchy and safe havens for terrorists. Hillary will bring anarchy and lawlessness, which she has already done as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous for America’s national security, not Donald Trump.

Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS

They lead the nation in ISIS recruitment, so why not give them special access?

dhsCounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 13, 2016:

We commonly hear of the refugee crisis coming out of Syria but they aren’t the only country with the problem. The war-town African country of Somalia has also been having substantial issues with its population. This overview shows the number of registered Somali refugees as of 2016 reaches nearly one million people just in Somalia’s geographic region, while another overview shows that Somalia has over one million internally displaced persons which creates many other issues. Furthermore, Minnesota has been impacted with tens of thousands of Somali Muslims refugees settling in Minneapolis from jihadi influenced Somalia, which has created a hotbed for terrorist recruitment. Numerous Somali Muslims in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area have left to join terrorist groups like Al Shabaab and ISIS or have been apprehended by government authorities. As reported last year by the StarTribune, “Minnesota leads the nation in the number of people who have left or sought to leave the country to fight with terrorists aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria[.]” Worse yet, there is a vocal segment within the Somali-Muslim community that doesn’t blame the terrorists for luring their children into the cause of jihad, but blames the authorities for ‘racial profiling’ – which reflects in them a type of victimhood mentality. For example, Breitbart reports how during a June terrorism trial that found multiple Somalis guilty of terrorism related charges a contributor to City Journal, Scott W. Johnson, was disturbed by the animosity of the Somali community toward the government:

Perhaps most shocking to me was what utterly ordinary members of the Minnesota Somali community the defendants and their friends appeared to be. So far as I can tell, Somali culture is alien and hostile to the United States. Many among the local Somali community considered the defendants to be persecuted innocents entrapped by the government. It would be unduly charitable to characterize the attitude as willful blindness.

We have seen this suspicion manifested before such as when Somali-Muslim leaders blamed the TSA for ‘racial profiling’ several months ago and called for an investigation into the matter. Even after Somali groups received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in federal and state grants under President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, the Somali Muslim community is still distrustful of the government. Apparently this constant complaining by leaders from the Somali-Muslim community is a reoccurring theme even when DHS has attempted to be transparent and given them special access to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Judicial Watch reports:

On at least two occasions—December 18, 2014 and February 18, 2015—federal authorities granted the unprecedented excursions of the facility’s sterile and secure areas, according to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) records obtained by Judicial Watch. The DHS agency that conducted the expeditions, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), provided the Muslim participants with “an in-depth, on-site tour and discussion of CBP’s airport, including both inbound and outbound passenger processing,” the TSA files state. Besides multiple roundtable meetings between CBP and Somali community leaders including imams, the records show that a luncheon and “cultural exchange and educational brief” also took place between December 2014 and February 2015 so that attendees could ask about the agency’s “specific practices” at the airport.

The roundtable events and airport tours were organized by Abdirizak Farah, who is identified in the records as a policy advisor in the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). Farah joined DHS in 2010 with an annual salary of $89,033 and by 2015 his yearly pay increased to $130,453, according to a government database. The TSA’s “Somali liaison officer” in Minneapolis, Andrew Rhoades, told Judicial Watch that the special airport tours were organized for Somali Muslims after they complained to Johnson [DHS secretary] that they felt “harassed and profiled” by CBP at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The DHS secretary had “a sympathetic ear to that,” Rhoades said, adding that no other group has been granted such airport access by DHS…

Not only is DHS’s preferential conduct disturbing, the fact they possibly gave Islamists or those associated with Islamist groups access to procedures and processes that protect airport security is even more troubling. We have already seen how the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has been used by jihadists traveling to Syria to join ISIS – this was the case with Abdi Nur in 2014. Also, one ISIS supporter/sympathizer allegedly once worked at the airport. DHS and other department’s ignorance of the threat of Sharia and jihad is sadly not surprising considering how federal bureaus and agencies have given into the political correctness of the Islamist agenda. For example, a June 2016 DHS CVE Subcommittee report recommends avoiding the use of words such as “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.” These kinds of suggestions handicap our authorities from detecting important ‘red flags’ that help in preventing Islamic terror attacks.

DHS is not only showing favoritism to the Somali-Muslim community in Minneapolis, but it is also jeopardizing U.S. security by giving into the demands of Islamists. In addition, there’s little to no evidence that the CVE programs are actually working to reduce extremism and build meaningful bridges with the Muslim community. Furthermore, a couple of months ago up to thirty Somali males harassed residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood, and one woman said a man made threats of kidnap and rape. With incidents such as this one, how are we supposed to believe that youth outreach is having a meaningful effect in Minneapolis? Our taxpayer dollars must be spent more wisely – President Obama can start by scrapping the whole CVE program.

Also see:

National Security Experts for Destroying America

unnamed

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 12, 2016:

The media widely covered General Allen’s attack on Trump at the DNC and treated him as an apolitical national security expert. It neglected to mention that he works at Brookings or that the president of the Brookings Institution is Strobe Talbott.

Talbott is an old friend of the Clintons. He got into government through them and worked for them as Deputy Secretary of State. He owes his current prominence largely to his Clinton connections.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Talbott was one of the few to have close access to her. He is not only a political ally, but also a personal friend. And Brookings and the Clinton Foundation are entangled in a number of ways. One of those ways was Brookings’ extremely controversial sponsorship by Qatar which included a sizable payment to Bill Clinton to appear at the US Islamic World Forum.

General Allen was also in attendance at the US Islamic World Forum.

The media did not see fit to inform its viewers, listeners and readers that General Allen wasn’t an apolitical national security expert, but was in the vest pocket of the Clintons.

When former CIA boss Mike Morell offered a splashy endorsement of Hillary Clinton combined with an attack on Trump, it made headlines. It made fewer headlines when the New York Times’ Public Editor mentioned several days later that the paper really ought to have noted that Morell was working at Beacon Global Strategies whose co-founders include two key Hillary people, Philippe Reines and Leon Panetta. It inevitably made no mention of Morell’s role in editing the Benghazi talking points.

Instead the media pretended that a story about a Hillary loyalist endorsing her was some sort of major development when it was really as predictable and meaningless as rain in Seattle.

Or lack of rain in Los Angeles.

Despite the finger wagging from its own public editor, the New York Times still refuses to mention that Morell had any economic or political ties to Hillary’s people. The only reason for this obstinacy is that it would expose a lie that the newspaper of false record insists on telling as often as it can.

This unethical behavior is typical of the media’s onslaught of endorsements by national security professionals and former Republicans for Hillary and/or condemnations of Trump. These items run as editorials in major papers while lacking significant biographical information that would provide context.

Instead the media has manufactured a narrative in which national security experts have decided that Trump is too dangerous to be trusted near nuclear weapons while one of the architects of the Arab Spring and its wave of Jihadist terror is the perfect choice to oversee our national security.

The notion that Hillary Clinton is a trusted national security choice is absurd on the face of it. Not only is she inexperienced, but her experience consisted of fostering the ISIS takeover of entire countries.

In reality, the Clinton campaign has recruited a number of people with impressive sounding titles and is rolling out endorsements and attacks by them in short order using major media outlets. Instead of reporting on the fact that this is a campaign tactic, the media not only provides a forum and free advertising for the Clinton campaign in its op-ed sections, but also maintains the illusion that this is an independent phenomenon rather than a fake viral campaign by their favored candidate.

The missing information is ubiquitous. For example, the media coverage of the joint statement by William Reilly and William Ruckelshaus identifies them as Republican EPA heads. It neglects to mention or even outright buries the fact that Reilly is a repeat Obama appointee. It chooses not to acknowledge the fact that he is a director at the Packard Foundation which has donated to the Clinton Foundation.

And the missing information isn’t just limited to outright Hillary Clinton endorsements.

One of the latest high profile attacks on Trump is a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “I was a Minuteman III nuclear launch officer. Take it from me: We can’t let Trump become president.” It’s quite a title. It also makes the ahistorical claim that the “very point of nuclear weapons is that they are never used.”

That would have come as news to Harry Truman and the city of Hiroshima.

Its author, John Noonan, is identified only as “a Republican national security expert and former Minuteman III nuclear launch officer”. It neglects to mention his more current role as “a principal defense writer for The Weekly Standard” or his time with the Foreign Policy Institute. Both are closely linked to Bill Kristol who has actively sought to recruit a third party challenger to Trump.

It should be a matter of elementary media ethics for the Los Angeles Times to have disclosed that their splashy op-ed is coming from the employee of a man who is focused on defeating Trump.

But as with Hillary’s people, the media instead offers up what it claims are apolitical national security experts while refusing to mention their political alliances and allegiances.

The viral headlines touting Republicans who have switched to Hillary are equally likely to leave out pertinent details. Former Bush staffer Lezlee Westine is not “the latest Republican to cross party lines to back Clinton over Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump”. She did that back when she donated to Obama during his original campaign. Likewise Meg Whitman was left-wing on core issues and had served on Friends of Boxer.

There is real journalism to be done here. A close look at the Chertoff Group and the Scowcroft Group might be far more illuminating when it comes to the motives of Hillary Clinton’s national security backers. But the media is not interested in shining a light on the issue, but throwing a dark curtain across it. Instead of engaging in anything even faintly resembling journalism, it has become a press release outlet for the Clinton campaign.

This should come as a surprise to no one who remembers the pervasive media bias of the last two elections and yet the public does deserve to know the truth. By carefully censoring the biographical information that their readers receive, major newspapers are making their bad faith overt and clear.

There is nothing natural or grass roots about the rush of attacks on Trump and the endorsements of Hillary. None of them have anything to do with some supposedly shocking thing that Trump said.

The Clintons have spent decades building a vast network of political interests using the non-profit sector as a seed for their influence project. This has enabled the Clinton campaign to put on the kind of show we’ve been seeing this week. This show has been combined with media speculation about Trump’s implosion to construct a false narrative about national security experts fleeing to Hillary Clinton.

Once again the media has become the communications arm of a Democratic political campaign.

Also see:

Did Clinton Emails Get Iranian Scientist Killed?

Visit-Iran-Poster1-high-731x10241

CounterJihad, Aug. 8, 2016:

Senator Tom Cotton fielded an explosive charge this weekend:  that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exposed one of America’s spies and got him killed.  Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri was hanged by the Iranian regime after a secret trial.  His original sentence was reported to be ten years, although it was not officially proclaimed as the Iranian regime often issues secret sentences.  Secretary Clinton’s emails discussed, in an unclassified and unsecure format, the fact that he had provided “useful information” to the United States.

Speaking in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, the Arkansas Senator said, “I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisers about this gentleman,” Cotton said on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

“That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server and I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe,” he added….  Clinton has come under fire for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state in US President Barack Obama’s first term.

FBI Director James Comey said last month that the FBI had found evidence that “the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that’s found elsewhere in the US government.”

It appears that Iran used his young son to lure Shahram back into the country.  Threats against the child seem to have persuaded him to cooperate with Iranian security services in returning to their jurisdiction.  According to the New York Times, they compelled him to claim that he had been abducted by the CIA on a videotape, and then used that to create a cover story for his return.  Once in Iran, he received a hero’s welcome — at first.  Later, there came the knock at the door.

Iran’s government in exile, the National Council of Resistance — Iran, proclaimed that his execution was intended to intimidate others in the country who might feel inclined to reach out to the United States.  They also claim to have received his final message before his execution, in which he alleged tortures including electric shocks.

It is a dangerous moment for anyone in Iran with ties to the United States.  Ever since the so-called nuclear deal of last summer, Iran’s hardliners have been on a “witch-hunt” for American spies.  The fear is that the deal might send a signal to the Iranian people that the regime was intending to become more open and connected to the rest of the world.  Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been at pains to send the opposite message through repression.  He has warned of American subversion, especially through sex and money.  He has also resorted to increased rates of kidnapping Iranian-Americans, partially because the Obama administration has proven willing to pay large ransoms for their return.  Former Federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy says that these payments were a felony committed by President Obama, although no one expects the law to apply to any member of this administration.

Clinton’s success in dodging her own felony charges has had numerous negative effects on America’s national security, but this is the first time we can confirm a body count from her reckless handling of secrets.  It will likely not be the last, given the probability of her emails having been hacked by enemy regimes.

MORE ABOUT THE IRAN THREAT

***

Executed Iranian scientist discussed in Clinton server emails, fueling GOP accusations

EU Migrant Situation Creating Multiple Flashpoints Across the Continent Amidst Growing Domestic Terror Insurgency

AP_migrant_europe_01_mm_150904_16x9_992.sized-770x415xb

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 7, 2016:

The passivity that European governments showed last year as hundreds of thousands of migrants flooded the continent appears to be bearing dire consequences as a long catalogue of incidents occurred over the past week.

Most notably, an American was stabbed to death on the streets of London and several more injured by a Somali man with a Norwegian passport who had been living in the UK since 2002.

And just within the past 36 hours in Belgium, an Algerian man, whom the Islamic State credited as one of its “soldiers,” attacked and wounded two female police officers with a machete earlier today in Charleroi, screaming “Allahu Akbar.” And an entire neighborhood has been evacuated today in Liege after a Turkish man was spotted roaming the streets with a machete.

Since January 2015, there have been 17 terrorist attacks across Europe, killing 258 people and injuring hundreds more. Less than a month ago in Nice, France, on July 14, a Tunisian man, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, ran over and killed 85 and injured 208 more during a Bastille Day celebration.

In April, the House Homeland Security Committee released its European Terror Threat Snapshot showing that there have been 35 attempted terror attacks by ISIS in Europe since 2014, with 22 of them in 2015 – an average of 2 per month.

Increasingly, economic migrants and asylum seekers from North Africa and the Middle East are figuring prominently in the news related to Europe’s domestic terror insurgency.

This sampling of media reports from just the past week in Europe gives evidence to the scope of the problem:

Germany:How Ansbach suicide bomber made his way from SyriaFrance:Paris police on alert for Afghan asylum seeker who may be planning terror attack

Italy:Tunisian held on terror charges after pledging allegiance to the Islamic State

Belgium:Priest stabbed after opening his home to asylum seeker whom he refused to give money to

Sweden:Eritrean migrant slits throat of 7-year-old daughter of host family

Austria:Syrian teen refugees murder janitor who befriended them, his body dumped in bathtub

Bulgaria:Trial begins for three Islamic State-linked Syrian refugees charged with terrorism

Italy:Justice Minister tells Parliament Islamic State may be behind migrant flows

UK:London to deploy 600 more police and 900 more throughout England and Wales after terror attacks

Denmark:ISIS tried to recruit refugees from Danish migration center

Germany:Authorities announce 60 asylum seekers being investigated for terror links

France:Algerian man suspected of terror links expelled

Belgium:At least 5 of Paris, Brussels terror suspects were on Belgian welfare rolls

Italy:100 migrants break through barrier from Italy to France

Poland:Parliamentarian claims Germany going to great lengths to cover up crimes of their refugees

Holland:No jail time for Iraqi refugee who killed 96-year-old woman

Belgium:Court releases convicted ISIS recruiter “Mother of Jihad” after serving 4 months of 15 year sentence

France:Interior Minister says 20 mosques shut down over radical ties since December

I reported here at PJ Media just a few days ago about a new Pew Research Center report showing that in Europe during 2015, asylum applications by ‘military-age’ men were extremely over-represented, with roughly half coming from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Read more

***

Disconnected Dems can’t respond to GOP’s national security message

hillaryclinton_getty052716

The Hill, By Rick Manning, July 28, 2016:

GOP nominee Donald Trump got a huge convention bounce nationally with his personal, homeland and national security message out of Cleveland, and the Democrats are systemically unable to respond because any meaningful, tough response would require a repudiation of their own policies and an admission that the world has an Islamic jihad problem.

You can see the weakness of the Democratic position in President Obama’s limp reaction to the Cleveland convention that things aren’t as bad as they seem. A theme that runs counter to his ambulance chasing around the country, attempting to drive his gun control agenda.

It can be seen in the Obama administration’s pathetic response to the news that two Islamic radicals attacked a Roman Catholic mass in Normandy, France, beheading an 85-year-old priest in front of his congregation that, “France and the United States share a commitment to protecting religious liberty for those of all faiths, and today’s violence will not shake that commitment.”

No one wants to restrict religious liberty, but that is really code for Obama and the Democrats’ fear of naming the problem of Islamic extremism and jihad, and the people of the United States know it.

When people, in the name of Islam, kill a French priest in what was described as an almost religious ritualistic execution; murder nine Germans in Munich; maniacally drive through a crowd in Nice, France, ending 84 lives; and open fire on co-workers in San Bernardino, California and gays at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, soft words don’t impress anyone. Least of all, those who seek to murder the infidels all around them.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is trapped in this Obama box, and she dares not utter the basic truth that the world has a Sharia law problem, and the policies she supports that open America’s doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East will make our nation dramatically less safe.

The public rejection of Obama and Clinton’s weakness likely won’t show up in the public opinion polls because Americans have been told by the media that it is racist and bigoted to pinpoint the obvious problem. But it will show up when it counts, at polling places all across America in November.

Americans don’t want their government to coddle those who wish to kill their families and don’t particularly care if their reason is because they are Charles Manson insane or they are following what they have been taught is a fundamental precept of Islam. Americans want a federal government that is more concerned with keeping potential terrorists out of the country than figuring out how to resettle refugees from terrorist states in their neighborhoods.

And the Clinton knee-jerk response of supporting Australian-style gun confiscation laws aimed at denying law-abiding Americans who live in those neighborhoods the right to defend their homes is a sure loser everywhere except in the gated, protected communities where she hangs out.

The Democratic National Convention, with its anti-cop, pro-illegal immigration and amnesty emphasis, is the exact wrong convention at the exact wrong time, and every drop of blood spilled by jihadists, illegal immigrants or Obama’s early released criminals puts an exclamation point on the political disaster Clinton is leading.

Incredibly, the Democrats are so disconnected from real America that they cannot bring themselves to see that their ’60s Woodstock philosophy is a fairy tale, and that there are those in the world whose religion is to kill the rest of us no matter how many flowers you stick in their gun barrels. The real world is a tougher, meaner place where strength is needed to survive.

As a result, the more they talk, the better off Trump looks.

The stunning part is that the Democrats are so blinded that they can’t see what is obvious to everyone else who is paying attention. The end results of Obama and Clinton’s policies toward refugees has already been tested in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where acts of jihad seemingly occur daily and rapes are skyrocketing as Sharia followers envelop communities.

Unless Clinton can figure out a way to change the subject and get voters’ minds on something else, she is not only going to lose, but do so in historic fashion. But to solve a problem, you have to understand it, and for Democrats who fear even calling Islamic jihad what it is, there is no way out of the politically correct thought prison they have constructed.

Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.

Time for political elites to stand up to sharia

AP Photo | Francois Mori

AP Photo | Francois Mori

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 15, 016:

Our political class, which includes both parties, spent an entire month debating gun control and turning a blind eye to the combatants behind those guns and how we have willfully allowed them into our country and have promoted their Muslim Brotherhood lobbyists at the highest levels of government. Last night, in Nice, France, a Tunisian-Muslim immigrant murdered 84 people in a Jihad attack that mainly involved a truck. He also reportedly got out of the car, shouted “Allah Akbar,” and began shooting into the crowd with a firearm he took from the truck, which was loaded with grenades and firearms. France has stricter gun laws than even what Democrats [publicly] want implemented in our country, yet they are suffering even more at the hands of Islamic jihad. What will it take to end the willful blindness on the part of political elites?

The willful blindness of sharia-based Islam – the glue that binds together all jihadists – is endemic of both political parties. Here is the preamble of the “counter-terrorism” legislation Republicans wanted to pass before conservatives rebelled against the effort:

The preeminent terrorist threats to the United States are radical Islamist terrorist networks such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their allies and affiliate networks, as well as lone-wolf supporters and sympathizers in the United States and around the world.

 

This is beyond tone-deaf. It’s willful blindness. The Islamic State was created in 2013, long after the modern era of Islamic jihad. We are not at war with networks or tactics; there is a clash of civilization and it is rooted in Sharia-Islam and the dictates of the Hadith, as practiced by millions of Muslims and rooted in a number of nation-states from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and even the government we established in Afghanistan. It is that motivation that has inspired so many Muslims living in the West to either support jihad or, worse, actually pursue it.

Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group.

Western leaders have always sought to isolate and decompartmentalize the problem. The jihadists in the Caucuses were “Chechnyians,” the savages in Israel were “Palestinians.” The West sought to legitimize and validate their grievances as rooted in geographical political disputes. In fact, they were all rooted in Jihad as dictated by the Hadith. The West blamed Israel for suffering from suicide bombings and vehicular attacks for years. Tragically, we now see that those tactics have made their way to the West – tactics employed by the same enemy with the same ideology.

This willful blindness of focusing myopically on ISIS and Al Qaeda while downright promoting the Islamic supremacist ideology behind it affects our immigration, homeland security, and national security/military policies. For if we are unwilling to acknowledge the enemy and its threatening doctrine, we will pursue dyslexic policies in those three realms.

It is this willful blindness that has led CIA Director John Brennan to conclude this week that “Saudi Arabia is among our closest counterterrorism partners.”

It is this willful blindness that has allowed our military leadership to throw our soldiers into Islamic civil wars to fight one sharia-adherent group of Muslims on behalf of other sharia-adherent Muslims, while shunning true reformist leaders in places like Egypt and Libya who would actually fight Islamic supremacism.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed Islamic supremacist groups with ties to Hamas to become the leaders of American Muslims, obtain security clearances and meet with Congress 325 times in one year.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed countries like France to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East who subscribe to the underlying ideology shared by Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice terrorist. And it is this appalling willful blindness that has caused our political leaders to learn nothing from the mistakes of Europe and instead, follow blindly in their footsteps.

What paves the road for endless numbers of Muslims in the West who make the ultimate decision to engage in violent Jihad is the climate of civilization jihad that is rooted in the mosques, schools, and political organizations, mainly run by Muslim Brotherhood groups. The notion that we would allow more individuals into our country who subscribe to this ideology is maniacal and suicidal. There are certainly no constitutional mandates on prospectively bringing in any group of immigrants, and as I explore in two chapters of Stolen Sovereignty, our Founders and early political leaders up until just two generations ago all agreed to only admit those who completely shared our political values. This was the essence of Teddy Roosevelt’s message right before he passed away:

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . .We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

 

The guiding principle of our immigration policy was to only admit those who unquestionably adhered to our values system. Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group. When our early political leaders in both parties promoted policies that weeded out those immigrants who didn’t share our values, they were dealing with Europeans from Western Civilization. They could have never imagined an ideology that is the complete antithesis of constitutional republicanism being invited in and championed by the political elites on such a large scale. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the famed Nuremberg prosecutor, best encapsulated the incompatibility of Sharia with western civilization in a statement published in 1955:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

In the irony of all ironies, this very statement from Justice Jackson has been purged from our counterterrorism training for federal law enforcement, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE agenda.

As it states in the Bible, the truth is not in the heaven or in a far off land; it “is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it [Deuteronomy 30:14].  We don’t need to conjure up unconstitutional or novel ideas or focus on trucks, guns, and tactics in order to secure this nation. We need to simply recognize the incontrovertible truth and employ basic common sense and stop self-immolating.

cr audio

Newt livechat on Nice

Obama Admin Ignored Evidence of Dallas Shooter’s Membership in New Black Panthers

But Obama said the cop killer’s motive was “hard to untangle”…

Truth Revolt, July 11, 2016:

In an interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News, election lawyer J. Christian Adams discusses his article on PJ Media titled “Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat,” regarding the Dallas cop killer Micah Johnson and his involvement in the radical New Black Panther organization.

Here is Adams summing up the info in his must-read piece:

Micah Johnson, the shooter in Dallas who ambushed Dallas police officers, was a member of the New Black Panther Party. He was active in the Houston Chapter of the NBPP. The Houston New Black Panthers were caught on video marching with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, chanting “off the pig” and “oink oink bang bang.” One of the individuals in that march bears a striking resemblance to Dallas shooter Johnson.

The New Black Panthers are a rabid anti-white and anti-Semitic group. They were defendants in a voter intimidation case brought in 2009 by the United States Department of Justice for stalking a polling place with a weapon in the 2008 election. After the inauguration, and after DOJ lawyers obtained a default against them in court, the Obama Justice Department dismissed the case.

During that case, Justice Department lawyers discovered evidence that the New Black Panthers had produced a video called “Training Day” which urges members to ambush and kill police officers using AK-47s. This evidence was brought to the attention of top Justice Department officials, including then-Assistant Attorney General (and now Labor Secretary and possible Vice Presidential nominee) Tom Perez. It was brought to the attention of multiple Justice Department officials. Not a single one took the video seriously, instead laughing it off as the work of a couple of cranks and kooks.

Other photos were found in which Black Panthers pose with firearms — illegally because they are convicted felons. Nobody did anything about those photos either. Nobody was ever arrested for breaking federal law. The lawyers working the voter intimidation case took the video threats to kill very, very seriously and urged Obama administration officials to do the same. They didn’t. Now we learn what happens when black radicals intent on killing white cops are given signals that their behavior will not be checked – either legally or rhetorically.

Watch the video above and check out Breitbart here for further info on Johnson’s New Black Panther involvement.

***

Also  see:

Is this the Dallas cop killer at a New Black Panthers march?

Is this the Dallas cop killer at a New Black Panthers march?

***

FBI: ‘Hostile Actors’ Likely Hacked Clinton Email Secrets

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, July 6, 2016:

An extensive FBI investigation found evidence that foreign government hackers accessed private emails sent by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton but no direct evidence spies hacked into the several unsecure servers she used.

FBI Director James Comey revealed Tuesday the 11-month probe into Clinton’s private email servers uncovered negligent handling of very sensitive classified information that was placed on several unsecure servers between 2009 and 2013, when Clinton served as secretary of state.

In an unusual public announcement, Comey outlined findings that included discovery of highly classified information sent and received on Clinton’s private email servers, and signs that “hostile actors” gained access to email accounts of people who were sharing emails with Clinton.

Comey said no clear evidence was found that Clinton and her aides intended to violate laws but “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Despite the evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing regarding communicating top secret, secret, and confidential information in emails, Comey announced at FBI headquarters that he is not recommending Justice Department prosecution of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

“Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

The decision drew fire from Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee. “FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security,” he stated on Twitter. “No charges. Wow!” Trump added that the “system is rigged” since Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, “got in trouble for less. Very very unfair.”

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon praised the FBI announcement.

“As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved,” Fallon said.

On the foreign counterintelligence aspects of the case, Comey said investigators found no “direct evidence” foreign state hackers gained access to the private email system. Advanced state cyber attackers, however, would be unlikely to leave traces of such intrusions, he added.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” Comey said, without elaborating or identifying the people in question.

During foreign travel, Clinton also used the personal email system extensively on “the territory of sophisticated adversaries,” likely a reference to China and Russia.

“Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” Comey said.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden, commenting on Comey’s remarks, said Clinton’s use of private email servers highlights the danger posed by the use of such servers, noting he believes it is very likely foreign states hacked into her server.

“I would lose respect for any serious intelligence agency on this planet if they had not accessed the emails on the server,” said Hayden, also a former director of the NSA.

According to Comey, seven email “chains” examined by the FBI contained classified information labeled “top secret, special access program,” among the highest security classification levels.

Special access programs are used in government to protect extremely sensitive information requiring extraordinary security measures. They can include such things as the identity of clandestine human agents or secret intelligence operations, military operations, or the characteristics of electronics used by foreign radar systems.

“Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters,” Comey said.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

A small number of the emails contained markings indicating the presence of classified information, Comey said.

That contradicts Clinton’s repeated statements that she did not misuse any information marked as classified data. The campaign website also contains the statement that “no information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

Comey said even if the data was not marked as classified “participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, said she was surprised that the FBI announcement did not address whether federal Records Act violations occurred, or whether evidence was found of corruption involving improper actions by Clinton to support the Clinton Foundation.

“Is the FBI’s investigation into those matter still ongoing?” she asked.

On the foreign intelligence targeting of the Clinton emails, Van Cleave said there is no question the former secretary of state knew her email messages were and are targeted by spy services.

“The working assumption of the intelligence community is that they have it all and damage assessments are still underway,” Van Cleave said. “She simplified their job by neatly packaging all of her email out of the hands of government security personnel. If that isn’t an open-and-shut case of ‘gross negligence’ under the espionage laws I don’t know what is.”

Van Cleave said she is concerned by the precedent of not prosecuting a former senior government official who mishandled classified information. “If government workers see their leaders play fast and loose with classified information with impunity, what is the incentive for them to behave differently,” she said.

The FBI announcement comes just over a week after former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, raising charges of political interference in the investigation. Lynch was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York by Clinton in 1999.

President Obama also appeared to interfere with the investigation by announcing in October that “I can tell you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, former White House National Security Council staff intelligence director, said the FBI’s decision not to recommend prosecution is a case of politicization. “The Bureau is indelibly stained by this blatantly political act,” deGraffenreid said. “What would have happened to any other government official?”

DeGraffenreid said Comey overstepped FBI authority by asserting that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton. “He is not a prosecutor,” he said. “That is the attorney general’s job. Not Comey’s.”

The Justice Department’s National Security Division now must decide whether to follow the FBI recommendation or prosecute Clinton, who spent three and a half hours last weekend undergoing questioning by FBI agents.

Analysts say the Justice Department has been politicized through liberal appointees and thus is unlikely to go against the FBI recommendation.

The FBI announcement clears the way for Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination for president later this month at the party’s convention in Philadelphia.

Comey, in an unusually detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation, announced that his recommendation was not cleared in advance with the Justice Department and was more detailed than usual “because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

The FBI investigation was launched in August of 2015 following a July 24, 2015, referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and Intelligence Community. The notice said classified information may exist on at least one server and a thumb drive.

The FBI director also faulted what he said was a lax security culture at the State Department regarding the care and handling of classified information.

Comey said the probe examined if classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal system in violation of laws that make it a felony to mishandle classified information intentionally or in a grossly negligent way. A second law makes it a misdemeanor to remove classified information from secure systems.

The FBI found Clinton used not one but several servers and numerous mobile devices to read personal emails.

From the 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the State Department, the FBI found 110 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent, including eight emails with top secret data, 36 with secret information, and eight with less-sensitive confidential data, Comey said.

Some 2,000 additional emails were later re-classified to “confidential.”

“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014,” Comey said, noting the emails were found from deleted emails and traces on servers and devices.

Comey said no evidence was uncovered indicating Clinton deleted emails containing classified information an in effort to cover up a crime.

But he added: “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.

“But their presence is especially concerning because all of the emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,” Comey said.

Based on factors such as strength of evidence, criminal intent, and how similar situations of mishandling or removing classified data were handled in the past, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” he added.

Comey said the announcement would trigger public debate but insisted the probe was done “honestly, confidently, and independently.”

“Criminal intent aside, anyone experienced in these matters knows that the real sin here was the original sin,” said Hayden, the former CIA director who noted that that the initial creation of the private server without security procedures was a major vulnerability.

“[It meant] bad things with regard to preserving federal records and really bad things with regard to security,” he said.

***

Hillary Clinton can be blackmailed