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


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.

State Department tried to bribe FBI to unclassify Clinton emails

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Daniel Harper, October 17, 2016:

A top State Department official offered a “quid pro quo” to an FBI investigator to declassify an e-mail from Hillary Clinton’s private server in exchange for allowing the bureau to operate in countries where it was banned, stunning new documents revealed Monday.

The FBI documents show that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pitched the deal to the unnamed agent, allegedly as part of an effort to back up Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive classified documents on the server in her Westchester home.

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’ ” according to the documents, which summarized interviews the feds conducted in the summer of 2015 while investigating Clinton’s e-mail practices.

“[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the e-mail unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” the document added.

One State Department staffer described feeling “immense pressure” to complete the review quickly and to not label anything as classified.

Officials were told there was nothing classified in the 296 emails about Benghazi that were among those under review, the document stated.

State’s inspector general also told the FBI that Kennedy’s “tone and tenor were definitely not positive when dealing” with his office.

“[REDACTED] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON e-mails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” the documents stated.

The documents also showed that Kennedy was not happy cooperating with the feds — and wanted some emails kept secret.

In one instance, Kennedy wanted information changed to an obscure classification code called B9, to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”

The B9 exemption is normally used to protect geological and geophysical data and maps to keep details about oil and gas wells secret.

Some of the interview notes appear contradictory.

In one, an FBI official said he heard that State had offered the “quid pro quo.”

But a different FBI official in a separate document said it was the FBI that made the offer to review the e-mail if State helped the bureau get agents in Iraq.

In what could be a scene out of a novel, a group of ranking State officials — dubbed “the shadow government” — would meet on Wednesdays to discuss the Clinton e-mail scandal, the documents showed.

During another meeting with the FBI, CIA and other agencies, Kennedy was asked whether any of the emails in question were classified.

“Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see,’” Kennedy responded.

Donald Trump’s campaign didn’t waste any time attacking the latest disclosures.

“CORRUPTION CONFIRMED: FBI confirms State Dept. offered ‘quid pro quo’ to cover up classified emails,” Trump said on Twitter, retweeting a post by Official Team Trump.

“The news that top Clinton aide Patrick Kennedy tried to engage in a blatant quid pro quo for changing the classification level of several of Clinton’s e-mails shows a cavalier attitude towards protecting our nation’s secrets. Kennedy must resign from the State Department immediately,” said Trump spokesman Jason Miller.

House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that Kennedy be fired and an investigation started.

“We find Under Secretary Kennedy’s actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it – that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets,” they said in a statement. “Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending a full investigation.”

Both State and the FBI said Monday that the document under discussion remained classified and that the request for agents to operate in other countries was not part of any quid pro quo deal.

The bureau said in a statement that investigators were reviewing the emails to determine whether they were properly classified.

“Any assertion that this was somehow a tit for tat or quid pro quo or exchange in that manner, frankly, is insulting,” State spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

“[The agent] was on the phone with Pat Kennedy and took advantage of that fact to raise the issue of [more] slots in Baghdad,” he said.

“I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were saying these kinds of things. Clearly he was expressing a personal opinion about what happened,” he added.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook argued that disputes over classification between State and other departments was “not unusual.”

He called for an investigation into the FBI’s investigation.

The documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act following a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

We are disconcerted by what we have found thus far from publicly accessible sources about the possible hacking of Hillary Clinton’s illicit server,” Tom Fitton, the group’s president, said in a statement.

“It is unfortunate that Judicial Watch – not Congress or federal law enforcement – undertook this basic investigative step.”



Also see:

Clinton Campaign Tried to Limit Damage From Classified Info on Email Server

 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, October 18, 2016:

Documents from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign show researchers justified leaks of top secret data on drone strikes and North Korea’s nuclear program found on her private email server by highlighting similar disclosures.

The detailed reports on the classified information found on Clinton’s private email system were produced by campaign researchers and sent to senior officials, including campaign chairman John Podesta, by opposition research director Tony Carrk on January 29.

The documents were among thousands of hacked emails obtained from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted last week on Wikileaks. The U.S. intelligence community has accused Russia of orchestrating the hack in order to influence the U.S. presidential election.

The documents were part of what Carrk, the campaign’s research director, called “pushback on classification” after news reports days earlier had revealed that information classified above top secret was found on the unsecure private email server Clinton used while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The campaign used six different lines of political counterattack in an attempt to exonerate Clinton of charges she had leaked highly classified information.

The methods ranged from asserting “congressional hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information to listing how other senior government officials discussed similar information about drone strikes and satellite secrets about North Korea’s nuclear program.

The research appears to have been compiled in response to a January 14 letter to Congress from I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the nation’s intelligence agencies, who stated that some of the secrets found in Clinton’s emails were classified at the “Top Secret/SAP [special access program]” level. The classification marking SAP is reserved for the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.

The FBI launched its criminal investigation into the secrets found on Clinton’s email server on July 10, 2015 based on McCullough’s request, according to FBI documents made public on Monday.

“The FBI’s investigation focused on determining whether classified information was transmitted or stored on unclassified systems in violation of federal criminal statutes and whether classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means,” the FBI report states.

The report said seven email chains and 22 emails contained SAP secrets. These emails included discussions between Clinton and Jake Sullivan, at the time her deputy chief of staff for policy and currently a campaign policy adviser.

When questioned by the FBI, Sullivan told investigators that the SAP information was discussed due to “the operational tempo at the time.” He also asserted that some of the secrets might have appeared in news reports.

Three other email chains contained sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, a classification of data more restricted than top secret.

Among those who trafficked in the classified information were Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, and five people not in the State Department, including Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal.

FBI Director James Comey, in a controversial decision, announced July 5 that while Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in mishandling highly secret information, he did not recommend that the Justice Department prosecute her on charges of mishandling classified information.

The FBI had, however, found signs that “foreign hostile actors” had gained access to some of Clinton’s private emails after hacking an associate’s email account.

The hacked documents show a concerted effort by campaign staff to deflect criticism from Clinton.

One report, labeled “Drone Email,” states that the emails under scrutiny by investigators “did not involve information obtained through a classified product but is classified because it pertains to drones.” The report claims that the highly classified information on drones was contained in news articles discussed in the emails.

The report linked to a 2012 report in Politico that quoted President Obama in a Google Plus video chat acknowledging drone attacks on al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The report quoted published reports from “U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence” as identifying the classified information in the emails about drones as “discussion of a drone strike.” The report stated that the discussion centered on “a covert program that is widely known as discussed.”

A second email improperly referred to highly classified material that could have reflected information gathered independently of U.S. intelligence.

The report stated that the State Department had published several email chains “that appear to discuss CIA drone strikes in Pakistan,” including an email to Clinton aides from CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash referring to an Associated Press report on a dispute between the State Department and CIA about drone strikes in Pakistan as “a stinker.”

Another campaign report stated that “leading Democrats and administration officials” have frequently mentioned U.S. drone strikes, including Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Sen. Diane Feinstein (Calif.), Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Republican senators and congressmen also were quoted as mentioning drone strikes.

A 16-page campaign report labeled “North Korea Email” attempted to refute a September 1, 2015Washington Times report that stated the inspector general had identified a Clinton email that revealed the secret movement of North Korean nuclear assets derived from spy satellites.

The report said the information appeared to have been transmitted by a Clinton aide who summarized it from secret intelligence reports labeled “Talent Keyhole,” the code name for intelligence derived from imagery satellites.

“The Washington Times is reporting that ‘multiple intelligence sources’ are happy to discuss allegedly ‘top secret’ information as long as they are provided anonymity to criticize Hillary Clinton,” the report said, noting that the Associated Press and the New York Times had reported on similar secrets.

A 31-page campaign report labeled “Overclassification” stated that classified information found in the emails was the result of an “arbitrary and inconsistent” policy toward classified information.

“The federal government requires employees to treat drone program as highly classified despite wide public knowledge,” the report states, adding that the classified information system is outdated and no longer works with modern diplomacy.

The report quotes McCullough, the intelligence community IG, as disputing claims of information overclassification but noted he had been criticized for saying so.

A separate report argued that Clinton was being unfairly criticized over the email server because of “bad retroactive classification,” or information that was declared secret after it was sent in emails.

Another report criticized Sens. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) for “hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information.

Grassley was criticized by campaign researchers for pressuring the State Department to classify Clinton’s emails over concerns that they contained intelligence information.

Clinton Email Server Hit in Cyber Attacks From Russians, Other Hackers

 (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, October 18, 2016:

Hackers from Russia attempted to break in to Hillary Clinton’s private email server although the cyber intrusions did not appear to be successful, according to FBI documents made public Monday.

FBI investigators issued a qualified assessment of whether foreign hackers broke into the email server, stating in the heavily redacted report that it could not confirm evidence of foreign hacking.

The FBI concluded that the unsecure email system was “potentially vulnerable to compromise” and was frequently attacked by unknown foreign hackers, according to part one of a four-part report.

Hacking attempts against Clinton’s private email server increased sharply after the New York Times revealed its existence on March 2, 2015. The cyber attacks were targeted against the server, an associated domain controller, and Clinton’s Apple iCloud account, the FBI stated.

The Times report did not identify Clinton’s email address, but the FBI said hackers likely learned her email address from open sources after aide Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL email was hacked in 2013. Among the hacked emails made public were emails between Blumenthal and Clinton writing under the email alias “hdr22.”

The FBI stated that Blumenthal was hacked by the Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, known as “Guccifer,” and suggested he was linked to Moscow.

U.S. intelligence agencies announced on October 7 that the Russian government, operating through cutouts identified as Wikileaks,, and Guccifer 2.0, directed the hacks of American political organizations in a bid to influence the U.S. presidential election.

“Lazar disseminated emails and attachments sent between Blumenthal and Clinton to 31 media outlets, including a Russian broadcasting company,” the FBI said.

Additionally, hackers from Russia and Ukraine tried to log in to Clinton’s email accounts shortly after Guccifer’s hack of Blumenthal.

“An examination of log files from March 2013 indicated that IP addresses from Russia and Ukraine attempted to scan the server on March 15, 2013, the day after the Blumenthal compromise, and on March 19 and March 21, 2013,” the report said. “However, none of these attempts were successful and it could not be determined whether this activities was attributable to Lazar.”

Lazar’s claim to Fox News that he used information from Blumenthal’s emails to break into the Clinton server was false, the FBI said after questioning the hacker.

Other cyber attacks on the server included numerous attempted break-ins described by the FBI as “brute force” attacks—repeated log-in attempts, usually by automated hacking software.

Brian Pagliano, who was the system administrator for the email server, told the FBI that the brute force cyber attacks increased over time, although he asserted there were no security breaches to the system.

The server used for the emails also employed a Microsoft remote access protocol that the FBI described as having “known vulnerabilities” to hackers.

In January 2011, Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton who helped set up the private email, notified Clinton aide Huma Abedin that the system was being hacked and that he had shut it down in response. The FBI was unable to identify what it termed the “successful malicious login activity” from the hack.

Forensic analysis by FBI investigators determined that “scanning attempts” by outside cyber intruders took place against the private server and “one appears to have resulted in a successful compromise of an email account on the server,” the report said.

The hack took place on January 5, 2013, when an anonymous user operating Tor software hijacked the email account of a woman described by the FBI only as a “President Clinton staffer.” The hacker then browsed email folders and attachments.

The FBI also stated that potentially malicious hackers tried to exploit software vulnerabilities in the server on multiple occasions, although they were not successful.

The report stated there were major gaps in the investigation of cyber intrusions because the FBI did not have access to all 13 mobile devices Clinton used during her tenure as secretary of state.

“As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise,” the report said, noting the FBI also did not examine two of Clinton’s five iPads for signs of compromise.

Clinton was the target of multiple email “phishing” attempts while using the private server, including a fake email from a State Department official’s email account that contained a potentially malicious link.

Clinton sent a reply to the email asking, “Is this really you? I was worried about opening it?”

Another email quoted Abedin as telling a colleague Clinton was worried “someone [was] hacking into her email” after she received an email from an associate with a link to a website with pornographic material.

“The FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server log data for the relevant time period limited the FBI’s forensic analysis of the server system,” the report said.

“As a result, FBI cyber analysis relied, in large part, on witness statements, email correspondence and related forensic content found on other devices to understand the setup, maintenance, administration and security of the server systems.”

More than 15 pages of the 47-page FBI report were cut out according to declassified guidelines that allow information to be withheld on national defense and foreign policy grounds, and to prevent the disclosure of techniques and procedures used for law enforcement prosecutions that would be useful to cyber criminals.

Seven Clinton Policy Priorities That Would Devastate America


Staring at years 9 to 12 of the Obama administration.

Front Page Magazine, by John Perazzo, October 18, 2016:

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will seek to move the country in the same hard-left direction as Barack Obama. This article focuses on seven Clinton policy priorities that will have the most devastating impact on the American people.

1. Importing 65,000 Syrian “Refugees”

In order to address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Mrs. Clinton has explicitly called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

Clinton is committed to this reckless policy even though ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own bloodthirsty operatives; even though more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015 alone; and even though high-ranking officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all made it clear that it isimpossible to reliably screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees.

2. Amnesty & Open Borders

Mrs. Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office, and pledges to “go even further” than the two unconstitutional executive orders (DACA and DAPA) by which President Obama has already protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation. It is all part of the Democrats’ long-term master plan to transform the American electorate into a permanent Democrat voting bloc by importing massive numbers of people who can be counted upon to support the political party that offers them the largest number of welfare-state benefits. Clinton also supports what she terms “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” And she smears those people who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American.”

3. Sanctuary Cities

Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clintonexplains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

4. Gutting the Second Amendment

Lamenting that “too many families in America have suffered — and continue to suffer — from gun violence,” Mrs. Clinton has stated that crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers and retailers who lawfully produced or sold a gun that was used in a crime. Such a policy would inevitably cause the firearms industry to disappear, and thus would eliminate the Second Amendment virtually overnight.

In a similar spirit, Clinton has denounced the Supreme Court’s “terrible” ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that people have a right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

When Clinton was asked at a New Hampshire town hall meeting whether she would support a gun-buyback measure similar to the one where Australia had “managed to … take away …  millions of handguns” in a single year, she replied: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

5. Expanding Obamacare and Pursuing a Single-Payer System

Clinton states unequivocally that she plans to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), which has caused insurance premiums and policy deductibles nationwide to skyrocket, while almost every Obamacare state exchange in the country has already gone bankrupt.

To address the monumental failure and financial implosion of Obamacare, Mrs. Clinton proposes to implement a “public option” — i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would “compete” with private insurers. Pacific Research Institute President Sally Pipes explains what would happen in that case: “By drawing on taxpayer dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers would be ‘crowded out,’ leaving Americans with just one choice: a government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health sector under government control.”

But that’s just fine with Hillary Clinton, because her ultimate, long-range goal is to have a “single-payer,” “universal” healthcare system that is run entirely by the federal government. Indeed, her presidential campaign website candidly states that she “has never given up on the fight for universal coverage.”

And what does the empirical evidence show, regarding the effectiveness of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world? It’s actually quite clear. As the Cato Institute puts it: “In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.”

6. Stacking the Supreme Court with Leftist Ideologues

When Mrs. Clinton was asked, in the second presidential debate, to articulate what would be her chief considerations for selecting nominees to the Supreme Court, she never once mentioned fidelity to the Constitution. Instead, she stated that Justices should try to tip the proverbial scales of power, in favor of people who lack wealth and influence: “I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the way the world really works … [and] actually understand what people are up against.”  In other words, Mrs. Clinton prefers Justices who seek to enforce her particular vision of “social justice,” rather than blind, unbiased justice. Anyone whom she nominates will be an activist judge — in the mold of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer — whose foremost allegiance will be to left-wing ideology, not the Constitution.

7. Fighting Voter ID Laws As “Racist” Schemes to Disenfranchise Minorities

At an August 2013 meeting of the American Bar Association, Mrs. Clinton lamented that “more than 80 bills restricting voting rights” had been “introduced in 31 states” during the first eight months of that year. These were generally bills calling for Voter ID requirements at polling places, the shortening of early-voting periods, and the elimination of same-day voter registration. All of these proposed measures were designed to reduce the likelihood of voter fraud, but Mrs. Clinton depicted them as “voter suppression” efforts that were part of a racist scheme to “disproportionately [disenfranchise] African-Americans, Latino[s] and young voters.” On another occasion, Clintonsaid that Voter ID laws are a form of “fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud.”

Is Mrs. Clinton correct? Is it a “phantom epidemic”? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself: A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that 24 million voter registrations — one-eighth of all registrations nationwide — were either invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million dead people who were still registered.273 A 2014 study found that 35,570 people who had actually voted in North Carolina, had first names, last names, and birth dates that matched those of voters who had cast ballots in other states.275 A 2006 study found that 77,000 dead people were listed on New York’s statewide database of registered voters, and that as many as 2,600 of them had somehow managed to cast ballots from the grave.277 In 2011, a Coloradostudy found that of the nearly 12,000 non-citizens who were illegally registered to vote in that state, about 5,000 had taken part in the 2010 general election.281


These are just seven of the more significant policy priorities that Hillary Clinton, if elected President, will seek to implement as a means of continuing to advance the “fundamental transformation” of the United States that Barack Obama has pursued for the past eight years. These particular agenda items would serve to: compromise America’s national security and the personal safety of its citizens; dissolve the country’s borders and turn the very notion of citizenship into a quaint, pathetic joke; make it nearly impossible for American citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property from violent assailants; create precisely the type of healthcare system that has consistently resulted in long waiting lists, substandard care, and unnecessary loss of life wherever it has previously been implemented; transform the Supreme Court into nothing more than a rubber-stamp institution whose only purpose will be to give a veneer of legitimacy to a tyranny that answers to no one; and turn political elections into obvious farces, with no more legitimacy than their counterparts in whatever banana republic, Communist dictatorship, or Middle Eastern hell hole you can name.

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Top Wikileaks Podesta Emails (Update 2)


Update by Joe Hoft

Below is a detailed list of noteworthy Podesta emails recently released by WikiLeaks –

Hillary Policies –

Hillary Clinton Dreams of ‘Open Trade and Open Borders’
Hillary Admits Saudi Arabia and Qatar Fund ISIS – But Took Their Money Anyway
Hillary sat on Board that funded ISIS
Hillary’s own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi
Hillary bragged about being invited to Russia’s Putin’s ‘Inner Sanctum’
Clinton Campaign Fudged Climate Change Data – Inflated Emission Numbers
Hillary team picked Tim Kaine as VP in July 2015
Clinton Camp worried as Chelsea hosts “fundraiser” aka Cash payment for Radical Islamic Group that wants to end Israel

Hillary and the Media –

CNBC Crank John Harwood Abused GOP Candidates at Debate – Then Trashed Them in Email to Hillary Camp
DNC Chief Donna Brazile Conspired with Hillary to Defeat Bernie; Media Assisted Hillary
The List of Reporters Were Taking Marching Orders from Hillary
Bill Clinton sex “allegations are hurting both Clintons”
Hillary Campaign thanking Univision’s owner Haim Saban for its moderators handling of Hillary against Sanders.
Hillary reads script during interview
CNN refers to Hillary as ‘Madre’
Hacks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner…
WASH POST bureau chief protected Podesta…
NYT Gave Hillary Veto Power On Quotes…
BRAZILE BUSTED: DNC Chief Shared CNN Town Hall Questions…
TRUMP: Hillary Wants World Government; Unlimited immigration; Rule by corporations…
FOX News Mole Leaked Town Hall Question to Clinton Campaign

(from Conservative Treehouse the emails the media won’t cover)

Corrupt Hillary and Obama –

Hillary team discussed deleting emails knowing it was against the law
Hillary Campaign Was in Touch with Obama DOJ on Email Investigation
Hillary trying to
get in front of email issue
Hillary’s attorney David Kendall did not turn over
thumb drive and server
accepting foreign money
Hillary’s team doesn’t
know what’s in her emails and is nervous about it
gave special attention to ‘Friends of Bill’ after Haiti quake
Hillary’s 2009 Catholic liaison
arrested for prostitution ring
Top Clinton donor
paid $250 million for tax evasion
Clinton Staffers Discussed Which Emails To Release…
And Which to DELETE!
Clinton Campaign Chief Owned 75,000 Shares of Putin-Connected Energy Company
Podesta Documents Suggest
Scalia Assassination
Hillary and Dept of Justice appeared to have colluded
Hillary’s own campaign doesn’t understand why she deleted 33,000 emails
Hillary sends intel to Podesta on unsecured server
Hillary’s Podesta and Soros are working together
Hillary’s people worried Chelsea Clinton sharing information with Bush daughter about Clinton’s corruption
Robby Mook: “it’s a little troubling” that meeting of Clinton Foundation was held at Goldman Sachs HQ
Bill Clinton receives a million dollar birthday check from Qatar
Huma admits Foreign Interests own HRC
Chelsea Clinton (CVC) Busted Stealing from Clinton Foundation!!!

Racist, Elitist, Bernie Fan Hating Hillary –

Hillary Advisors Admit She “HATES EVERYDAY AMERICANS
Racist Hillary Trashes African Americans – Calls Them Losers
Hillary Calls Bernie Fans and Millennials “Bucket of Losers” in Goldman Sachs Speech
Hillary Clinton: “I’m Kind of Far Removed from Struggles of Middle Class
Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does.
Hillary too afraid to ask for Bernie’s medical records. Knowing Hillary’s medical records are much worse
Massive Clinton ‘hits’ file on Bernie
Hillary says ignorant voters are the key to the win
Hillary wants unaware and compliant citizenry
Dems planned to fool Sanders supporters at convention…
‘His people will think they’ve won something’…

‘Bitching’ Bernie Voters…
Biden Aide Sabotaged His Presidential Aspirations?
Hillary didn’t like ‘bitch’ in the interview

Hillary and Catholics

Podesta and Left-Wing Activist Plot ‘Catholic Spring’
Hillary’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri TRASHES CATHOLICS…

WikiLeaks – Podesta emails –

Other –

DC Leaks Website Releases Hacked Clinton State Department Documents

Also see below link where many of these items were identified –


WIKILEAKS: Hillary Staff Discussed Hiding Obama-Hillary Emails from Investigators – Then Deleted Them (VIDEO)



Hillary says she can’t recall details of private server 21 times – Plus Wikileaks reveals Obama link to Server

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Associated Press, October 14, 2016:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton said under oath in a court filing Thursday that she can’t recall key details about her use of a private email server or she refused to answer questions about it posed by a conservative legal group.

Clinton lawyer David Kendall provided the Democratic presidential nominee’s sworn responses to 25 written questions submitted by Judicial Watch. The group has filed multiple lawsuits seeking copies of government documents from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Clinton’s answers provided no new information beyond what she told FBI agents during the recently closed investigation into whether she and her staff mishandled classified information.

In her responses, Clinton used some variation of “does not recall” at least 21 times.

For example, Clinton was asked when she decided to use her private email account to conduct government business and whom she consulted in making that decision.

Clinton said she recalled making the decision in early 2009, but she “does not recall any specific consultations regarding the decision.”

Asked whether she was warned that using a private email account conflicted with federal record-keeping rules, Clinton responded that “she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed.”

Judicial Watch had sought to depose Clinton in person about the creation of the private server located in the basement of her New York home. In August, US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan instead ordered the Democratic presidential nominee to respond to the group’s questions in writing.

In addition to her inability to recall the requested information, Clinton entered various legal objections to the formation or wording of 18 of the 25 questions. She also filed eight separate general objections to the process under which the questions were being asked.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group’s lawyers will closely review Clinton’s responses.

“Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner further reflects disdain for the rule of law,” Fitton said.

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman protested the process in a statement Thursday night. He said Sullivan’s denial of Freedom Watch’s requests for an oral deposition “cleverly allowed Hillary Clinton … to stonewall giving responsive and meaningful answers.”

Klayman continued, “Now, even if motions to compel complete and responsive answers are filed, they will not be decided for some time, and Judge Sullivan will have run out the clock — paving the way for Hillary Clinton … to easily win the presidency.”

Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said Clinton has answered these same questions in multiple settings for over a year, and her answers Thursday “are entirely consistent with what she has said many times before.”

“Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s, and this frivolous lawsuit is just its latest failed attempt to hurt her campaign for the presidency,” Fallon said.


Ed Henry Reports on Podesta Email Involving President Obama Day After Subpoena

Also see:

The Clinton Record

clinton-pursed-lipsFront Page Magazine, John Perazzo, October 14, 2016:

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

Clinton’s Private Email Server & the Espionage Act

Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1 And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2

Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”3 It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server, but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed to smash them with a hammer.4

Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least 2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained classified material.5 As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain, each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6 And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7

In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the odds are pretty high” that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Clinton’s unsecured email server.8

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of our country’s most hostile enemies around the world.

The Clinton Foundation Scandals

In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10 Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15

Even during Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.

Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife’s term as secretary.16

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton’s 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.17

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18

But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn’t it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.

Clinton’s Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Vowing that Mrs. Clinton will “preven[t] Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the Clinton presidential campaign website assures Americans that “Hillary will vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran.” Is this a good thing? Consider that the agreement’s key provisions were as follows:

  • Iran was permitted to keep more than 5,000 centrifuges.
  • Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief.
  • Russia and China were permitted to supply Iran with weapons.
  • Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from its military installations, and was promised that it would receive 14 days’ notice for any request to visit a given site.
  • Only inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites; thus there would be no American inspectors.
  • An embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran would be officially lifted in 5 years.
  • Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program would remain intact.
  • The U.S. pledged that it would provide technical assistance to help Iran develop its nuclear program and protect its nuclear facilities, supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes.
  • Sanctions would be lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military.
  • Iran was not required to release American prisoners whom it was holding on trumped-up charges.21

As a result of this nuclear deal that Mrs. Clinton so enthusiastically supports, Iran is guaranteed of having a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the scores of millions of women in the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere, whose very lives have been placed in irreversible peril as a result of this deal.

Clinton Helps Russia Gain Control of 20% of All U.S. Uranium

In 2007-08, a Canadian named Ian Telfer, chairman of a South African uranium-mining company called Uranium One, funneled millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. In June 2010, the Russian government made an extremely generous offer to Uranium One’s shareholders. If the offer were to be accepted, Russia would gain a 51% controlling stake in the company.

But because Uranium One controlled one-fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves — and uranium, a key component in both nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry, is considered a strategic asset with implications for American national security — the deal with Russia could not be permitted without the approval of the American government. Specifically, that approval could be granted only by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is composed of several of the most powerful members of the cabinet — the Attorney General as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Treasury, Homeland Security, Energy, and State. (The latter, of course, was Hillary Clinton.)22

Without the approval of these seven Obama administration officials, Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One could not have taken place. All seven, including Hillary Clinton, gave their go-ahead for the deal. As a result, the Russian government took control of fully 20% of all uranium production capacity in the United States.23

In June 2010 — the very month in which the Russian acquisition of Uranium One was approved by the CFIUS — Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow for the astronomical sum of $500,000. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. And Mr. Clinton’s speaking fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.24

But hey, who cares? At least Hillary Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless millions whose safety has been placed in jeopardy by permitting American uranium to be gobbled up by a hostile, fascist Russia.

The Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton’s Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and Syria

Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in the city of Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. American personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Clinton State Department for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these requests were either denied or ignored.25

On the night of September 11, 2012, a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi with great violence.26 In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

For weeks thereafter, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what had occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as a carefully orchestrated act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video.

For the administration, it was vital to continue putting forth this false narrative because, with the presidential election only a few weeks away, nothing could be permitted to puncture the Obama-Clinton talking points: “Al Qaeda is on the run” and “Osama bin Laden is dead.”27

In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the YouTube video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.28

On January 23, 2013 — fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi — Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. At one point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked her whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, “I do not know. I have no information on that.”29

But a March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. And another Times article described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels (who were fighting Syrian President Assad) in precisely that manner.30 In other words, Clinton had lied in her congressional testimony to Rand Paul.

It should be noted that the Syrian rebels whom Clinton and Obama were aiding consisted of Islamic jihadists, many of whom were affiliated with Al Qaeda. In July 2016, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed that a batch of hacked DNC emails contained information proving that Clinton, contrary to what she had said in her congressional testimony in 2013, knew as early as 2011 that the U.S. was sending arms from Libya to jihadists in Syria.31

And in October 2016, a Fox News report indicated that Obama and Clinton had also arranged for the provision of weapons to radical jihadists in Libya.32

In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed — in the basement of the State Department’s headquarters — a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton’s deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks.33

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including: (a) the Libyan and Syrian women whose lives were destroyed by the jihadists whom Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported, and (b) the wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of the four Americans who were slaughtered by jihadists in Benghazi.

The Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton’s Closest Aide

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide for many years has been Huma Abedin, whose late father, Syed Abedin, was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA grew out of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.”34

Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a prominent member of the Muslim Sisterhood — the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, a pro-Hamas entity that is part of the “Union of Good,” which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization. Saleha once wrote an article blaming America for having provoked the Islamic “anger and hostility” that led to the 9/11 attacks.35

From 1996-2008, Huma Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who once served as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a vehicle by which the Muslim Brotherhood promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Naseef also had ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, with whom he communicated.36 Abedin was the assistant editor of IMMA’s in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence in the IMMA.37

It is vital to note that the IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is designed, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”38

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women, including the hundreds of millions of women in Muslim nations who are oppressed by the very same Sharia Law that is promoted by the organization to which Huma Abedin devoted 12 years of her life.

The Deadly Consequences of Clinton’s Absurd Fictions About Islam & Terrorism

In 2011 the Obama administration, in which Mrs. Clinton was obviously a major player, decided to purge, from the training materials and curricula of all federal intelligence and criminal investigators, every single item suggesting that “jihad” or “Islam” were in any way related to terrorism.39 Instead, the new objective would be “countering violent extremism,” improving “cultural competency training across the United States Government,” and promoting “cultural awareness.”40 All told, the FBI removed more than 1,000 presentations and curriculum items that were deemed “offensive” or “Islamophobic.”41

The FBI’s decision to change its training materials and interrogation methods went on to have deadly serious, real-world consequences. A particularly noteworthy case involved jihadist Omar Mateen, who in June 2016 entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people while wounding 53 others. The FBI had investigated Mateen extensively for 10 months in 2013 because he had family connections to Al Qaeda, he was a member of a Shi’a terrorist organization, and he had issued terroristic threats on a number of occasions. But eventually, the FBI canceled that investigation because, in accordance with the tenets of its revised training materials, it concluded that Mateen posed no threat to anyone; that his biggest problem was the psychic pain he was suffering as a result of “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” As a result of this absurd line of reasoning, 49 innocent people from Orlando are now lying in their graves.42

Hillary Clinton agrees completely with the notion that it is both counterproductive and morally unjustified to suggest any connection between Islam and terrorism — the same delusional, preposterous mentality that enabled the Orlando mass murder to take place.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women and homosexuals, including the 49 people who were slaughtered in the Orlando nightclub.

Clinton’s Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide Terrorism

ISIS, which evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), grew into the most powerful, well-funded horde of bloodthirsty barbarians in world history, right under Mrs. Clinton’s nose, and precisely during her watch as secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes, beheadings, slaughters, and tortures of unimaginable brutality — and gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria — Clinton and President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.43

Moreover, the rise of ISIS coincided with the expansion of terrorism to unprecedented levels all over the world. According to the Global Terrorism Index, fatalities caused by terrorism increased from 3,361 in 2000, to 11,133 in 2012, to 18,111 in 2013, to 32,658 in 2014. More than half of the 2014 killings were carried out by ISIS and Boko Haram, the latter of which has pledged allegiance to ISIS.44 In other words, worldwide terrorism has spiraled out of control under Obama, Clinton, and Clinton’s successor, John Kerry.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the many thousands who are killed by terrorists across the globe each year.

There is much more



Gorka: If Hillary is elected president Americans will be in more danger than they have ever been since 9/11

gorka4‘Defeating Jihad’ author Sebastian Gorka on the Iran nuclear deal, ISIS and the presidential candidates’ potential impact on U.S. national security.

Trump Campaign: ‘Deeply Disturbing’ Hillary Clinton May Have Revealed Classified Information in a Paid Speech


Breitbart, by Alex Swoyer, October 12, 2016:

Donald Trump’s campaign is responding to a report that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about Osama bin Laden during one of her paid speeches.

WikiLeaks revealed the allegation.

“The revelation that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about the Bin Laden raid in a private, paid speech is deeply disturbing,” stated Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller.

He continued: “Coupled with Clinton keeping classified information on an easily hacked secret server with a subsequent cover-up, shows Clinton has such a disregard for classified information that one has to wonder if she would even be able to receive a security clearance should she be elected president.”

Miller was responding to a recent report in The New York Post suggesting that Clinton potentially disclosed classified details relating to bin Laden’s raid.

“I was in the small group that recommended to the president that he go after bin Laden,” Clinton stated in a speech to a Toronto organization in 2013, adding:

The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade . . . and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.

“‘And that is how we found this compound in Abbottabad [Pakistan]’ — where a team of Navy SEALs took out bin Laden in May 2011,” The New York Post’s report notes. “WikiLeaks asked in a tweet if Clinton’s comments revealed too much about the bin Laden hunt by mentioning the phone calls.”

“It’s unclear whether Clinton’s story was classified,” The New York Post clarifies, adding, “But what she said in Toronto varies from other accounts of how the United States determined bin Laden’s whereabouts.”



Liberals Wanted to Talk About Islamophobia at the Debate, But the Real Problem is Terrorism

argus | Shutterstock

argus | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Nate Madden, October 10, 2016:

Amid the tawdry, ad hominem cacophony that was the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were forced to contend with the implications of a supposed “rise in Islamophobia.” However, a quick look at the facts show that the question and implication really need some context.

Sunday night’s debate was, as expected, laden with pro-Clinton bias from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. However, several of the questions submitted by the randomly-selected panel of undecided voters on the stage also carried the hallmarks of prepared layups for the Democrat nominee.

One such topic in particular, asked by one of the attendees, Gorbah Hamed, put the candidates on the spot about how they would deal with “Islamophobia” as president (per the Washington Post):

“There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over?

To his credit, Trump bridged the question directly to recent terror attacks, and the importance of Muslims patrolling their own communities. Meanwhile, Clinton criticized Trump’s views on immigration from Muslim-majority nations while hypocritically espousing religious freedom for foreign nationals from those nations, despite her own deplorable positions on free exercise for anyone who disagrees with her views on marriage and abortion.

Furthermore, while Clinton made a very big point of agreeing with Trump’s premise that American Muslims need to be “part of our eyes and ears” on the front lines, and bragged about her work with Muslim groups in the U.S. and how she intends to use that experience to defeat ISIS. But she failed to differentiate how her approach to the Muslim community is going to differ from President Obama’s, whose analogous “countering violent extremism” program has already been found as a “catastrophic failure,” according to a recent report.

But I digress. While the issues of Middle Eastern immigration and jihadist terror in the 2016 election cycle have sparked a chorus of concern from the Left over so-called “Islamophobia,” the concerns ignore reality of how big a threat it actually is.

The question hearkens back to a few weeks ago when the Hamas-and-Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in the wake of a jihadist stabbing that they were afraid of the blowback from the attack.

“We are concerned about the potential for backlash,” CAIR’s Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said, per, following last month’s Minnesota mall stabbing. “[Muslims] are being made to suffer for [the terrorists’] acts. They are minorities in our faith. Islam is peace.”

Well, here’s the real story about that blowback.

According to FBI data, ACTUAL incidents of Islamophobia pale in comparison to incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Numbers from December indicate that in the previous year saw, 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, and the rate of Jewish victims was nearly four times that of Muslim victims at a proportion of roughly 57 percent to 16 percent.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — the deadliest Islamist attack in American history — 2002 data from the FBI shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes totaled a grand total 174 for the year. These are, of course, dwarfed when compared to the 1,084 cases committed against Jews, and the 237 committed against “other.”

And it doesn’t stop there: America’s college campuses have become seething hotbeds ofanti-Jewish activity. Meanwhile, a report from February finds, attacks on free exercise of religion across the board have doubled in the waning years of the Obama administration.

There was no mention of how America’s Jewish population (with nary a notable terrorist attack attached to its name) is under increasing fire — and has been so for years. Furthermore, recent jihadist terror attacks in San Bernardino to Orlando to Manhattan have taken scores of American lives and have left all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, under siege.

Yet, the question that both candidates were forced to contend with is one that clearly targeted the Republican nominee’s focus on the security concerns that mass migration from Muslim-majority countries generates in relation to America’s national security.

When we look at this issue earnestly, the real threat to American Muslims from the specter of Islamophobia are far less than the threats faced by all Americans from the threat of global jihadism. They’re far less than what American Jews have to deal with both on and off the university campus. And they’re far less than what anyone who runs afoul of the government’s views on marriage, abortion, and contraception face on any given day.

Finally, when it comes to the havoc created by ISIS and other terror organizations that commit atrocities in the name of Allah, President Obama and company are quick to point out that most of the victims of jihadist violence around the world are Muslims themselves. But when it comes to the the same threat posed to those on our own soil, such concerns are nowhere to be found. Rather, they find themselves drowned out by those that worry about a so-called “Islamophobia” epidemic rather than the threat faced by every person in the civilized world, Muslims included, when they leave their homes every morning.

What exaggerated concerns about “Islamophobia” actually do, however, is dull, silence, and distract from the message of those who actually voice that there is indeed a centuries-old problem within Islam — that it creates legitimate security concerns, and that these realities have to be addressed in bold and earnest terms. Those terms might hurt someone’s feelings, after all.

In sum, the “Islamophobia” question was endemic of a host of concerns that the Left has thrown at anyone who dare raise questions about the Islamic nature of jihadist terrorism, or about the safety of the Obama administration’s immigration and refugee policies. However, in light of the numbers and the real security threats faced by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, that the debates chose to focus on “Islamophobia” really ought to be put into context.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, jihadism, and the judiciary. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate’s writing has previously appeared in several religious and news publications. Follow him@NateMadden_IV.

Soros Money, Muslim Advocates Leader, Helped Weaken Homeland Security Policies

osfby John Rossomando
IPT News
October 7, 2016

A Muslim legal group, girded with $1.8 million in grant money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), has helped influence major policy changes in the war on terror, including the Department of Homeland Security’s screening of individuals with suspected terror ties and the FBI’s training program for its agents working in counterterrorism.

Internal records, made public by the hacking group DC Leaks, show OSF spent $40 million between 2008 and 2010 on programs aimed at weakening U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Muslim Advocates’ Executive Director Farhana Khera played a key role in shaping the foundations’ spending. Khera co-authored a 2007 memo that “informed” the foundations’ U.S. Programs Board’s decision to create the National Security and Human Rights Campaign (NSHRC), a Sept. 14, 2010 OSF document discussing the program’s reauthorization, shows.

The NSHRC’s goals included:

  • Closing Guantanamo Bay, eliminating torture and methods such as the extraordinary rendition of prisoners, and ending the use of secret prisons;
  • Ending warrantless and “unchecked” surveillance;
  • Ensuring that anti-terrorism laws and law enforcement activities do not target freedom of speech, association or religious expression;
  • Reducing ethnic and religious profiling of people of Muslim, Arab or South Asian extraction;
  • Decreasing secrecy and increasing oversight of executive actions, and expose U.S. government or private individuals who abuse or violate the law.

Some of these policies, such as closing Guantanamo and ending enhanced interrogation techniques, already were also advocated by Obama administration. OSFclaimed its work laid the groundwork for implementing those policies. The Edward Snowden leaks cast light on the depth of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. The other goals are more difficult to assess.

Muslim Advocates was founded in 2005 as an offshoot of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. It often criticizes U.S. counterterrorism strategies that use sting operations and informants as discriminatory.

Papers released by the anonymous hacker group DC Leaks show that OSF budgeted $21 million for the NSHRC from 2008-2010. OSF spent an additional $1.5 million in 2010. The NSHRC also received a matching $20 million contribution from Atlantic Philanthropies, a private foundation established in 1982 by Irish-American Chuck Feeney billionaire businessman.

OSF made 105 grants totaling $20,052, 784 to 63 organizations under the NSHRC program. An Investigative Project on Terrorism tally shows Muslim Advocates received at least $1.84 million in OSF grants between 2008 and 2015.

A funders’ roundtable created by OSF in 2008 helped coordinate the grant making among several left-leaning foundations, ” in order to “dismantle the flawed ‘war on terror’ paradigm on which national security policy is now based.” At least “two dozen” foundations participated in the roundtable’s strategy sessions as of the end of 2008.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, called the Soros foundations’ $40 million program both hypocritical and ironic. He noted that the 2011 OSF-funded Center for American Progress report “Fear, Inc.” complained that seven conservative foundations donated $42.6 million to so-called “Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other major Islamist groups routinely use the $42.6 million funding number to portray their opponents as being pawns of dark forces.

“It’s amazing that one foundation donated an amount that CAIR and [Muslim] Advocates say is the huge sum of money that funds the entire anti-jihad campaign,” Jasser said. “… That wasn’t from one foundation. That was an addition of [the money given to] everybody that they threw under the bus.”

By contrast, OSF and Atlantic Philanthropies spent $41.5 million in just three years. OSF dedicated another $26 million to the NSHRC program from 2011-2014.

OSF additionally funded a study by the New America Foundation equating the terror threat posed right-wing extremists with al-Qaida. An Oct. 17, 2011 memo discussing NSHRC grants notes that New America received $250,000, partly to write two reports. The first aimed at creating a “‘safe space’ in which Muslims in America feel free to hold controversial political dialogues, organize without fear of unwarranted government surveillance.” The second aimed to “correct mistaken public beliefs that Al-Qaeda’s brand of terrorism is unique to Islam and that most terrorists are Muslim.”

The paper promised “to show how adherents of each extremist ideology use different language to justify very similar political means and goals. By demonstrating parallels among militant groups, this paper will aim to separate politically focused terrorism from the religion of Islam.”

Arguments from this report continue to help frame how Democrats and their allies talk about the jihadist threat. New America’s statistics and arguments recently came up in a House hearing about the threat from homegrown Islamic terrorists.

“According to the New America Foundation, there have been more incidents of right-wing extremist attacks in the United States than violent jihadist attacks since 9/11. I’m not minimizing jihadist attacks. In that light, can you explain what your office plans to do with respect to domestic right-wing extremism?” Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., asked Department of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships Director George Selim during a House subcommittee hearing last month.

New America’s effort to conflate right-wing extremists with al-Qaida glossed over a major difference – namely al-Qaida’s reliance on mass casualty attacks and suicide bombings.

New America’s latest data shows that jihadists have killed more people since 9/11 than right-wing extremists.

“What you’ve uncovered is the fact … that the Soros foundation works to obfuscate on national security,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates clearly is a prime example of the sickness in Washington related to dealing with the central reforms necessary to make within the House of Islam.

“You’ll see that the Soros foundation is spending money on organizations that deny the very principles they are defenders of, which are feminism, gay rights, individual rights. Muslim Advocates’ entire bandwidth is spent on attacking the government and blocking any efforts at counterterrorism.”

Muslim Advocates also opposes discussion on reform within the Muslim community and supports those who have theocratic tendencies, Jasser said.

“You have evidence here that the Soros foundation is part and parcel of the reason for the suffocation of moderation voices – reformist voices – in Islam,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates really ought to change their name to Islamist Advocates, and what the Soros foundation really is doing is just advocating for Islamists.”

OSF also contributed $150,000 in 2011 and $185,000 in 2012 to a donor advised fund run by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. It used this money to pay Hattaway Communications, a consulting firm run by former Hillary Clinton adviser Doug Hattaway, to develop a messaging strategy for Muslim Advocates and similar organizations. Hattaway’s message strategy painted Muslims as victims of American national security policies.

Khera used Hattaway’s strategy to paint the New York Police Department’s mosque surveillance strategy as “discriminatory.”

OSF funded groups, including Muslim Advocates, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed lawsuits challenging the NYPD’s surveillance program as unconstitutional. Police Commissioner William Bratton ended the policy in 2014.”Their only ‘crime’ is that they are Muslim in America,” Khera wrote in a June 6, 2012 op-ed posted on

The NYPD monitored almost all aspects of Muslim life ranging from mosques and student associations, to halal butcher shops and restaurants to private citizens.  A federal district court dismissed the suit, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in October 2015. New York settled the lawsuit in January, placing the NYPD under supervision of an independent observer appointed by City Hall.

Downplaying Radicalization and the Jihadist Threat

OSF accused conservative opponents of “borrowing liberally from Joe McCarthy’s guilt by association tactics.” It complained in a Sept. 14, 2010 memo to its U.S. Programs Board that the “homegrown terrorism narrative” resulted in “discriminatory” targeting of Muslims by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI.

Khera often expresses similar sentiments. She accused the FBI of engaging in “entrapment operations” to target “innocent” Muslims after former Attorney General Eric Holder called sting operations an “essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing terror attacks.”

Khera likewise characterized law enforcement training materials discussing the Islamic extremist ideology as “bigoted, false, and inflammatory” in her June 28 testimony before a Senate Judiciary  Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, Federal Courts.

She and her organization played a central role in late 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. FBI counterterrorism training materials about Islam contained “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims,” she complained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter. She objected to describing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an,” says that zakat can be used to help “those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America issued a 2011 fatwa saying zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Following Khera’s letter, then-White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan announced a review of “CVE-related instruction across all levels of government.” This review resulted in a purge of 700 pages of material from 300 presentations. This included PowerPoints and articles describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as group bent on world domination.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s bylaws describe these ultimate ambitions and imply the need for violence: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.”

Khera’s influence with the Obama administration

Khera enjoys close connections with the Obama White House. Visitor logs show that Khera went to the White House at least 11 times.

Khera played a central role persuading the Obama administration to purge Department of Homeland Security records related to individuals and groups with terror ties, former Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) Agent Phil Haney told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

His superiors ordered him to “modify” 820 CPB TECS records about the Muslim Brotherhood network in America, Haney said. Irrefutable evidence from the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Hamas financing trial proved that many of these groups and individuals assisted Hamas, Haney said.

The HLF trial substantiated deep connections between American Islamist groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a Hamas-support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

A 2009 OSF funding document claims credit for helping persuade then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to order a review of border screening procedures. It also reveals that Muslim Advocates worked with “DHS staff to develop a revised border policy.”

The Muslim Advocates’ report recommended the “review and reform of … [Customs and Border Patrol policies and practices that target Muslim, Arab and South Asian Americans for their First Amendment protected activities, beliefs and associations; and … law enforcement and intelligence activities that impose disparate impacts on Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities.” It also asked DHS to prevent CPB agents from probing about political beliefs, religious practices, and contributions to “lawful” charitable organizations.

Muslim Advocates claimed a pivotal role in getting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to reverse a new 2010 policy enhancing the screening on travelers from 14 countries, many of them predominately Muslim. The rule was proposed in the wake of the attempt by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a Detroit-bound plane weeks earlier.

Muslim Advocates and several OSF grantees met with Napolitano and other top DHS officials, and the policy was canceled three months later. Muslim Advocates claimedthat the Obama administration “made special mention” of its role in reversing the TSA policy.

“This broke into the open with the great purge of 2011 and 2012,” Haney said, recalling Brennan’s letter to Khera announcing that materials she complained about would be removed.

The purge accompanied a practice of meeting with Islamist groups as community partners, Haney said.

In addition to the purge of training material, documents related to people and groups with terrorism ties such as Canadian Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi and the Pakistan-based Tablighi Jamaat movement also disappeared from CPB records. (Tablighi Jamaat often serves as a de facto recruiting conduit for groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban.)

Investigators might have had a better chance of thwarting the San Bernardino and the June Orlando shootings had those Tablighi Jamaat records remained available, Haney said, because the shooters’ respective mosques appeared in the deleted 2012 Tablighi Jamaat case report.

The Obama administration’s “absolute refusal to acknowledge that individuals who are affiliated with networks operating here in the United States, and their deliberate deletion of any evidentiary pieces of information in the system, has made us blind and handcuffed,” Haney said. “The proof of it is San Bernardino and Orlando.

“They obliterated the entire [Tablighi Jamaat] case as if it never existed.”

Haney’s claims have met with some skepticism. Haney stands by his claims and says critics “made a lot of factual errors.”

Still, Muslim Advocates’ success reversing the TSA policy was among the accomplishments showing that it “has proved itself to be an effective advocate on the national stage,” an April 25, 2011 OSF document said. It recommended renewing a $440,000 grant to “support the core operating costs of Muslim Advocates.”

In doing so, the Soros-funded OSF weakened U.S. national security and potentially left it vulnerable to the jihadi attacks we have been seeing in the homeland since the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Islamist Ties and Security Clearances: An Urgent National Security Debate

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 7, 2016:

In a lengthy article at, Christine Brim asks, “Should Family Affiliation With Foreign Islamist Movements Prevent a Security Clearance?”

While the article concerns an official in the office of the Defense Department Inspector General named John Crane, an even more urgent example would be longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who has similar family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might be just a few months away from access to the Oval Office.

John Crane rose to the position of Assistant Inspector General after 25 years with the Defense Department, even though his father Robert Crane converted to Islam in 1980 and became “a high-level official in multiple Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated organizations in the U.S. and Qatar.” Crane told Brim he was never once asked about his father’s affiliations during his long DoD career.

The younger Crane has a position in the battle over Edward Snowden, who has lately been the beneficiary of a massive left-wing effort to rehabilitate his reputation as a “whistleblower” and secure a pardon for his offenses. As Brim explains:

Crane has recently been the subject of numerous media interviews as “The Third Man” in the new book Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden, a defense of Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the U.S., UK and Australia. John Crane was quietly removed from his Inspector General and whistleblower office positions in February 2013, four months before the Edward Snowden case became public knowledge.  He immediately became a consultant for the General Accountability Project (GAP), the legal counsel for Snowden. GAP was founded in 1977 by the extreme far left Institute for Policy Studies.

[…] Crane’s allegations against the DoD in Bravehearts have been cited as a vindication of Snowden’s acts by the Intercept, the website of Snowden advocate Glenn Greenwald (“Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga”).

He was suspended from his job as Defense Department Assistant Inspector General in 2013, accompanied by the loss of his security clearances, but is now appealing for reinstatement. This means Crane will have to complete a new security clearance questionnaire, Form SF 86, which now asks about the affiliation of relatives with any “foreign government, military, security, defense industry, foreign movement, or intelligence service.” This is where the elder Crane’s relationship with Islamist groups could enter the picture.

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as problematic as it should be. The Obama Administration has labored mightily to rehabilitate the group’s image, but Brim lays out a convincing case that it is exactly the kind of “foreign movement” our guardians of national security should worry about. It is already been designated a terrorist organization by a number of U.S. allies (plus Russia), and will obtain that designation in the United States if the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 is enacted.

Brim recalls the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto – “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” – and notes their determination to “impose strict Islamic law in Muslim-majority countries and the world, using a mix of politics and violence.” They have ideological ties to some of America’s worst non-state enemies, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Islamic State.

And yet, there does not seem to have been any effort made by this Administration, or its predecessors, to explore Robert Crane’s Muslim Brotherhood ties, or the possibility that they might compromise his son. CounterJihad’s exhaustive investigation ended with picking up the phone, calling John Crane, and asking if his father was that Robert Crane. He answered in the affirmative, but based on Brim’s report, no one in the U.S. government bothered to ask.

Robert Crane, who did not respond to an interview request from CounterJihad, has a lively resume, explored in detail by CounterJihad. He was, for example, appointed Deputy Director for National Security Planning by Richard Nixon, and then fired by Henry Kissinger; his connections in the Gulf Arab states made him Ronald Reagan’s choice for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but his appointment was scuttled by Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Brim writes of Robert Crane’s conversion to Islam:

In 1980 Crane “became Muslim after seeing Sudanese leader Hasan al-Turabi preach and pray at an Islamic affairs conference in New Hampshire” (a variation on the conversion anecdote here). That Robert Crane would credit Hasan al-Turabi for his conversion is both surprising and concerning. Hasan al-Turabi became a leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood starting in the 1960s, was best known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to shelter his entire operation in Sudan from 1991-1996 and according to Human Rights Watch, imposed brutal sharia law as head of the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood party) and in high office as Minister of Justice starting in 1979.

Brim relates many disturbing activities conducted by the organizations on Robert Crane’s resume, but the central question would be how much any of it reflects on his son John Crane. Brim’s antennae went up when the authors of the Bravehearts book about Snowden devoted a paragraph to Robert Crane, without naming him, or saying a single word about what he did after his spell with the Nixon Administration. Crane told Brim the authors did not ask about his father’s conversion to Islam or ties to extremist groups, and he did not volunteer the information – which seems to be a fair summary of his relationship with U.S. intelligence as well.

“If Crane undergoes a new background investigation, what answer will he give regarding his father’s affiliations to a foreign movement? Will it be the factual one, or the whitewashed one he provided for Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden?Would a factual answer bar a return to his old position – or facilitate it, in a future administration that may actively support the Muslim Brotherhood?” Brim asks.

Similar questions could be asked about Huma Abedin, whose family journal, where she is listed as an assistant editor, has advocated some disturbing interpretations of Islamic law, as well as accusing the United States of inviting the 9/11 attack by heaping “various kinds of injustices and sanctions” upon the Muslim world.

Her mother is an official in a group chaired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Her father founded an institute supported by a major Muslim Brotherhood splinter group.

Questions about Abedin are never answered. They are deflected by furious allegations of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim bigotry. Hillary Clinton and her top aides are clearly above the law, and above all reasonable national security scrutiny.

Crane does not have the magical Clinton immunity, but as Brim pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly has not been shunned by the Obama Administration, and it is poised to do even better in Washington if Hillary Clinton becomes President. The current climate of political correctness treats very few Islamic organizations as security risks, unless they’ve been directly classified as terrorist organizations under American law.

The web of connections between hardcore Islamists and more “mainstream” groups is complicated, making it easy to caricature discussion of those links as “conspiracy-mongering.” The groups cluttering these complex flowcharts tend to have the word “Muslim” in their benevolent-sounding names, and that’s all the dominant political culture in Washington needs to see before averting its eyes.

It’s fair to ask whether someone like John Crane has been unduly influenced by his father, or might compromise sensitive information by talking to him. The answer to that question could be “no.” It is terrifying beyond belief to consider that no one at the Defense Department had the desire, or maybe the courage, to ask.

Hillary and ‘Undocumented’ Aliens – Are illegal aliens really just “immigrants” who lack documentation?


Front Page Magazine, by Michael Cutler, October 6, 2016

The excuse “my dog ate my homework” supposedly explains why a student failed to bring a homework assignment to class, but it is an excuse that no one believes.  It is not limited students who fail to do their homework, but has come to be the cliché excuse for anyone not completing an assignment who provides a lame excuse that everyone knows is a lie.

Politicians, pollsters and pundits who are advocates for open borders and the creation of immigration anarchy seek to minimize the true significance of aliens entering the United States without inspection and, of critical importance in this particularly perilous era, without vetting.

Their strategy to deceive Americans is to employ the equivalent excuse of the dog eating homework by saying that these illegal aliens entered the United States “without documentation,” thus shifting attention from the fact that millions of aliens entered the United States stealthily, without inspection.

This is the strategy of Hillary Clinton and her immigration anarchy accomplices.

The inspections process is conducted at America’s 325 ports of entry located along the northern and southern borders of the United States, at seaports that lie along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline and at international airports by the arm of DHS known as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), and is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens who pose a threat to the safety of America and Americans.

When a student fails to turn in an assignment his/her teacher will normally press that errant student about why the homework really was not completed, demonstrating the teacher’s dissatisfaction with the excuse.

Yet the obvious question that is never asked about illegal aliens who enter the United States without inspection who claim to be “undocumented” is, “What really happened to their documents?”  Did they ever have a passport or other identity documents?  Did they somehow lose them on their way to the United States?  Did they destroy them before running our borders because they know that their names on those passports would show up on terror watch lists or on lists of international fugitives?

Before we go any further, it is vital to understand that the documents we are talking about are not library cards or credit cards.  These are cards that, under law, are supposed to provide reliable evidence about the true identity of the bearer.  This is a matter of national security.

In point of fact, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions is a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and provides essential definitions relating to the enforcement and administration of our nation’s immigration laws.  Here is how this section of the INS defines passport:

(30)  The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

“Undocumented aliens” entered Mexico before they ran the U.S./Mexican border.  How on earth did they manage to enter Mexico?  If they flew to Mexico they likely had their passports upon entry and subsequently destroyed them. Consider the national security crisis this creates for the United States.

I recently wrote an article that disclosed how Mr. Obama is now “addressing” this clear national security threat, “Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance Of Latin American Countries As Aliens Flood Into The U.S.The wolves helping to guard the hen house?

Increasingly the Border Patrol has been intercepting aliens from countries other than Mexico and, appropriately, referring to them as OTMs (Other Than Mexico).

Some of these aliens are not only not citizens of Mexico, but are not even citizens of Latin American countries. Some, in fact, are citizens of “Special Interest Countries.”  These are countries that are involved with terrorism.

That these aliens managed to travel half-way across the globe and, upon arrival in the United States, are found to have no passports or other authentic identity documents should set off alarm bells.

Hillary Clinton’s “solution,” however, is to provide them with lawful status and even pathways to citizenship within 100 days of becoming president.

The use of passports and identity documents and multiple failures of the immigration system were the focus of considerable attention by the 9/11 Commission.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph:

The story begins with “A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story.” This introduction summarizes many of the key facts of the hijackers’ entry into the United States. In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was “clean and legal.” It was not. Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained. 

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States. 

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.5

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel. 

Back when I was a Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) we found that aliens who had arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport, supposedly with no passports, immediately claimed “Political Asylum.”  It was discovered that they had destroyed their passports in the bathrooms on the airliners on which they flew to the United States.

All too often such arriving aliens were given appointments to show up for hearings at the immigration offices and they simply disappeared once they left the airport.  The solution to this was not costly or difficult.  Their passports should have been placed in a locked box upon boarding the airliners that would be placed in the cockpit or other secured place on the aircraft.

Yet, to my knowledge, this simple measure was never considered nor implemented.

They certainly shouldn’t have been released on their own recognizance in the United States.

There are often simple and inexpensive solutions to the problems relating to the immigration crisis.  However, it is clear that all too many of our politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, aren’t interested in solving these problems, but they have been bought and paid for by the immigration anarchists lead by such organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Documenting the “undocumented” is a prescription for a disaster.

As the 15th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 approached, I wrote an article about the vulnerabilities that the Obama administration abjectly refuses to address.  My article was, “Reflections on 9/11’s Vulnerabilities: The failures that proved key factors in the attacks — and how Obama has exacerbated them.

My dad used to say that nothing is so good it couldn’t be better or be so bad it couldn’t get worse.  I am convinced that somehow Ms. Clinton would find a way to make the immigration crisis worse — much worse.

Also see: