UTT Throwback Thursday: Jihadis, CVE, and Congressman McCaul

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, November 17, 2016:

The Countering Violent Extremism or CVE is a program created in Britain by the Muslim Brotherhood.

cve

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic jihadi organization whose stated goals in their by-laws are to “Fight the tyrants and enemies of Allah” in order to establish an Islamic State under sharia (Islamic Law).  In North America they do this by waging “Civilization Jihad” by OUR hands to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

CVE is a hostile information campaign and a double-agent program brought from Britain to the United States by FBI and DHS leadership approximately 10 years ago.

CVE’s purpose is to ensure Muslim Brotherhood leaders are exclusively used by the U.S. government as the liaison for all matters pertaining to Islam and terrorism so the MB controls the narrative in this war.

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Mike McCaul of Texas, is dutifully fulfilling his obligation to do the Muslim Brotherhood’s bidding and leading the charge to “combat violent extremism.”

Mr. McCaul ensured funding for CVE and pushed to create the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the Department of Homeland Security.

But what is violent extremism?  How often do “terrorists” claim they do what they do in the name of “violent extremism?”

Never.

We face an enemy that exclusively states they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish and Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic Law).

So long as our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies chase “violent extremists” they will chase U.S. military veterans, white supremacists, and all other sorts of people – but not Muslims committing jihad.

cve2

Exactly the intent of our enemy, and exactly the focus of DHS efforts.

As a matter of fact, the former Program Manager for the Department of Defense’s Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section, Richard Higgins, stated on national radio in June 2016:   “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

CVE is one of the major tools our enemy is using to get and keep our national security apparatus in such a state of strategic incoherence and Congressman McCaul is its biggest cheerleader.

It is also instructive that Mike McCaul has demonstrated an inability to determine friend from foe when it comes to basic terrorist groups like Hamas.  Calling the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) a “moderate” Islamic organization even though evidence and facts reveal CAIR is Hamas, is dangerous and unprofessional when you are the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Photo signed by Congressman Mike McCaul for Hamas leader Mustafa Carroll reads:  “To Mustafa at the Council on American Islamic Relations, The Moderate Muslim is our most effective Weapon. Michael McCaul, TX-10”

Photo signed by Congressman Mike McCaul for Hamas leader Mustafa Carroll reads: “To Mustafa at the Council on American Islamic Relations, The Moderate Muslim is our most effective Weapon. Michael McCaul, TX-10”

When a leader like the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee legitimizes a terrorist (Hamas leader) like Mustafa Carroll – leader of Hamas in Texas – that leader (McCaul) demonstrates his utter incompetence in this war.

Thanks Congressman McCaul.  We can add your name to the growing list of U.S. government officials batting for the other team – whether you understand it or not.

Report: Frank Gaffney, 2 Others Replace Mike Rogers on Trump Transition Team

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Update: Gaffney – I just got the Bannon Treatment myself after someone falsely claimed that I had been appointed to the Trump transition team.

NewsmaxBy Todd Beamon, November 15, 2016:

Former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who was dismissed Tuesday from President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, was replaced by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, according to news reports.

Gaffney, 63, who is a Newsmax contributor, established the nonprofit Center for Security Policy in Washington in 1988. His naming to the Trump team was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Under President Ronald Reagan, Gaffney served in the Defense Department as assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy.

He also was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

Rogers, former House Intelligence Committee chairman, was being considered for CIA director, the Journal reported.

He was among several transition team members brought aboard by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was ousted Sunday over the Bridge-gate scandal.

Others replacing Rogers were California Rep. Devin Nunes and former Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, according to the report.

In response to news of Gaffney’s appointment, Brookings Institution fellow Tom Wright posted this on Twitter:

***

And Clare Lopez is being considered for Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor.

Words cannot express how happy I am to see this so I’ll just leave this here:

The next great battle for conservatives: Keeping RINO insiders out of the administration

trump-with-christy-flags

Conservative Review, by Daniel  Horowitz, November 13, 2016″

It’s no secret that Donald Trump is as much of a blank slate on policy as anyone who’s ever been elected president. Both supporters and opponents of the president-elect agree that Trump is still very malleable on many issues and has a lot to learn about both foreign and domestic policy. This is why it is critical for conservatives to win the ‘battle of personnel’ in the coming days. Failure to land conservative outsiders in key cabinet and advisory roles would be akin to failing to establish control of the beach head during the Normandy invasion. We can dream of our policy battles once we get a footing on land, but if the same RINO insiders who broke the system are allowed to control the administration, we will immediately fall back in the sea, rendering the entire election moot.

While many conservatives were and remain apprehensive about Trump’s commitment to conservative values on some issues, the appeal most saw in him was a figure who would bulldoze the failed elites and rid the system of its barnacles. This sentiment was perhaps epitomized during the debates when Hillary Clinton would proudly tout her decades of experience. Trump simply retorted, “Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience.” It gets back to Bill Buckley’s old adage – “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” Nowhere is this more evident than with foreign policy, national security, and immigration. Almost everyone with experience in these fields within government has been on the wrong side of these issues and harbor views so divorced from reality that even random names in a telephone book would make better decisions. Yet, these same failed insiders are now gravitating to the transition team like a fly on stink and are looking for jobs.

The first challenge is to appoint a chief of staff who is not only resolute and organized but who shares the vision of the movement Trump has led. A good first start is to reject calls from establishment figures to name RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to this top advisory role.

Additionally, failure to keep the following people out of the administration would tarnish the entire appeal of a Trump presidency:

Chris Christie – potential pick for Attorney General

Just take a look at CR’s issue profile of Chris Christie and it will become clear that this man has been pushing liberal views on fiscal, social, and foreign policies for years. He was rabidly pro-amnesty before he latched himself onto Trump. The notion that someone with his principles and mindset would clean out the Justice Department is a fantasy. The notion that a man who appointed liberal judges as governor would fight legal battles against the rainbow jihad is an exercise in pink unicorns. Christie would be better suited at the Department of Transportation where he can manage traffic on the bridges.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) – potential pick for DHS Secretary

There is no doubt that the issues of immigration and Islamic terror are the two biggest factors in Trump’s win. This is why it’s so important to keep McCaul away from DHS. As we’ve chronicled in this column, McCaul has done nothing to fight the open borders crowd, and in fact, proposed terrible immigration bills as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the exact sort of “bad experience” the voters want Trump to reject.

More importantly, McCaul has been a leader in the promotion of “Countering Violent Extremism,” which is subversion agenda advanced by North American Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to obfuscate any mention of Islamic terrorism. This is the very willful blindness that Americans so desperately wanted to change with the outcome of this election. Appointing McCaul to head Homeland Security would continue to empower groups like CAIR at a time when they must be banned from government. McCaul famously wrote a note to a top CAIR official suggesting that his organization is moderate and an effective weapon against terrorists.

Ambassador to Saudi Arabia would probably be a more appropriate position for Mr. McCaul.

Bob Corker – Secretary of State

There is no better example of elevating the arsonist to firefighter than the prospect of appointing Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) to head the State Department. Even in past Republican administrations, the State Department has served as a fifth column promoting the ‘America last’ agenda. This is why it is even more critical to place someone with an outsider’s mindset in the office of Secretary of State more than any other position. Bob Corker is the worst possible choice.

Corker is every bit as responsible for the Iran deal as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. His views on foreign policy in general reflect the very inside-the-beltway mentality that must change with a new administration.

As I chronicled in my dossier on Corker back when he was being considered for Vice President, the Tennessee senator has sandbagged us on amnesty, taxes, Dodd-Frank, and the START treaty – just to name a few issues. Appointing Corker to any position of prominence, much less Secretary of State, would undermine Trump’s entire movement and reflect an exercise in making the establishment elites great again.

But maybe if Trump appoints him to a cushy ambassadorship, it could free up his Senate seat for conservatives …

Mike Rogers – National Security

Former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) is heading up the part of the transition team responsible for national security. He is rumored to be in the running for CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence. If there was ever a politician who emblematized the disease of “Washington insiderism” and represents the failure of Republicans to hold Obama accountable for his perfidious foreign policy, it’s Mike Rogers.

As Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rogers put out such a weak report on the Benghazi scandal that it was tantamount to a cover-up. As Trey Gowdy said at the time, Rogers didn’t even interview eye witnesses before he issued his report. In May 2014, ace national security report, Eli Lake, reported that Rogers downright opposed the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee and seemed to be defending the Obama administration.

Why was he siding with Obama?

While we might never get the full story, the details that are out in public should automatically disqualify Rogers to serve in the administration. In June 2014, Judicial Watch reported that Rogers’ wife, Kristi, who was a top executive at the British-based security contractor Aegis Defense Services, helped win major security contracts for her group. “Libya also was an area of activity for Aegis, Ms. Rogers’ company. As Rep. Rogers assumed control of the Intelligence Committee, an Aegis subsidiary, Aegis Advisory, began setting up shop in Libya,” wrote Micha Morrison of Judicial Watch.

Read the full report from Judicial Watch, which raises serious questions about a conflict of interest in Libya.

Rogers bizarrely announced his retirement and said he planned to pursue a career in radio, a move that shocked a lot of people in Washington. Yet, now he is groveling for a position in the new administration. What happened to his radio career?

If people around Trump plan to elevate a man like Mike Rogers to a top national security or intel post, they as may as well replace him with Huma Abedin.

In summary …

The key for Trump is to avoid the mistakes of the past and to NOT automatically rely on insiders. Everyone expects Trump to look outside the box for Cabinet positions. That is in fact his mandate. There are plenty of smart, qualified conservatives who have not been infected by the elitist Kool Aide and the corruption of Washington. And if he is ever short on staffing options, he should remember Bill Buckley’s advice and pull out a telephone book before he taps the very people that have endangered our national security.

Unsolicited Advice for the Trump Transition Team on National Security Intelligence

1a7402498eea3c754ba7b3d8c2909c34-sized-770x415xbPJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 10, 2016:

It was encouraging Wednesday to hear that President Obama intends to emulate President Bush, who generously provided Obama with a highly informative and smooth transition process.

Running the executive branch is a daunting task, so there is no aspect of the transition to a new administration that is unimportant. But obviously, the most crucial focus for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is heading up President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, must be national security.

That transition is going to be more complicated than it should be, but there are things Gov. Christie can do – better to say, people he ought to consult — to make sure his team is getting accurate information.

The Bush National Security Council was very good about putting together briefing books so their successors could hit the ground running. The problem now, however, is the trustworthiness of what is in those books.

As PJ Media has reported, a highly disturbing report by a congressional task force this summer found that the Obama administration had politicized its intelligence product.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), who has been stellar on national security issues and was among the leaders of the task force (comprised of the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees), put it this way when the report was issued:

After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States Central Command’s most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command’s intelligence products to downplay the threat from ISIS in Iraq.The result: consumers of those intelligence products were provided a consistently “rosy” view of U.S. operational success against ISIS. That may well have resulted in putting American troops at risk as policymakers relied on this intelligence when formulating policy and allocating resources for the fight.

The intelligence manipulation became a controversy in 2015, when 50 intelligence-community whistleblowers complained that their reports on the Islamic State and al-Qaeda terror networks were being altered.

The manipulation, driven by Obama’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and carried out in the Defense Department by senior Central Command (CENTCOM) officers, aimed to downplay the jihadist threat.

This is a reckless practice I have written about several times over the last eight years (see, e.g., here). The Obama administration has made a concerted effort to miniaturize the terrorist threat in order to project a mirage of policy success.

Intelligence has routinely been distorted — portraying the networks as atomized, largely detached cells that are not unified by any overarching ideology — in an attempt to make them appear smaller and less threatening. Basically, a nuisance to be managed rather than an enemy to be defeated.

Even when the terrorists are on the march, the administration claims they are in retreat. Indeed, less than 24 hours after four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists in the 2012 siege of Benghazi, President Obama stated this in a political fundraising speech:

A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.

Intel manipulation ran rampant after Obama fired Marine General James Mattis, CENTCOM’s commander, in 2013. General Mattis had the irksome habits of demanding clear-eyed assessments of America’s enemies and forcing administration policymakers to confront the potential consequences of their ludicrously optimistic assumptions, particularly regarding Iran’s behavior. Obama officials replaced him with Army General Lloyd Austin.

Meanwhile, it was made clear to the Pentagon that because the president made campaign commitments to end the U.S. mission in Iraq, he did not want to hear information contradictory to his narrative that withdrawing our forces was the right thing to do. After retiring, Army General Anthony Tata confirmed that an ODNI official instructed the Defense Department not to put in writing assessments that portrayed al-Qaeda and ISIS as fortified and threatening.

The result, of course, was that the president was told what wanted to hear.

This eventually led to Obama’s infamous assertion that ISIS was merely a “JV” terrorist team. Naturally, when the JV team rampaging through Iraq and Syria rendered that judgment embarrassing, the White House shifted the blame to General Austin, pushing him out the CENTCOM door.

The administration has done more to sculpt the narrative than quell the enemy. So Gov. Christie and his team will need to regard with skepticism any briefing books Obama’s transition coordinators supply.

Of course, Team Trump already has a tremendous resource to rely on: retired Army General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (and the author, along with PJ Media columnist Michael Ledeen, of The Field of Fight, which pleads for a desperately needed strategy for fighting the global war against jihadists and their allies). Like General Mattis, General Flynn (in 2014) was pushed out of his job because he rejected the politicization of our intelligence product for purposes of low-balling the terrorist threat. He knows his stuff, knows what we are up against, and will be a major asset not only to the transition, but to the Trump administration.

I would also respectfully suggest that Gov. Christie consult with General Mattisand General Jack Keane: smart, experienced former commanders who have given a great deal of thought to, and sound advice to Congress regarding, the current administration’s strategic and intelligence voids.

In understanding global jihadist networks — who the players are, how the organizations collude and compete — Tom Joscelyn, editor of The Long War Journal, is the best expert in the United States, bar none. While his value would be limitless, Tom is especially knowledgeable about the jihadists released from Guantanamo Bay, many of whom have gone back to the jihad.

Yet again, this is a context in which briefings from the Obama administration would be suspect. The president adheres to another narrative driven by foolish campaign promises, namely: the cost of Gitmo as a “recruiting tool” for the enemy outweighs the benefit of detaining committed, capable, anti-American jihadists. To justify both this absurd premise and the release of the terrorists, the administration watered down intelligence that supported holding the terrorists as enemy combatants who posed continuing danger to the United States.

The new administration needs accurate information for purposes of grasping the threat and formulating sound detention policy.

Finally, it is vital to understand “Countering Violent Extremism,” the Obama administration’s strategic guidance — their playbook for military, intelligence, and law-enforcement officials on how to approach and respond to terrorism. CVE is where the dereliction that I have labeled “willful blindness” has devolved into compulsory blindness.

Under CVE guidelines, the fact that Islamic-supremacist ideology spurs the jihadist threat and knits together terrorists and their sponsors is no longer just consciously avoided; taking notice of it is verboten.

The most thoroughgoing critique of this lunacy is Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its author is Stephen Coughlin, a trained military intelligence officer and an attorney who has made a point of learning how Islamic law principles inform the goals and tactics of our enemies. Steve is extraordinarily informed about the administration’s wayward assumptions. If the Trump transition team wants to check the premises on which their work is based, he’s the guy.

Let’s welcome President Obama’s assurances of a seamless transition to the Trump administration. But my best unsolicited advice to Gov. Christie: When it comes to briefing books, don’t believe everything you read.

President Trump: Now What?

tr

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, November 10, 2016:

A key element of Donald Trump’s popularity as a presidential candidate was his willingness to stake out policy positions that made establishment politicians cower in fear. His success as President will depend upon his willingness to do the same thing. Among his most important tasks will be to take the hard steps necessary to establish a sane and realistic stance for the United States toward the global jihad threat. To do that, he should implement measures such as these:

[1] Suspend (as promised) immigration from nations that are hotbeds of jihad terror activity.

While excoriated as “racist,” this proposal is a simple matter of national security. No one who opposed Trump’s proposal ever offered an alternative way to keep jihadis out of the country. (Of course, the problem of those who learn jihad inside the U.S. is also acute, and must be addressed). Some glibly opined that Trump should ban “Islamists,” not Muslims as a whole, yet never suggested a reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from ordinary Muslims. Indeed, the Islamic State has instructed its operatives to appear secular — to avoid ostentatious displays of Islamic piety that might arouse suspicions of “radicalization.” Can America really afford the national security risk of importing whole Muslim communities from Iraq and Somalia, as is happening now, without even making any serious attempt to screen out potential jihadists?

[2] Tell the truth about Islamic jihad and supremacism.

Ever since 2011, it has been official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and is now head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and moreto ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were. Today this entrenched policy of the U.S. government ensures that all too many jihadists simply cannot be identified as risks, since the administration is bound as a matter of policy to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Trump must reverse that. He has spoken about the threat from “radical Islamic terrorism” on the campaign trail; he must follow through as President and remove the prohibitions on allowing agents to study and understand the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat.

[3] Remove all those linked with the Muslim Brotherhood from any position of responsibility, and end all government agencies’ interaction with groups linked with Hamas.

This shouldn’t even have to be said, but there has been evidence of Muslim Brotherhood operatives having influence in the U.S. government back to 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann called for an investigation of that infiltration. It’s high time that investigation was actually conducted.

[4] Enforce existing laws.

Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

It may be that the proviso in this statute that the overthrow of the government must be planned as taking place by “force and violence” may prevent this law from being applied against Muslim Brotherhood groups that are intent on subverting America from within. Legal minds should study that issue. But surely – somehow — working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood has stated its own strategic goal for America, ought to be a prosecutable offense.

[5] Reclassify Muslim organizations.

The U.S. government should call upon Islamic advocacy groups in this country to renounce, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia. This renunciation should be backed up with transparent action to teach in mosques and Islamic schools against this intention, and against the elements of Sharia that contradict American freedoms. Those that refuse to do this, or are found to be teaching these aspects of Sharia, should be immediately closed and prosecuted.

[6] Reconfigure our international alliances.

Such that no state that oppresses women or non-Muslims in accord with Sharia provisions gets a penny of American aid, or is considered a U.S. ally.

The swamp needs draining indeed. These measures, if adopted, would go a long way toward putting the U.S. back on dry land.

All Hands on Deck

trump-1

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, November 9, 2016:

The historic election on Tuesday was a resounding rejection of failed socialist programs, weak government leaders, and corruption/tyranny on both sides of the political aisle.

From a national security perspective, this is not the time to find “common ground” with those who oppose liberty and our Constitutional Republic.

This is the beginning of a battle in America to restore our founding principles and defeat the Islamic and Marxist Movements in this nation.  If we do not accomplish this now, we will have squandered this great opportunity.

Remember, this is much more a counterintelligence and espionage war than it is a fight against “terrorism.”  We need leaders who get it at a deep level.

This is not the time to bring in people from the RNC – the very same establishment flunkies who lost the wars for us in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ones Americans voted against Tuesday – to help solve our problems.

Already, individuals working against U.S. interests and/or for the jihadi or marxists Movements are inside the Trump camp.

Oz Sultan, a jihadi who works on the Park 51 (Ground Zero Mosque) project is on the inside thanks to the RNC.

Additionally, names like Senator Bob Corker (TN), who helped architect the failed Iran deal, Congressman Mike McCaul who drove and funded the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE (Combatting Violent Extremism) program, and Governor Chris Christie who defends jihadis and attacks those who speak truth about them, are all being considered for senior cabinet positions.  Mr. Christie was also hailed by Hamas in the U.S. doing business as CAIR for advancing the Islamic agenda here.

These men are significant impediments to victory in this war and should have no place in a Trump administration.

Many other hostile individuals and forces are circling Mr. Trump in an effort to gain favor.  Think jihadis in suits and those they use to get what they want, and you will begin to understand the true nature of the threat.

UTT offers President elect Trump, 14 recommendation as strategic launch points in this war to begin this endeavor to restore our national security.

  1. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization
  2. Indict unindicted co-conspirators in US v HLF beginning with ISNA, NAIT & CAIR
  3. Implement the UTT strategy to systematically dismantle the Islamic Movement in the United States and educate/train all federal, state, and local agencies on this threat whose duties include law enforcement, intelligence, or security
  4. Shut down the Refugee Resettlement program
  5. Freeze all immigration into the U.S. for at least 5 years, and secure U.S. borders
  6. Create a strategy to address and systematically dismantle the Marxist Movement in the United States beginning with colleges/universities, as well as barring any Federal agency from receiving training from Marxist groups (to include the Southern Poverty Law Center)
  7. Criminally charge U.S. leaders and organizations who aid and abet America’s enemies
  8. Rebuild U.S. Military forces, and eliminate all policies which put anything in front of the military’s primary duty to fight and win wars
  9. Dismantle U.S. tax code doing away with federal income tax over four years (pay for infrastructure as founders intended)
  10. Shut down all federal programs/agencies not specifically provided for in the U.S. Constitution
  11. Institute Citizen Training Programs in elementary, junior high and high schools to teach and reaffirm America’s true history, founding principles, and Godly heritage
  12. Rebuild America’s broken Counterintelligence apparatus
  13. Repeal the 17th Amendment
  14. Outlaw foreign ownership of property inside the United States

Over the next couple weeks, UTT will review these recommendations in detail.

Be vigilant America.  Now is the time we need all hands on deck to pay attention and immediately make your voice heard when needed.

The Question for Tuesday

gorka34The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, November 4, 2016:

Next Tuesday, Americans will elect the 45th President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States. One of the most important issues at stake this year is National Security.

As you prepare to vote, you need to answer for yourself which candidate will make America safer. Who will better protect us and safeguard our interests? Who has a better plan to defeat and destroy America’s enemies?

Below is a summary of each candidate’s platform to better help you to answer those critical questions.

THE THREATS TO AMERICA

  • U.S. security has drastically deteriorated in the last eight years as a direct result of President Obama’s avowed policy of “Leading from Behind.”
  • There has been a significant attack directed or inspired by ISIS every 83 hours, killing over 1,200 people in cities outside of Iraq and Syria.
  • The United States suffered the deadliest terror attack since 9/11 and the worst mass shooting in U.S. history at the hands of an ISIS sympathizer in Orlando.
  • Last December, a couple who swore allegiance to ISIS killed fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino.
  • Since 2014, U.S. Law Enforcement has interdicted 124 Islamic State sympathizers for attempting to support ISIS either by traveling to the Caliphate, aiding or encouraging fellow supporters, or launching attacks on U.S. soil. See current list.

But ISIS is not the only problem. 

  • Al-Qaida is resurgent under the leadership of Ayman al Zawahiri
  • The Taliban rules half of Afghanistan
  • Syria is in its fourth year of a civil war that has sparked the largest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, with 65 million refugees currently displaced around the world.
  • Libya and Yemen are failed states
  • The countries that experienced the so-called Arab Spring continue to face instability and multiple Islamic insurgencies.
  • The theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime feels confident enough not only to harass our military vessels in international waters, but to take our sailors prisoner and steal our technologically sensitive naval equipment —
    • At the same time they are playing Washington for a gullible mark by closing a deal which brings them closer to nuclear weapons acquisition than they have ever been, including access to more than $150 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars of additional ransom money.
  • In both the Western Hemisphere and Europe, Russia has likewise drawn the correct conclusion that in a world in which America is reactive, or even worse, is absent, there are advantages to be had and nefarious interests to be realized.
  • China, always calculating and patient, has accelerated its maneuvers to intimidate regional states and expand its sphere of military, political, and economic influence globally.

THE CANDIDATES

Donald Trump’s foreign policy platform is singularly focused on defeating these threats, indeed a key slogan of his campaign has been, “Make America Safe Again.” In order to do so, he has said he will work with Congress to:

  • fully repeal the defense sequester and rebuild our depleted military with smarter spending to cut out waste and redundancies;
  • de-politicize the conversation around national security issues in order to make an accurate and effective threat assessment;
  • utilize military, cyber, financial, and ideological warfare to dismantle the Islamic State;
  • establish new extreme vetting procedures to keep terrorists out of the U.S.;
  • cancel the nuclear deal with Iran; and,
  • shift the emphasis from broad programs on countering violent extremism back to vital counterterrorism programs that have been pushed defunded by the Obama Administration.

Donald Trump understands that we are at War and knows what it will take to win this War.

I have met Mr Trump, and call assure you he understands the existential threat that ISIS and the Global Jihadi Movement pose to the United States. He understands that we are at War. Not only does he understand it, but he knows what it will take to win this war: American strength and leadership, not isolationism. America does not have to be the world’s police to do so; rather, “America First will be the major and overriding theme” of a Trump administration.

He will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East to crush and destroy ISIS, call for international cooperation to cut off their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and dedicate much-needed resources and attention to cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.

Through these policies, Trump will work to not only defeat the forces of the Islamic State, but also to destroy the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism so that it is no longer a threat.

Hillary Clinton refuses to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State.

Across the aisle, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan that would leave the United States vulnerable to increased domestic terror attacks and magnify and prolong the global jihadi threat. Throughout this election, Clinton has enumerated a list of things that the U.S. will not do if she is elected president: “We are not going to put ground troops into Iraq ever again.”

We are not going to refer to ISIS or other terrorists as radical Islamic extremists. In her own words, “repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve.” By refusing to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State, Hillary Clinton is obscuring the true nature of the Enemy, which in turn leads to ineffective strategies to combat them.

She is a candidate who is more concerned with political correctness and convincing Americans that “leading from behind” will keep America safe than she is with true national security. Hilary Clinton will continue the politically correct policies of the Obama Administration which prohibit talking truthfully and accurately about our Enemy.

In order to defeat groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and radical Islamic extremism as a whole, we must first identify the Enemy. If Hillary refuses to do even that, then no amount of airstrikes will succeed. Dismantling and discrediting the ideology behind radical Islamic extremism is the first step in its defeat. However, there is zero mention of this on Clinton’s campaign website.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration.

Hilary Clinton wants to continue and expand President Obama’s failing policies – increased coalition airstrikes, a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war, ramped up efforts to support and equip questionable Syrian rebel groups, relying on the American Muslim community to police itself, and a domestic ban on assault weapons.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration. They may allow for limited tactical gains, such as recent successes in Mosul and elsewhere, but these policies will not lead to long-term peace. In the Cold War, we did not defeat the Soviets with airstrikes and drones.

Rather, President Reagan’s strategy to utterly delegitimize the Communist ideology meant the Cold War ended without a single shot being fired.  

It is time for America to rise to that challenge once more. The first step is to cast your ballot for a safe America under the leadership of Donald J. Trump on November 8.

Sebastian Gorka, PhD

***

Dr. Sebastian Gorka spoke at Freedom Summit 2016 on October 29, 2016 in Itasca, IL, presented by AM 560 The Answer.

Hillary Clinton Gave Visa to Egyptian Terrorist to Visit State Dept, White House To Lobby For Blind Sheikh Release

hani-noor-eldin-hillary-clinton-egypt-terrorist-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, November 2, 2016:

In June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued a visa to enter the U.S. to Hani Noor Eldin – an avowed member of the Egyptian terror group Gamaa Islamiya that was designated by the U.S. in October 1997 during the Clinton Administration.

But not only was Eldin allowed into the U.S., he was escorted into Hillary’s State Department where he met with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Under Secretary Robert Hormats, and then later received at the White House by Denis McDonough, then Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor and currently the White House Chief of Staff.

According to published reports, Eldin used these meetings as an opportunity to press Obama administration officials to release from federal prison the leader of his terror group, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his leadership role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks. That case was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

Those meetings resulted in serious Obama administration discussions about transferring the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt, then under control of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, who had vowed to pressure the U.S. for the Blind Sheikh’s release while Eldin was in Washington D.C.

The Blind Sheikh’s transfer was only stopped when members of Congress began asking about the deal, and the possibility of his transfer was publicly denounced by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who presided over the Blind Sheikh’s trial as a federal district court judge.

When Congress asked about Eldin’s visit to the U.S., then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed that more foreign terrorists would be allowed in.

Questions were initially raised about how Eldin was allowed in the country and the details of his visit to Washington D.C. when the story broke from reporter Eli Lake, who interviewed the terror group member. Eldin had no problem admitting he was a member of the banned Gamaa Islamiya:

It was supposed to be a routine meeting for Egyptian legislators in Washington, an opportunity for senior Obama administration officials to meet with new members of Egypt’s parliament and exchange ideas on the future of relations between the two countries.Instead, the visit this week looks like it’s turning into a political fiasco. Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The group was banned under former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and is now a recognized Islamist political party. Its spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman—also known as the “blind sheik”—was convicted in 1995 of plotting attacks on New York City landmarks and transportation centers, and is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina federal prison.

Eldin, according to his Facebook page, was born in 1968 and resides in Suez, near the canal that unites the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. He was arrested in 1993 on terrorism charges after members of Gamaa Islamiya got into a shoot out with Egyptian security officials at a mosque. He has proclaimed his innocence in the shooting and says he was arrested because of his political activism against Mubarak.

In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya. By U.S. law, that means he would be denied a visa to enter the country. Nonetheless, he says, he got a visa from the State Department. A State Department spokesman said, “We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group.”

The State Department blamed the visit on the U.S. government-funded Wilson Center, who then turned around and blamed the State Department:

While in Washington, Eldin also visited the Wilson Center, a think tank that specializes in foreign policy issues. A State Department spokesman said the delegation was “invited to Washington by the Wilson Center. I refer you to the Wilson Center for any additional information on their visit.”A spokesman for the Wilson Center, however, said the delegation was selected by the State Department. “We can’t speak to the background of Eldin,” said Drew Sample the media relations coordinator for the Wilson Center. “The Wilson Center was one of the places on the delegation’s Washington visit. We did not invite these people, the State Department arranged the visit.”

With Eldin openly admitting his affiliation with Gamaa Islamiya to members of the D.C. establishment media and even noting his membership on his own Facebook page, the State Department’s press briefing by Victoria Nuland on the affair turned into Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis comedy routine:

QUESTION: Yeah. How did a guy who’s a member of a foreign terrorist organization get into the country and have meetings with – in the White House and at the State Department?MS. NULAND: Well, as you know – I mean, I can’t speak about the specifics of the visa adjudication of any individual case. What I can say is that anybody issued a visa goes through a full set of screenings.Those screenings do depend, however, on the integrity of the information that’s available to us at the time that we do screen. And this particular case is one that we are now looking into.

QUESTION: Well, how – it’s on the guy’s Facebook page. It doesn’t seem like it would be too difficult to find out. I mean, what kind of screening is there? Does anyone do a Google search on names? I mean, it seems like this is pretty basic stuff. I mean, was – you seem to be saying this was a mistake.

MS. NULAND: Again, we are looking into the circumstances of this particular case, and I don’t have anything more . . .

QUESTION: So when you say it’s under review, does that mean that he could be deported?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to what may result from a review; simply, to say that we’re trying to better understand this particular case.

QUESTION: You’re trying to better – you’re trying to find out if, in fact, he is a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization?

MS. NULAND: No. I’m saying we are reviewing the case of the visa issuance.

QUESTION: Do you know that this man is a member of a foreign terrorist organization?

MS. NULAND: Well, he has himself made such statements in the last day or two to the press, right? So that – we are seeing the same reports that you are seeing.

QUESTION: No, no, I understand that. But I think that it goes beyond that, and that it goes – I mean, he was a self-admitted member of this organization well before he was invited to come to the United States as part of this delegation. And it just – I don’t know; I’m just a little bit confused as to how a thorough screening would not have turned up his membership in this group given that it is literally on his Facebook page. Can you explain that?

MS. NULAND: Again, I said we are looking into it, and we are.

A spokesman for the terror group told CNN that the purpose of Eldin’s White House visit was to press for the Blind Sheikh’s release:

But according to Tarek Al Zumor, a party spokesman and founding member of Gamaa Islamiya, el-Din pressed American officials for a transfer into Egyptian custody of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric serving a life sentence in the United States for a conspiracy conviction in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.The request mirrors the demands of Gamaa Islamiya members in Cairo who have protested in Tahrir Square, seeking the sheikh’s release.

Coincidentally, at the same time that Eldin was in Washington D.C. lobbying for the Blind Sheikh’s release, the Muslim Brotherhood’s newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi gave a speech in Cairo pledging to work for the Blind Sheikh’s freedom.

The following September when reports of discussions about the transfer of the Blind Sheikh were possibly in the works, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey pointed to Eldin’s Washington D.C. visit as the launching point for the effort in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

The first hint of something fishy came in June, when Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the terrorist group that carried out the Luxor slaughter and who had himself spent 11 years in Egyptian jail on terrorism charges, was granted a visa to come to the United States, where he visited the White House and urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Members of Congress immediately raised questions about how such allowances were made for a member of a designated terrorist organization.The assistant secretary of homeland security for legislative affairs, Nelson Peacock, responded in a July letter. It suggested that no warning flags had been raised during the processing of the Eldin visa, but the letter acknowledged that, as a member of a designated terrorist organization, Hani Nour Eldin would have needed a waiver from someone in authority to get a visa.

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) then demanded that the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general investigate how that waiver was secured and explain what role the department would play in any transfer of Abdel Rahman. Acting Inspector General Charles K. Edwards answered on Sept. 10 with a letter promising that the department would conduct the requested review “and add it to our FY 2013 workplan” (for which no deadline is announced).

It is unclear who in Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued the waiver for Hani Noor Eldin or what else the Homeland Security inspector general discovered.

And Mukasey noted the denials from the Obama administration’s about any discussions of the Blind Sheikh’s transfer were carefully couched and were contradicted by the Egyptian Embassy:

A congressional staffer I spoke with last week recently called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington and asked to speak with the official in charge of the request to release Abdel Rahman. This call elicited not a denial but rather the disclosure that the matter was within the portfolio of the deputy chief of mission, for whom the caller was invited to leave a message.Then there are the statements of U.S. officials on the subject, which all have sounded excruciatingly lawyered. Asked before Congress in July whether there is an intention “at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded: “Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention.”

The State Department’s spokesperson last week, after the ceremonial “let me be clear,” said that there had been no approach on this topic “recently” from any “senior” official of the Egyptian government—an elucidation laden with ambiguity and certain to send chills up the spine of anyone familiar with Abdel Rahman’s record and President Morsi’s inclinations.

Obama administration officials were openly unrepentant about Eldin’s admission to the U.S.

When Rep. Peter King, then chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, questioned Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano about the matter in July 2012, she not only defended Eldin’s visit but vowed that more terrorists could possibly be admitted to the U.S. in similar circumstances.

Did Hillary Clinton play a direct role in allowing Hani Noor Eldin – a known member of a designated terror group – to visit the U.S., meet with senior State Department officials, visit with Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, all in a plan to lobby for the release of the terror group’s imprisoned leader who was responsible for acts of terrorism inside the United States?

If only we had a media willing to ask the Democrat presidential candidate such questions…

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

Hillary Clinton Obstructed Boko Haram Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

REWIND: FBI Shuts Down Russian Spy Ring For Getting Too Cozy with Hillary Clinton

Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

Is the Abedin/Weiner Laptop the Last of It?

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 3, 2016:

A nagging question has been lost amid the tempest over the FBI’s revival of the Clinton e-mails investigation. As everyone knows, the file has been reopened because of a trove of e-mails found on a laptop shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. What we don’t know, however, is: Why has the FBI only recently learned about a computer used by Ms. Abedin?

Remember, Abedin is said to have cooperated in the Clinton e-mails investigation and sat for a lengthy interview with FBI agents. The agents asked her about her e-mail practices. Assuming they asked basic questions, as agents are trained to do, they would have methodically itemized the computers and e-mail accounts she used. Yet, the Abedin/Weiner computer, which is said to contain 650,000 e-mails (an unknown number of which are relevant to the Clinton investigation), was not acquired by the bureau in connection with the Clinton investigation. It was seized in an unrelated investigation of Weiner, reportedly involving his alleged “sexting” with a teenage minor.

Why did the FBI agents on the Clinton e-mails investigation fail to acquire and search this computer months earlier? The question becomes more pressing in light of the Washington Examiner’s report that the FBI failed to ask not only Abedin but other Clinton aides to surrender their computers, smartphones, or other communications devices.

Now, there could be a good explanation, at least in connection with some Clinton aides. If, after a reasonably thorough investigation, the FBI had found no indication that potentially classified information was transmitted or stored on a particular device, there’d be no need to seize it. Let’s say X is a Clinton staffer. Let’s also say the FBI finds that X appears only to have used her government e-mail account for official business; that X did not have an account on the clintonemail.com domain; that whenever Clinton or other government officials e-mailed X, they addressed the e-mail to X’s state.gov account; and that X was cooperative when interviewed and convincingly said she never used her private e-mail for government business. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable not to ask for the surrender of X’s private cellphone or computers.

Let’s now consider, though, the case we actually have. Several Clinton staffers appear to have sent and received e-mails about government business on private devices and private e-mail accounts. A number of those e-mail exchanges involved classified intelligence. It seems like a no-brainer to me that these devices should have been seized and searched.

Why was this not done? There are at least four reasons, none of them good.

First, the Obama Justice Department under Loretta Lynch denied the FBI’s Clinton e-mails investigators access to the grand jury. The grand jury’s power to compel production of evidence and testimony is the source of much of the FBI’s power to convince people to be cooperative. Defanged by DOJ, investigators were forced to negotiate and cajole when they should have been able to demand. That makes it much harder to investigate. It undoubtedly drummed into the agents the message that they should not press too many requests for the voluntary surrender of items the owners would not want to part with — and no one wants to give up personal laptops and smartphones. If a request made by an agent was denied, the agent could have no confidence that the Justice Department would back him.

Second, the Good Ship Clinton overflows with lawyers. It is also very close to the Obama Justice Department (many Obama-administration lawyers were once Clinton-administration lawyers). Lawyers know that the FBI worries about being accused of violating attorney-client privileged communications. They also know that the Obama Justice Department is indulgent of extravagant claims about what the attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure. Lawyers’ devices are thus a big hassle for agents, and they no doubt shy away from asking for them unless it’s patently necessary (as it was, for example, with the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, since those computers were used to store and vet all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails). And when you start shying away from seeking access to the computers of important subjects (such as Mills) because you don’t want to deal with lawyer complications, it becomes much easier to rationalize not seeking the devices of other subjects. Once it is established by habit that obtaining computers is not a priority, you stop asking.

Third, it’s never good to compartmentalize an investigation. In this case, the classified e-mails investigation has apparently been severed from the Clinton Foundation investigation, as if they were completely separate and unrelated. When obviously related matters are joined together, there is a broader basis to demonstrate probable cause that evidentiary items, such as computers, are relevant and should be seized. But that advantage is lost when what should be one investigation is divided into two or more. If you are an agent investigating the classified e-mails case, you are not going to make efforts to acquire a computer that might be very relevant to the Clinton Foundation investigation but only marginally tied to the classified-information probe. When an investigation is artificially carved up, agents do not see the big picture: Things that ought to be acquired end up falling through the cracks.

Fourth and finally, there is the enervating effect of working on an investigation that agents strongly suspect is not going to result in charges. Even as the agents on the classified-information investigation gradually assembled compelling evidence, they had to know that the president and the Justice Department were very unenthusiastic about the case. President Obama talked the investigation down, going out of his way to say Mrs. Clinton would never do anything to harm national security. Justice Department officials leaked the same message to the press.

Put yourself in the shoes of FBI agents who witness things they’ve never seen before: subjects of the investigation given immunity from prosecution and then allowed to appear as lawyers for other subjects; Justice Department lawyers more accommodating of defense lawyers than of FBI agents; witnesses who lie to the FBI given immunity rather than being arrested and squeezed for cooperation. The agents see the handwriting on the wall that their hard work is going to come to nothing. An agent no doubt asks himself: “Why should I push to acquire this computer? If DOJ wanted me to have it, they’d let me subpoena it; if they wanted to make the case, some of these suspects would already be in cuffs.”

This is an understandable attitude, but it’s not an acceptable one. The FBI is not just the nation’s premier investigative agency; it is also our domestic-security service. Wholly apart from whether a computer contains evidence that can be used to prosecute a case, that computer has become a threat to national security if — as a private device that is not hardened against espionage and operates on networks that are not hardened against espionage — it is likely to contain classified information. Even if no one is indicted, the hacking or dissemination of the intelligence on the computer could damage national security.

The reports of the FBI’s investigation that have been made public indicate that there could be dozens of computers and other communications devices which may be storing classified information, but which the FBI has neither seized nor made plans to try to obtain. If that is true, it is inexplicable. That the Justice Department and senior FBI officials have adopted a theory that undermines prosecution of crimes involving mishandling of intelligence is beside the point.

It also raises another question: Is the Abedin/Weiner laptop the last one? Or will late discoveries continue to rock Camp Clinton and roil our politics?

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

If Elected, Will Hillary Place More Muslim Spies in Key Positions?

14910503_1308797512473019_4714908418545617323_nConstitution, by Dave Jolly, November 1, 2016:

For centuries, Arab Muslims and Jews have been fighting. Arab tradition holds that they should be the true heirs of God’s blessing since they are offspring of Abraham’s first-born son Ismael. However, Ismael was born by Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar and not Abraham’s wife Sarah who later bore Abraham a son named Isaac. God then bestowed His blessings and the lands to Abraham, Isaac and all their many descendants. Ever since the alleged prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran between 609 AD and 632 AD, Muslims have hated and fought with Jews. That warring continues today as many Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Taliban, Al Qaeda and others seek to wipe Israel off the map and take the land for themselves.

One of the worst things a Muslim woman could do is to not only associate with a Jewish man but to marry him. Anthony Weiner was a promising Democratic congressman from New York’s 9th District which is located entirely within Brooklyn. First elected in 1999, Weiner easily won re-elections with no less than 59% of the vote. In 2005, he ran for Mayor of New York City and lost, but remained a very popular congressman.

In 2009, Weiner, a Jew, got engaged to Huma Abedin, a Muslim and aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They married in 2010 and now have a son named Jordan Zain Weiner.

In 2012, Weiner was caught sexting messages and nude images of himself, forcing him to resign from Congress in shame, but Abedin stood by him. Weiner is now running for Mayor of New York City again and he has been caught with even more sexting with over half a dozen different women. Weiner refuses to withdraw from the race and his popularity in New York does not seem to be diminished by the scandal. Once again, Abedin stands by her husband.

Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia.  She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

So, one must beg the question why she had been allowed to marry a Jew and not face disgrace from her family and fellow Muslims?

I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process, learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

I believe Huma Abedin is a Muruna and that her marriage to the former Rep. Anthony Weiner was planned and sanctioned by the Muslim Brotherhood. At the time, Weiner had high expectations of furthering his political career, possibly a run for senate seat once held by Hillary Clinton or even higher.  Having a husband in the US Congress would be a great asset to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then Weiner was disgraced and ended up resigning from Congress. If that was the end of his political career, it would seem that a divorce would have been proper, but for some reason, it wasn’t to be. This makes me wonder if Weiner’s run for mayor could have been prompted by the strong encouragement of his wife, Abedin. The Muslim Brotherhood has invested too much into Abedin’s marriage with Weiner to throw it down the tubes so soon, so he is being advised or pressured to run for office again.

Weiner then ran for Mayor of New York City, again, but failed again, yet Abedin remained married to him. Abedin has since been involved in the Hillary Clinton email scandal and her name has come up again when the FBI announced that they were re-opening their investigation into Clinton’s illegal email server, even though US Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered them not as she was protecting Hillary’s campaign. Ironically, the reason the FBI announced their re-opening of the investigation is due to their investigation into Weiner. Finally, there are reports that Abedin and Weiner are officially separating.

However, one still has to wonder if Abedin was an intentional Muslim plant into Hillary Clinton’s State Department. This also raises the question of who Hillary will bring into her confidence if she is elected president? Will she bring in Muslim spies into the White House and her inner circle of Cabinet and national security people?

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with any US top secret material or information because she has no discretion nor does she have any loyalty to America or our national security. Huma Abedin is proof! If elected, will Hillary Clinton place more Muslim spies like Huma Abedin in key positions that will compromise our national security?

***

In case you missed it:

Also see:

Weiner revelation proves Comey dropped the ball on Hillary probe

James Comey Photo: Reuters

James Comey Photo: Reuters

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 28, 2016:

It appears the FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner for sexting an underaged girl have done the job that the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information didn’t or weren’t allowed to do.

Agents reportedly found thousands of State Department-related emails ostensibly containing classified information on the electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The discovery has prompted FBI Director James Comey to, on the eve of the election, reopen the Clinton case he prematurely closed last July.

How did agents examine the devices? By seizing them. It’s a common practice in criminal investigations, but one that clearly was not applied in the case of Clinton or her top aide — even though agents assigned to that case knew Abedin hoarded classified emails on her electronic devices.

The two special agents who interviewed Abedin on April 5 noted as much in their 302 summary of their interview, which took place at the FBI’s Washington field office and notably was attended by the chief of the FBI’s counterespionage section.

On page 3 of their 11-page report, the agents detail how they showed Abedin a classified paper on Pakistan sent from a State Department source which she, in turn, inexplicably forwarded to her personal Yahoo email account — an obviously unclassified, unencrypted, unsecured and unauthorized system. The breach of security was not an isolated event but a common practice with Abedin.

“She routinely forwarded emails from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her yahoo.com account,” the agents wrote. Why? “So she could print them” at home and not at her State Department office.

Abedin contended that she “would typically print the documents without reading them” and “was unaware of the classification.” Uh-huh.

The FBI also pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Another close Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

In her April interview with the FBI, Abedin incredulously maintained that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Clinton family residence in Chappaqua.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with computer skills built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008.”

Skeptical agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

So if you believe Abedin, she didn’t know the private clintonemail.com server that hosted her huma@clintonemail.com account even existed until she heard about it in the news. Comey was a believer; he didn’t even bother to call her back for further questioning. Case closed.

But Abedin’s role in this caper begs for fresh scrutiny. Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony. So is mishandling classified information.

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account and printing them out at home, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Let’s see if Comey puts the screws to Abedin and leverages her for information on her boss. If he agrees to cut another immunity deal, we’ll know the fix is still in.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com

***

***

***

BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

huma-abedin-hillarys-other-daughter-clinton-02

Witnesses say Clinton aide “overrode security protocols,” hoarded classified information at home.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was huma@clintonemail.com, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Make America Victorious Again

FOREIGN POLICYClaremont, by Angelo M. Codevilla, October 18, 2016:

At the 2016 elections our bipartisan foreign policy class is near-unanimous, not so much behind Hillary Clinton nor even against Donald Trump. Rather, it circles its wagons around its own identities, ideas, practices, and, yes, livelihoods. Clinton represents the ruling class’s people and priorities in foreign affairs as in domestic ones, though she seems to care even less about the former’s substance. Trump, a stranger to most of the foreign policy class (though not to its current epitome, Henry Kissinger) has voiced views on foreign affairs that are within the establishment’s variances in substance if not in tone. Chastise and threaten NATO for its lack of contributions? Senate majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) offered an amendment to that effect in 1970. Cozy up to Putin? Hillary Clinton brought him a bright red “reset” button in 2009.

Nevertheless, the foreign policy class does not merely reject Trump; it detests him. Why? Because Trump, in tone even more than substance, expresses the subversive thought that U.S. foreign policy has failed to “put America first,” causing the nation to suffer defeat after defeat. Hence, the entire foreign policy class—in the bureaucracies, think tanks, academe, and the media—are a bunch of losers. Millions of Americans consider these two thoughts to be common sense. But the above-mentioned class takes the first as the root of heresies, and the second as a demagogic insult. Consequently, the 2016 election is not so much about any particular plank in any foreign policy platform. It is about who defines and what constitutes common sense.

Who and what

Why the fuss? Obviously, foreign policy’s formulators and executors are their country’s fiduciaries. Though it follows logically that they should mind no interest before their country’s, nevertheless our foreign policy class’s defining characteristic for a hundred years has been to subsume America’s interest into considerations they deem worthier. The following is our foreign policy class’s common sense, which it hopes the 2016 elections will affirm.

Since Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Democratic and Republican statesmen have confused America’s interest with mankind’s. In practice, they have taken upon themselves the role of mankind’s stewards (or sheriffs, leaders, pillars of order, or whatever) and acted as if, in Wilson’s words, America has “no reason for being” except to “stand for the right of men,” to be “champions of humanity.” Accordingly, a series of statesmen has forsaken war and diplomacy for strictly American ends and with means adequate to achieve them, and adopted foredoomed schemes pursued halfheartedly—Charles Evans Hughes (commitment to China’s integrity and renunciation of the means to uphold it), Franklin Roosevelt (seeking world co-domination with Stalin and the U.N. to banish “ancient evils, ancient ills”), Harry Truman (pursuing peace through no-win war in Korea), Nixon/Kissinger (scuttling Vietnam to help entice the Soviets into a grand detente), George W. Bush (democratizing the Middle East because America can’t be free unless and until the whole world is free).

Instead of Theodore Roosevelt’s maxim “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” these Progressives’ maxim seems to have been: speak grandly while brandishing twigs. The pattern has been consistent: Think global order, make political-military commitments if not in secret then certainly without the American people’s affirmative consent, commit military forces while avoiding declarations of war or specifying how success is to be achieved, and refuse to calibrate American military commitments to what opponents might do to thwart our forces. Then, when the enterprise falls apart, seek scapegoats.

[***]

Inexorably, Progressive foreign policy is gravitating in the direction of foreign Progressive forces. For Progressives, the benevolence of “the Arab Street” and even of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood is an article of faith. From government, the media, and the universities, Progressives indict as racists anyone who imputes responsibility for terrorism to Arabs, Muslims, or Islam. America’s Muslims vote Democrat. Any Progressive president would find it hard to depart from this part of his tribal identity, least of all Hillary Clinton, whose top aide, Huma Abedin, is deeply connected to the Muslim world. The Democratic Party, along with its bench in academe, has identified increasingly with Israel’s enemies as fellow Progressives. Surely and not so slowly, our foreign policy class has acted more and more as if Israel’s refusal to accede to Arab demands were the chief cause of the Middle East’s troubles.

Imagine, then, what effects the intensification of U.S. foreign policy’s trends would produce in the not so distant future. Then, considering how these effects would manifest themselves on America’s streets, ask how the American people are likely to react.

The 2016 election is about whether that pattern should change. How much, if at all, it would change under Trump matters much less than the mere possibility it might change. Trump’s virtue in foreign policy lies in having voiced this simple, vital thought: U.S. foreign policy must put America first, and deliver victories rather than defeats. Whether Trump really believes that, whether he would act on it, or even whether he understands past mistakes, is secondary.

Read more

WHY HILLARY’S NOT REALLY SORRY: FBI Files Reveal ‘Blatant Disregard’ For Classified Information

hillary-benghazi

FBI Files Show She Isn’t Really Sorry About Mishandling Classified Info — And Would Do It Again (Only Worse)

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 18, 2016:

At the last presidential debate, Hillary Clinton again apologized for setting up an unauthorized private email server in her basement, while assuring voters she has the utmost respect for classified information: “I take classified material very seriously, and always have.”

But FBI investigators who interviewed her and those assigned to protect her and the classified material that came into her orbit tell another story. They say she exhibited a blatant disregard for the classification process and security procedures in general.

Newly released FBI notes quote a member of the former secretary of state’s protective detail who complained that Clinton “frequently and blatantly disregarded” security protocols, including refusing to follow a standard rule to leave her unsecured cell phone outside secure facilities known as SCIFs. Such electronic devices pose a threat to security, because foreign intelligence agencies can take remote control of them and use them to conduct surveillance inside the SCIF.

“Clinton’s treatment of agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment,” the FBI document said.

When FBI investigators interviewed Clinton, she insisted she “never” brought her phone into the SCIF and always kept it outside.

In that July interview, agents showed her a dozen examples of classified information that turned up on her unclassified email system, which she accessed through her phone. Asked about the security breaches, Clinton in each case shrugged that she “had no concerns” about them.

For instance, agents said, “Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”

She even stated she “did not pay attention to the level of classified information.”

When her email scandal first broke last year, her campaign argued that much of the information the government deems secret is actually “overclassified.” But FBI agents interviewed career diplomats who upon seeing the classified emails she sent and received agreed they were not overclassified, but were in fact highly sensitive, particularly those concerning the US drone program and other secret military programs.

According to a recently released FBI 302 interview summary, one diplomat “stated that after seeing the above referenced documents, he now understood why people were concerned about this matter.”

The Clintons have a long history of showing reckless disregard for classified information.

As soon as the Clintons stepped into the White House in 1993, President Clinton ordered the mass declassification of America’s secret nuclear archive from 1945 to 1994 over the strenuous objections of career Pentagon officials, who protested that divulging the information would help foreign bad actors construct, steal or sabotage nuclear weapons or glean details about the capabilities of the US nuclear arsenal.

Former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney likened it to a Pearl Harbor attack on the US national security structure.

“This policy actually had the effect of turning shelves of restricted data into unclassified documents,” Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, told Investor’s Business Daily in 1999.

Staffers at the Energy Department, which controls the nation’s nuclear weapons program, were ordered to declassify materials “at such an extraordinary speed that they weren’t even able to review the boxes, let alone the files — to say nothing of the individual papers,” he added.

Clinton even had Energy’s Office of Classification renamed the Office of De-classification.

Gaffney noted that the information the Clinton administration declassified “got down to data that bear on nuclear weapons design, where nuclear materials are held and where nuclear weapons are stockpiled.”

For Chinese communist spies trying to collect such information, it “did make it easier for them,” a nuclear weapons security expert told IBD at the time. “There’s no question about it.”

Several years after the unprecedented declassification effort, the Chinese suddenly made great strides in sharpening their nuclear capability and threatening the US with ICBMs fitted with multiple warheads.

Hillary Clinton, who would carry her dangerously cavalier attitude toward classified information and U.S. security into the White House with her, would likely readopt such a declassification program. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, has already indicated that she would declassify certain military files as president and commander in chief.

Podesta served as President Clinton’s chief of staff. In 1995, he was among the White House aides who urged Clinton to sign an executive order automatically declassifying all government documents containing historical information 25 years or older.