EXCLUSIVE – Egypt Dispatch: Top General Killed in Joint Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas Assassination Plot

muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-sized-770x415xt-1PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, October 23, 2016:

The killing of a top general responsible for anti-terrorism operations in the restive Sinai province killed outside his home in Cairo yesterday was part of an assassination plot involving Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups and top terror operatives from Hamas in Gaza, Egyptian security sources told PJ Media last night.

The murdered general was responsible for shutting down the smuggling tunnels between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Egypt, and the joint operation is believed to be intended to relieve some pressure from the Egyptian army’s operation that had placed a stranglehold one of Hamas’ main sources of income and slowed the movement of weapons and fighters from Gaza into Sinai fighting against the Egyptian government, including the Islamic State’s group in Sinai.

A statement published after the assassination also invoked the death of a senior Muslim Brotherhood operative killed in a shootout with police earlier this month.

The New York Times reports:

Gunmen suspected of being Islamist militants killed a senior Egyptian Army officer on Saturday in a brazen daylight shooting outside the man’s home in a Cairo suburb.The state media identified the officer as Brig. Gen. Adel Ragai, commander of the army’s Ninth Armored Division.

General Ragai, according to multiple pro-state papers, had previously been deployed to Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula, where the military is fighting Islamic State militants.

The military did not issue a statement.

“I heard the gunshots and saw him die before my eyes,” Sumaya Zein el-Abedeen, the general’s wife, told the state media. She said neighbors had told her that they saw three gunmen with assault rifles in a vehicle outside the couple’s home. The men fired on General Ragai and his driver. Both men were taken to a hospital, where they were declared dead.

A group called Liwa al-Thawra, the Revolution Brigade, claimed responsibility on Twitter for the attack. The group’s account was then suspended.

General Ragai was also responsible for an armored division in Sinai:

The Liwa al-Thawra statement claiming responsibility also invoked the killing of Mohamed Kamal, one of the top Muslim Brotherhood leaders leading the group’s more violent factions.

After the killing of Kamal, LIaw al-Thawra issued a statement vowing retribution.

As I reported here at PJ Media on the death of Kamal, he was responsible for the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent factions, including the most recent incarnation of the group’s military wing, Hassm that has been involved in assassinations of Egyptian military officials.

Coincidentally, Hassm released a video yesterday showing fighters engaged in military training:

The possible involvement of Hamas operatives in the assassination operation yesterday may demonstrate an even increased role in terrorism in Egypt, including their ties to the Islamic State group’s activity in Sinai.

The roots of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “special committee” terror units go back to a split within the group’s leadership, with the old guard looking for compromise with the Egyptian state and the youth wing led by Kamal that sought a more violent “creative revolutionary path.”

A series of statements during 2015 endorsed the group’s campaign of violence:

  • A group called the “Revolutionary Punishment Movement” closely tied with the Brotherhood issued a statement in early February warning all foreigners and diplomats to leave the country by February 28, 2015, or possibly be faced with becoming targets in their attacks.

I reported here at PJ Media in June 2015 about the escalation of violence by the Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres during 2015, beginning with the published call for a “long, uncompromising jihad” in January 2015.

This past June, I reported on the arrest of an IED terrorist cell composed of Muslim Brotherhood members operating out of Alexandria that attacked military, police, diplomatic and business targets.

Meanwhile, bills calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization have stalled in Congress.

In the House, H.R. 3892, the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015,” a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and currently with 68 cosponsors, passed the House Judiciary Committee in February on a 17-10 vote.

But House Speaker Paul Ryan has not brought the bill up for a full House vote.

The Senate companion bill, S. 2230, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and currently with 7 cosponsors, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Foreign Relations chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has yet to bring the bill up for a committee vote — or even to hold hearings on the matter.

Bill cosponsors have expressed frustration with the Obama administration’s inaction on the Muslim Brotherhood even as terror attacks by the group continue. The group has targeted Egypt’s Coptic Christian community, which I reported on here just a few weeks ago based on my April 2014 survey in Upper Egypt of sectarian attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood.

With Congress in recess until after the November 8 election, the only opportunity for these bills to be considered in either the House or Senate would be in the lame duck session.

Hillary Clinton Tops Middle East Forum’s ‘Islamist Money List’



Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari, October 21, 2016:

The Middle East Forum has released its 2015-16 “Islamist Money In Politics” list, charting the top ten recipients of contributions from Islamic organizations — and Hillary Clinton is at the top of the list.

According to the Middle East Forum, their list tracks political donations from “from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS.”

Clinton has received a total of $41,165 from individuals that the Middle East Forum describes as “prominent Islamists,” including $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates on November 15, 2014.

Republican Party candidate Donald Trump and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson took no money from Islamists, according to the report.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reportedly accepted $250, while defeated Democratic Party candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285

Other top recent recipients of money from the enemy include Rep. Keith Ellison ($17,370) and Rep. Andre Carson ($13,225). The top-ten list includes nine Democrats, one independent (Sanders), and no Republicans.

Hillary Clinton has been a fierce critic of Donald Trump’s proposal for a freeze on Muslim immigration to the United States. “We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what [Trump] has advocated without causing great distress within our country?” Clinton said earlier this month. “Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country?”

Beyond political donations, the Clinton Foundation has received millions from Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia, dominated by radical Sunni fundamentalists and ruled by Sharia law, donated up to $50 million to the Clinton Foundation, while the Emirate of Qatar has donated between $1 million and $5 million.

According to Clinton’s own State Department, Qatar’s human rights violations include “trafficking in persons … legal, institutional, and cultural discrimination against women limited their participation in society.”

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Hillary Clinton’s Disclosure of Nuclear Response Times During Debate Was ‘Unconscionable’

hc-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 21, 2016:

On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, talked about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s clash over Russia at the third presidential debate.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, if there is anybody who’s been in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, it is Hillary Clinton. Everybody needs to have out there, the millennials that they know, their nephews, their nieces, just watch Clinton Cash on YouTube,” Gorka said. “The fact that 20 percent of our uranium was sold to Kremlin front companies, in a deal that was signed off by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, means if there’s anybody who can be bought by the Kremlin, it’s Hillary Clinton.”

“That happened when her husband was receiving $120 million speaking fee from the same companies that bought the uranium,” Gorka noted.

“I have to give great credit to your callers,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “Your show is really about the callers. They see through this. They understand that there’s the mainstream media spin, and most often, it is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If Trump were some kind of puppet for Moscow, wouldn’t this man have casinos in Kaliningrad? Wouldn’t he have giant Trump Towers in Moscow? He doesn’t. That tells you everything you need to know. Reality is completely the reverse of what anybody else inside the mainstream media would have you believe.”

One of those callers joined the conversation at that point to observe that audiences for mainstream media outlets like CNN were given a very different perspective on the debate than people who watched it without such a media filter.

“I think that the real story will be that there is, perhaps, a majority of people out there who simply have had enough,” said Gorka. “Look at the viewing figures for stations like CNN. I think it tells you everything. Look at the figures for Breitbart, the viewers and clicks. I think that’s the hidden story of this election – that the mainstream media believes they still dominate, but I think in two weeks’ time, two-and-a-half weeks’ time, there’s going to be potentially a very big surprise for those people who think they still speak for America and can control what America sees, whether it’s the debates, whether it’s any kind of reporting on any issue, whether it’s the border, or the economy.”

“Just the polls themselves – look at the poll figures, and then look at the Trump rallies,” he suggested. “Again, spin versus reality. Look at the fact that Hillary seems to be leading everywhere, if you listen to the polls, and then just watch the turnout for her campaign events. I think that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka was pleased that national security has been such an important theme in the 2016 presidential debates, pausing to issue a disclaimer that he has provided national security advice to Donald Trump in the past, “long before anybody took him seriously.”

“I’m not part of his campaign, but I’ve spoken to this man on more than one occasion about the big issues, such as ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” he clarified.

With that disclosure made, Gorka faulted Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and theiradvisers for clumsy handling of major foreign policy issues, agreeing with Donald Trump’s criticism that Clinton and Obama constantly telegraph their moves to the enemy.

“It’s not just Hillary. It’s her coterie. It is the liberal elite. The Obama administration has done exactly the same,” he noted. “Every major deployment in Iraq, every major operation, has been announced in advance, which is anathema to just the most basic principles of warfare. And it’s fascinating. This isn’t a new thing. Her husband did exactlythe same thing, during the Balkan wars. Your callers may not recall, but he actually announced before our engagement in the Balkans, he said, ‘I refuse, and I will never put boots on the ground in Yugoslavia.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar? Haven’t you heard somebody else say that, in this current presidential campaign?”

“Telegraphing in advance what you’re going to do is dynamite for the opposition, for your enemy, because then they will prepare to exploit that against you,” Gorka explained. “Look, even after the WikiLeaks became more and more uncomfortable for Hillary, what did we have the vice president do on national television? Announce that, well, they’ve decided Russia is behind all of this, and we’re going to launch a cyber-attack against them, at a time of our choosing. If you read that in a Tom Clancy novel, you’d say, ‘Has Tom lost it?’ Nobody does this.”

“Mr. Trump’s point that he understands we are at war – I can assure your listeners, he knows we are at war, and he wants to win this war, but he’s not going to tell the enemy what we’re going to do. It’s a very, very, valid point,” he said.

Marlow brought up an overlooked moment from the third debate, when Clinton inadvertently revealed some sensitive information about U.S. response times to nuclear attack. Gorka said he wanted to address this issue “in a certain way, if you’ll permit me, as somebody who actually cares for the security of the Republic and who lives in the national security arena.”

From that perspective, he declined to comment on “the veracity, or lack thereof, of what she said.”

“Just one thing has to be drawn, one conclusion has to be drawn: the whole platform of the Hillary campaign, that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief, he’s not stable, he can’t be trusted – all of that applies to her, and solely to her,” Gorka said. “Anybody who puts Top Secret/SCI super-classified information on a private homebrew server, and then talks about our nuclear reaction times on live television, in front of tens of millions of people – that woman should not be allowed – I know this is a line Mr. Trump has borrowed from me, but I have to use it – that individual should not be allowed to run for local dog catcher, let alone the most powerful person in the world. It is unconscionablewhat she did on national television, and the fact the liberal media is giving her heat on that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka turned to the chaos currently engulfing two key cities in the Middle East, Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Aleppo.

“What we have is this group of – a very heterogenous military force has deployed to Mosul. Again, this was announced weeks in advance by the current administration. We have the Sunni elements of the standing Iraqi army. We have elements of the Kurdish Peshmerga. And, on top of that – this is perhaps the most problematic – we have so-called ‘mobilization forces,’ which are made up Shia former militias, working together, hopefully, to take Mosul with our brave men, and some of our women, as well, as advisers providing training, providing intelligence, and also bombing capabilities for those forces,” Gorka explained.

“The idea is to recapture the second-biggest city in Iraq, which isn’t just important for the size of the city, but because this is the location where, in June 2014, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared formally the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the new empire of Islam,” he noted. “So Mosul is very, very important. The problem with this operation is the very mixed nature of who’s fighting. They have very, very different interests in terms of the future of Iraq.”

“And the biggest problem of all: you can launch an attack to capture a city – but what happens if you capture it?” he asked. “Are you going to stay there? Are the local Sunnis going to allow Shia or Kurds to stay in the region? And what happens when the fighters come back? It’s like squeezing a balloon. You can push the fighters out, but sooner or later, if you haven’t killed all of them, they will be back.”

As for Aleppo, Gorka called it a “tragedy,” saying that “the last five years in Syria are truly a humanitarian disaster.”

“Here again, we have reality, and we have spin,” he said. “The idea that somehow, we’re going to have a cooperative Russia assist us in stopping the killing and bring stability to that nation is a fantasy. The whole Obama administration’s policy is based on an article of faith that is, again, just phantasmagorical – the idea that Assad must go.”

“Whatever the desperate situation in Aleppo, Assad is not going anywhere,” Gorka noted regretfully. “As long as that man enjoys the support not only of Russia, but Iran and even China, this is a head of state that isn’t going anywhere – unless, of course, America wishes to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran, which is not advisable right now.”

“So we have to stabilize the region. We have to realize that only a political resolution is realistic. And unfortunately, the current powers-that-be in Washington simply do not understand that,” he said.

Dr. Gorka’s parting thought was to “reinforce that November the 8th is primarily about one issue, as far as I’m concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me: it’s about which person do you think is going to keep you and your family safe.”

“So when you’re going to the polling booth, and please bring as many people with you as you can, remember it’s a choice between Hillary – Servergate, Benghazi, nuclear launch times – and a man who believes we are at war with the jihadists and wishes to win. It really is quite that simple, Alex,” he said.



Top 5 Clinton scandals you’re missing due to media bias



Warning: rough language:

Also see:

REWIND: Clinton Foundation Subsidized Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

gehad-el-haddad-clinton-foundation-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, October 20, 2016:

Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party,” was effectively the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring.

Educated in the UK and the son of a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Essam El-Haddad, the special advisor on foreign policy to deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

Gehad was arrested in September 2013 after the fall of Morsi and the bloody confrontations during the breakup of the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest camps in Rabaa Square and around Cairo.

And during his ascendancy in 2011 and 2012, at which time he served on the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda” (Renaissance) Project to revive the caliphate and reinstitute Islamic law and also served as Morsi’s campaign spokesman, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation, having been employed for five years as the Cairo director of the foundation until August 2012, according tohis own LinkedIn page.

This shows that the Clinton Foundation effectively subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.

His LinkedIn shows he was employed by the Clinton Foundation from August 2007 through August 2012, during which time he served in several positions within the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party.


From the early days of the Arab Spring beginning in May 2011, when he was serving as the Muslim Brotherhood’s party foreign affairs advisor, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.

He was still on the Clinton’s payroll when he became spokesman for Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president of Egypt, and throughout the entirety of his campaign.


What his LinkedIn shows is that he held multiple senior roles with the Muslim Brotherhood while continuing to be in the employ of the Clinton Foundation.

It didn’t take long for Gehad to become a brazen apologist for the worst abuses of the Morsi regime.


So the Clinton Foundation subsidized Gehad El-Haddad’s rise to power within the Muslim Brotherhood, only to see him become a full-throated apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood’s power grabs, violence against protesters, threatening non-compliant branches of the Egyptian government, and pushing false propaganda as Egyptians rose up to stop the madness.

Having served five years in the Clinton family’s employ, the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring undoubtedly felt right at home.

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

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

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

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

Read more


No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails

524204248Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, October 20, 2016:

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

Clinton tried to defend the DNI/DHS statement by repeating the myth that U.S. intelligence officers are completely insulated from politics. She must think Americans will forget how the CIA crafted the politicized Benghazi talking points in 2011 and how SOUTHCOM intelligence analysts were pressured to distort their analysis of ISIS and Syria to support Obama foreign policy. And that’s just under the Obama administration. Politicization of intelligence goes back decades, including such blatant efforts by CIA officers to interfere in the 2004 presidential election that the Wall Street Journal referred to it as “The CIA Insurgency” in an August 2004 editorial. I discussed the problem of the politicization of U.S. intelligence and the enormous challenge a Trump administration will have in combating it in an August 18, 2016 National Review article.

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

Syrian Rebel U.S ‘Vetted Moderate’ Brigade Defects to Rebranded Al-Qaeda Affiliate

war-on-terror-jihad1-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, October 20, 2016:

Reports are emerging this morning that a battalion of Faylaq al-Sham fighters that had previously been vetted as “moderates” by the U.S. has defected to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the recently re-branded Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.

This is yet one more episode of U.S.-vetted Syrian rebel groups defecting to U.S.-designated terrorist groups in recent years. Just a few weeks ago I reported here at PJ Media on U.S.-supported Free Syrian Army troops that were openly allied with a group that the State Department had designated a terrorist organization just the week before.

News of the defection of the Muhammad Rasoolullah Brigade of Faylaq al-Sham operating around Idlib initially appeared on Twitter:

Faylaq al-Sham, backed by Turkey, is currently involved in the push against the Islamic State.

Faylaq al-Sham has its roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and have been branded “Syria’s Moderate Islamists,” so undoubtedly the “experts” will lament this defection as a shock brought about by military necessities on the ground.

But if the so-called “vetted moderate” groups that receive U.S. weapons later turn terrorist, what is the point of the so-called U.S. “vetting” anyway?

The “experts” may also downplay this defection claiming that Jabhat Fateh al-Sham cut ties with Al-Qaeda; but nothing could be further from the truth. All the group did was rebrand, with permission from Al-Qaeda.

In fact, one of the top Jabhat Fateh al-Sham leaders present at the rebranding announcement was Abu Faraj al-Masri, a longtime lieutenant of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Masri was killed in a U.S. drone strike earlier this month.

But the myth of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham’s separation from Al-Qaeda continues to circulate.

Read more

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

Did the State Department Float a Quid Pro Quo to the FBI over Hillary’s E-mail Scandal?


There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton, Kennedy, and their confederates corruptly obstructed judicial FOIA proceedings and congressional investigations. But there is no bribery case.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 19, 2016:

This is a long column, so let me cut to the chase. Hillary Clinton’s circle, including Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary of state for management, absolutely subordinated national security to politics and broke federal law. But in the “quid pro quo” controversy with the FBI, they are not guilty of bribery. Because the term “quid pro quo” was used — by an FBI agent, in an understandable but overwrought description of a half-baked arrangement proposed by another FBI agent, not Kennedy — commentators are focused on the wrong crime.

The right crime is conspiracy to obstruct justice and congressional investigations. The Clinton camp clearly and corruptly pressured government officials to downgrade the intelligence classification of documents in order to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s false claim that she never trafficked in classified materials on her private e-mail system. Further, they fraudulently exploited exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to bury documents that might harm Clinton — including documents on the Benghazi terrorist attack — such that the public would never see them. Their motive was political — i.e., to minimize the damage of Clinton’s felonious mishandling of classified information — but the intentional effect of their corrupt actions was to obstruct both FOIA cases and Congress’s oversight of the State Department.

Kennedy improperly pressured the FBI to declassify and help him conceal a classified Benghazi e-mail. Nevertheless, after studying the pertinent FBI reports from the batch released on Monday, I conclude that he did not offer a bribe to entice the FBI’s cooperation — the alleged quid pro quo in which, for downgrading the document’s classification, the State Department would reward the FBI with workspace in countries where the bureau’s presence was prohibited or extremely limited.

Instead, I surmise that a very foolish FBI agent — who was frustrated by Kennedy’s unresponsiveness about foreign postings for the FBI and who was ignorant of the magnitude of what Kennedy was asking him to do — loosely floated a potential quid pro quo to Kennedy . . . not the other way around. Moreover, this agent immediately alerted Kennedy that he could not help him once he finally realized the document in question (a) related to the Benghazi terrorist attack in which four Americans including the U.S. ambassador had been killed, and (b) had been classified as “SECRET/NOFORN” (i.e., secret information not releasable to foreign nationals) by the bureau’s counterterrorism division.

Read more

UTT Throwback Thursday: Beltway Snipers Were Jihadis

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 20, 2016:

Today when a Muslim attacks non-Muslim in America, our leaders, Muslim leaders, and the media tell us these are the actions of “mentally ill” people.  Strangely, this nonsense has been going on a long time.

For this edition of Throwback Thursday, UTT looks at a forgotten jihadi attack on America.

The Beltway Snipers

Lee Boyd Malvo (left) and John Allen Muhammad (right)

Lee Boyd Malvo (left) and John Allen Muhammad (right)

John Allen Muhammad was a U.S. Army veteran and a convert to Islam.  Along with Lee Malvo – a 17 year old – the two terrorized the Washington, D.C. metro area by killing ten people in the fall of 2002.

John Allen Muhammad was executed in Virginia for these crimes. Lee Malvo was sentenced to life in prison.

Prior to this, the Muhammad and Malvo killed seven people and wounded seven others in a multi-state robbery and murder spree.

Four days before the shootings in the Washington Metropolitan area began, Ayman al Zawahiri, the second in command of Al Qaeda, issued a warning that Al Qaeda “will continue targeting the lifelines of the American economy.”  The “Beltway Snipers” shot their victims at gas stations, a Home Depot, a Shopper’s Food Warehouse, a Michael’s craft store, an Auto Mall, and a Post Office.

Former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Office in Arkansas Ivian Smith, who worked in the Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions, stated:  “The cumulative effect of the shootings has been an economic slowdown in the local area.”

John Allen Mohammad was supposedly a “homeless” guy, but he always had money to travel overseas on trips and vacations.  Yet, investigators never uncovered a source of funding.

Needless to say, Hamas’s U.S. Leader Nihad Awad (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations – CAIR) weighed in on the shootings:  “There is no indication that this case is related to Islam or Muslims. We therefore ask journalists and media commentators to avoid speculation based on stereotyping or prejudice.  The American Muslim community should not be held accountable for the alleged criminal actions of what appear to be troubled and deranged individuals.”

After his arrest, Lee Malvo drew pictures in prison.  Many of these were entered into evidence by his attorney in an attempt to show how Malvo was influenced by John Mohammad.  These drawings clearly showed support for Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the kinds of things that would lead an investigator to conclude these murders were acts of jihad.


Maybe it was jihad after all.

Al Qaeda and ISIS’ Jihad for the Long Haul

ISIS killers in Syria.

ISIS killers in Syria.

By Andrew Harrod, PhD. exclusive to the Religious Freedom Coalition, Oct 13th, 2016

Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater) Syria (ISIS) have troubling potentials to withstand recent significant defeats and conduct long-term jihad campaigns, particularly absent any political stabilization greater Mesopotamia.   So analyzed policy experts before an audience of about 60 at the Hudson Institute’s September 13 panel “ISIS:  On the Verge of Defeat or Transforming Itself for the Long Haul?” in Washington, DC.

Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow Michael Pregent noted that ISIS is “quickly learning, if you don’t have the ability to shoot down an American aircraft, you shouldn’t plant a black flag, because you are likely to lose territory.”  If ISIS’ ambition to maintain a caliphate state within a certain territory became untenable, ISIS could then emulate AQ as a covert jihadist terrorist organization.  Foreign Policy Research Institute Senior Fellow Nada Bakos stated that ISIS has “already metamorphosed into another type of organization where they are inciting and directing attacks outside the territory they control.”

ISIS’ caliphate currently crumbling in the face of conventional military assault appeared to validate the strategy of AQ, a jihadist group “in this for the long haul” and “still there as a long-term threat” for the West, Bokos stated.  AQ “is still very focused on the West and the United States.  They are still very focused on various stages before they get to a caliphate” while ISIS “jumped about six of those steps.”  AQ founder Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri evinced such a strategy in AQ documents recovered during the May 1, 2011, killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  The AQ leaders had argued “don’t establish a caliphate until you can pay everybody in the caliphate and you can give them a job and you can feed them,” Pregent noted.

In an “obvious competition between the two organizations,” AQ “has a much more sophisticated and coherent ideology” and a “much more sophisticated structure” than ISIS, Bokos noted.  Pregent noted that AQ’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, was much more selective in recruitment than ISIS, placing higher ideological and military training demands upon inductees.  Similarly, Zawahiri had previously advocated making Nigeria’s Boko Haram jihadist group, currently an ISIS affiliate, an AQ affiliate, but met opposition from bin Laden, who distrusted Boko Haram’s discipline and qualifications.

Bokos suggested that AQ could eventually absorb an ISIS bereft of its caliphate territory and lacking AQ’s covert expertise.  Although tempted to go covert, ISIS’ “central effort is still holding the caliphate together.  That is what they centered and built this whole organization around.  They lose face if they lose that territory.”  Yet extortion, now a leading ISIS revenue source, alienates ISIS’ subject population of Sunni Muslims, recalling a similar alienation under ISIS’ predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  Pregent noted speculation that bin Laden had tolerated lax communication security with AQI’s leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in order to allow his 2006 killing by American troops in Iraq given his refusal to heed bin Laden’s opposition to AQI’s brutality.

Nonetheless, Pregent worried that current strategy against ISIS affiliates from Libya to Iraq is “simply resetting the conditions that led to ISIS to begin with” and allowing for a future iteration of the organization.  Anti-ISIS coalition nations are “willing to commit an air force, commit a fighter jet, maybe commit some special operators on the ground, some snipers, but the default has been to use a proxy force.”  Often distrusted by local Sunnis, such proxies “depopulate a Sunni area that ISIS controls, disperse ISIS, replace the ISIS flag with an Iraqi flag, a Syrian flag, a Libyan flag, whatever flag that may be,” then “call it a PR event.”  Yet in Iraq ISIS cells have continued to operate in towns taken from ISIS such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit, while ISIS attacks have plagued Iraq’s capital Baghdad itself.

Considering Iraq’s Shiite militias and Shiite-dominated central government, both supported by Iran, the “last thing the United States should do is provide air cover to Iranian Shia proxies as they take back these towns from ISIS,” Pregent stated.  Northwestern Iraq’s “Sunni population is more distrustful than ever of Baghdad, now more distrustful of us” after the United States’ 2011 Iraq troop withdrawal left Iraqi Sunnis alone amidst sectarian repression under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.   Continuing Shiite-Sunni animosity therefore provides fertile soil for ISIS to reestablish itself as a defender of Sunnis, meaning that after ISIS’ impending loss of Mosul “June 2017 will be June 2014 all over again,” he fears.

nazarene_pin_ad_300pxPregent’s alternative strategy is an “intelligence-driven operation where we decapitate ISIS key leaders, bring in Sunni recruits, put pressure on Baghdad to basically bring back the US-trained Sunnis that Malik purged” from Iraqi security forces.  While the CIA has estimated that ISIS has 8,000 fighters, most of them foreigners, 350,000 military-age Sunni males in Mosul have not joined ISIS, allowing for an operation in which “Mosul turns on ISIS.”  Beyond Mosul, Iraq’s lasting pacification requires getting “Baghdad to be a government Sunnis trust” while Bokos noted the need to replace Jabhat al-Nusra’s provision of municipal services, a key element of its popularity among Sunnis.

Pregent’s strategy necessitated renewed American leverage in Iraq’s region, something desired by many Sunni refugees he had met in camps in Iraq and Turkey.  Yet Sunni tribes who had helped defeat AQI during the Iraq War’s Anbar Awakening were weary of renewed alliance with America after facing both Baghdad’s repression and retaliation from AQI members who later joined ISIS.  “Our strategy is based on hope, and the tribal strategy is based on pragmatism,” he noted, while Bokos warned that ISIS had co-opted many Sunnis who once served Iraqi security forces.

Lack of a political settlement in Iraq would only give rise to future, greater dangers, Pregent worried.  The fall of ISIS’ caliphate would lead to an ISIS “2.0, Al Qaeda version, in the interim.”  Then “ISIS 3.0 comes back with an ability to shoot down an American aircraft.”

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

Iran Seeking ‘Many Billions of Dollars’ in Ransom to Free U.S. Hostages

 (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

(AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

Source close to IRGC puts bounty on remaining U.S. hostages

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, October 19, 2016:

Iran is seeking “many billions of dollars” in payments from the United States in exchange for the release of several U.S. hostages still being detained in Iran, according to reports by Iran’s state-controlled press that are reigniting debate over the Obama administration’s decision earlier this year to pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash.

Senior Iranian officials, including the country’s president, have been floating the possibility of further payments from the United States for months. Since the White House agreed to pay Tehran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year as part of a deal bound up in the release of American hostages, Iran has captured several more U.S. citizens.

Future payments to Iran could reach as much as $2 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter, who said that Iran is detaining U.S. citizens in Iran’s notorious Evin prison where inmates are routinely tortured and abused.

Iranian news sources close to the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, which has been handling prisoner swaps with the United States, reported on Tuesday that Iran expects “many billions of dollars to release” those U.S. citizens still being detained.”

“We should wait and see, the U.S. will offer … many billions of dollars to release” American businessman Siamak Namazi and his father Baquer, who was abducted by Iran after the United States paid Iran the $1.7 billion, according to the country’s Mashregh News outlet, which has close ties to the IRGC’s intelligence apparatus.

The Persian language news report was independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.

Six hostages have been sentenced to 10 years in prison by Iran in the past months, including the Namazis.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News in late September that his government is in talks with the United States to secure future payouts, a disclosure that may have played a role in the White House’s recent decision to veto legislation to block future ransom payments to Iran.

“We’re currently conducting conversations and various dialogues in order to return this money to Iran,” Rouhani was quoted as saying. “Perhaps these dialogues can be still conducted simultaneously on parallel tracks while we’re conducting those same conversations in order to free the sums of money that are still owed to us.”

One senior congressional adviser familiar with the issue told the Free Beacon that Iranian officials have been pressing for another $2 billion from the United States for months.

“Iranian officials including Foreign Minister [Mohammad Javad] Zarif have been bragging for months that they’re going to force the U.S. to pay them several billion dollars more,” the source said. “Now officials across the spectrum in Iran—from IRGC hardliners to the ostensibly moderate President Rouhani—are talking about those billions, and maybe several more, alongside chatter about the U.S. hostages.”

“Even some family members of the hostages talk that way, which is completely understandable given what they’re going through, but it doesn’t change the fact that the administration is gearing up to give Iran another ransom in the hundreds of millions and maybe again billions,” the source added.

Rumors of future ransom payments to Iran come as Congress continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion cash payment, a portion of which was delivered by plane to Iran just hours before it released several U.S. prisoners.

The Free Beacon recently disclosed that details of this payment and other details bound up in the hostage release are being stored in a highly secure location on Capitol Hill, preventing many from accessing the documents, which are not classified but are being treated as such.

The three documents show that the cash payment was directly tied to the prisoner release, adding fuel to claims of a ransom payment, according to sources who have viewed them.

Iran experts who spoke to the Free Beacon said that Iran senses weakness in the United States and is angling to squeeze more money from the administration before it leaves office.

“Paying $1.7 billion to Iran to release the U.S. prisoners has encouraged Iran to arrest more Americans,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Iran senses weakness in the U.S. leadership as it constantly tests the administration through a chain of provocative actions. To put an end to Iran’s abduction program, the administration should make it clear, by action and not words, that it does not reward Iran for its bad behavior.”

Conceding to Iran’s demands will only bolster the hardline regime, Ghasseminejad said.

“The administration must show strength in response to Iran’s other provocative actions in the region,” he said. “The administration also should warn American citizens and green card holders that Iran is a very dangerous place for them to travel or do business. However, such warning contradicts the administration’s continuous efforts to encourage investors and big banks to do business with Iran. The administration also should impose sanction on the entities and individuals involved in this abduction program.”

Sen. Rubio: Iran Deal an “Unfolding Disaster”


The Senator blasts ‘outrageous, illegal’ actions by the Obama administration.

CounterJihad, October 19, 2016:

It is not every day that you see a sitting Senator accuse the President of the United States of having broken the law.  Senator Marco Rubio of Florida did so in a recent piece published by CNN.  Oddly enough, the accusations of lawlessness take a back seat to the charge that the President’s lawless policy on Iran is failing to achieve its aims.

Here are the claims of lawbreaking, with which he opens:

Outrageous, potentially illegal, actions by this administration have become so commonplace that many Americans have become numb to the recent news regarding this President’s policy toward Iran.  We now know the President authorized a$1.7 billion cash ransom payment to Iran, then his administrationlied about it to Congress….  This endangers every American overseas by incentivizing kidnappers and encouraging hostage-takers, and since Iran’s release of five US hostages in January, multiple American citizens have been thrown into Iranian jail cells. Providing cash to Iran has also allowed the mullahs to circumvent the international financial system as they shuttle much-needed resources to their terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

We recently learned President Obama dismantled a key part of the ballistic missile sanctions against Iran eight years early…. Once again, the White House lied to the American people about its concessions to the Iranian regime.

Senator Rubio in fact understates the case.  This is in keeping with his efforts to position himself as a responsible Republican, one acceptable to the press.  Rubio has recently rebuked Presidential candidate Donald Trump for claiming that the US election is rigged, and has likewise claimed that it is irresponsible to talk about the leaks provided by Wikileaks because they might be a Russian information warfare effort.  Both of these are very popular positions among the media, and are in fact the positions of the Clinton campaign as well as the Democratic leadership.  Asserting them allows Rubio to appear to be a bipartisan, centrist figure.

This makes all the more surprising his charge that the President is breaking the law, though it does help to explain why he has presented the case far more gently than he might have done.  Take the so-called “side deals” with Iran.  The administration classified those deals, which prevented public discussion of them.  Yet they were not classified from Iran, which of course knew what the deals contained because they were a party to them.  US law does not permit classification of information to avoid political embarrassment.  It appears that the administration violated the law even in negotiating the deal, then, in order to prevent a public debate on the wisdom of its side deals.

The administration also violated the law in not providing those deals to Congress.  The law governing the negotiations required a mandatory handover of all information, including side agreements, so that Congress could consider the deal and vote on whether to approve it.  (In the event, Congress never did vote to approve the deal:  the vote was filibustered by the President’s partisans in Congress).

As for lying to Congress, the administration certainly did that, as the French confirmed.

Rubio is also right about the “giant pallets of cash,” which certainly did land in the hands of America’s worst enemies in Iran:  the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Iran’s terror-supporting shadow army.  It certainly was a hostage payment, just as the Senator suggests.  And it has indeed provoked a wave of new arrests of Americans and those with American ties, a kind of hostage taking under color of law.  All of these charges are perfectly true.

Yet Rubio’s real criticism is that all of this lawbreaking and all of these lies by the administration have failed to achieve any of the goods that the deal was supposed to achieve.

Iran has continued to develop ballistic missiles….  Earlier this year, Iran launched two missiles, one inscribed with “Israel must be wiped out” in Hebrew…. Iran has also maintained its support of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has destabilized the government in Lebanon and is working with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
A senior Iranian official has also stated that Tehran has been providing intelligence to Russia for military targeting, helping Moscow support Assad and his slaughter of innocent Syrians….
In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue to prolong a conflict that has no end in sight…. In recent days, the Houthis fired missiles at US Navy ships on multiple occasions. However, even as American sailors are attacked by an Iranian proxy, potentially using Iranian-provided weapons, the administration pretends none of this is happening, and is reluctant to condemn Iran publicly.

There, too, he is correct.  It should be shocking that Iran was allowed to buy advanced S-300 missiles from Russia as a consequence of this deal.  These missiles can defeat almost all American, and all Israeli, aircraft that might be used against Iran’s nuclear sites.  How much more shocking, then, that Iran installed those S-300s around one of the very sites the deal was supposed to render harmless.  Could there be a clearer sign of their intent to continue to use that site for weapons development?

Iran’s Supreme Leader has told his people that only a traitor or a fool thinks Iran’s future lies in diplomacy instead of in missiles.  How much of that vast cash ransom went to supply those who are even now firing Iranian-made cruise missiles at US warships at sea?

The administration has indeed been lawless, and it has been foolish.  It is good to see a Senator pointing it out.  But what will the Senate do to hold the administration accountable?  What will it do to reverse this foolish course?

How Hillary’s lawyers ran roughshod over the FBI

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 19, 2016:

Last August, FBI officials paid a visit to Hillary Clinton’s lawyers’ office in Washington and begged to see six laptop computers containing the former secretary of state’s classified e-mails. They were told to take a hike, and they did.

Clinton’s lawyers “declined to provide consent” for the bureau to even search the laptops, let alone seize them, claiming they may contain “privileged communications.”

Instead of seeking to subpoena the evidence, the FBI meekly “wished to arrange for secure storage of them in a manner agreeable to both the FBI and the attorneys” — even though the attorneys lacked authorization to handle the material, which included Top Secret information.

While arrogantly stiff-arming the FBI, Clinton’s lawyers “admitted that the e-mails contained on these laptops had been viewed by attorneys who did not have a security clearance at the time,” a newly released FBI report of the incident reveals.

The embarrassing scene, which played out at the law offices of Williams & Connolly, is just one of many examples of how lawyers loyal to Clinton ran roughshod over the FBI investigation.

In the end, investigators were able to see only e-mails from certain dates on laptops owned by top Clinton aides Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills, who conducted the e-mail seek-and-destroy mission for Clinton. After the restricted viewing, they had to agree to destroy the evidence as part of outrageous side deals FBI Director James Comey agreed to honor, even after these key witnesses were immunized against prosecution.

Mills and Samuelson are represented by former Justice Department attorney Beth Wilkinson, a longtime Democratic booster. Wilkinson also is defending two other former State Department officials central to the FBI investigation: former deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman.

Veteran FBI agents say letting one attorney represent four subjects is unheard of in a criminal investigation. The highly unusual arrangement not only allows witnesses the opportunity to share information and corroborate their stories, but it makes it virtually impossible for the FBI to put pressure on one of them to cooperate against the others.

If one of the clients ended up in criminal jeopardy, Wilkinson would never let that client say something adverse about any of her other clients. In effect, Comey let all these important witnesses — Mills, Samuelson, Reines and Sullivan — collude and coordinate their testimony before his agents ever got a crack at them.

Sure enough, partially declassified summaries of their interviews with FBI agents show that all four hewed to the same unbelievable line that they did not know their boss had a private e-mail address hosted on a private server until they heard about it in the news.

A cabal of lawyers also arranged a joint defense for Clinton inside State after she left and as Congress sought her e-mails in the Benghazi investigation.

An FBI staffer believed the State Department was shielding Clinton.

“[Redacted] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” FBI notes read.

According to interview summaries from the FBI, staffers came under “immense pressure to review quickly and not label anything as classified.”

The team normally responsible for determining which records should be kept secret said lawyers “conducted their own review” of Clinton’s e-mails — and did not consult with the CIA and FBI but with lawyers at the White House and Justice Department.

The team “felt intimidated when they used or suggested the use of the [classified] exemption on any of the 296 [Benghazi] e-mails,” according to “302” interview notes.

State lawyers gave a thumb drive containing the archive of Clinton’s e-mails to her lawyers at Williams & Connolly, but would not provide copies to the State Department’s own inspector general or to diplomatic-security officials, even though they requested them.

Career bureaucrats “were suspicious” of the lawyers John Kerry tapped to deal with congressional committees seeking Clinton e-mails, because some of them previously worked for entities that “appeared to create a conflict of interest,” the FBI said.

The names of those entities were redacted, and are among the more than 4,500 redactions in the 350 pages of documents released in the FBI investigation.

Comey has testified that he could find no evidence of ill intent by Clinton and her minions in his year-long probe of her e-mails. But his own FBI staffers complained that State officials pressured them to downgrade the classification of Clinton e-mails, even offering a “quid pro quo.” If that’s not ill-intent, what is?

Paul Sperry is a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily.

Big Brotherhood is Watching You


Why is the U.S. government only interested in partnering with the most radical Islamic groups?

Front Page Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, October 19, 2016:

According to pollster Frank Luntz’s audience meter, one of Hillary Clinton’s best moments in the first presidential debate was when she asserted that we need to cooperate with the Muslim community and not alienate them.

That makes sense, but only if you’re cooperating with the right people in the Muslim community. The trouble is, we’ve been cooperating with all the wrong people—namely, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These are not moderate Muslim groups. They are stealth jihad organizations whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in turn, has been designated as a terrorist group by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. And the UAE has also named CAIR—whose representatives are frequent visitors to the White House—as a terrorist group.

Our government has been doing community outreach to groups that ought to be highly suspect. In their bookMuslim Mafia, authors Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz contend that CAIR operates like…well, like the Mafia. Instead of urging the Muslim community to cooperate with the authorities, CAIR has been instructing them not to cooperate. According to Jihad Watch, on two occasions CAIR chapters actually printed posters urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. Like the Mafia, CAIR and similar Islamic organizations have worked to impose the omerta code on their fellow Muslims.

It sounds enlightened to say that we should be cooperating with the Muslim community, but what’s so enlightened about organizations that want to transport the Muslim community back to the Dark Ages via sharia law? There are enlightened, moderate Muslim groups in the U.S., but our government studiously ignores them. Where’s the outreach to Zudhi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Where’s the outreach to the moderate Muslim groups and individuals listed on the Clarion Project’s website?

It seems that our government is more interested in cooperating and consulting with Muslims of a more radical stripe. For example, Jeh Johnson, the director of Homeland Security, recently addressed the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America. He told them that theirs was “the quintessential American story,” and he apologized profusely for the “discrimination,” “vilification,” and “suspicion” they had been subjected to. That’s all very nice, but isn’t it the main job of Homeland Security to be suspicious—especially of groups like ISNA which are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Johnson’s boss, President Obama, has shown remarkable sympathy not only for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but also for the Brotherhood itself. His administration did everything it could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, and everything it could to keep them in power. By contrast, the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate with Egypt’s new government under President El-Sisi—a genuine moderate.

Hillary Clinton herself was involved in the machinations to keep Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in power. And, although it wasn’t widely reported, many members of the Muslim community were not happy with her. When she visited Egypt in 2012, her motorcade was pelted with shoes and tomatoes.

Another, not-so-widely-known feature of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was her collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in their efforts to find ways to silence criticism of Islam and even to criminalize such criticism. For many years the OIC’s chief ambition has been to impose omerta on the whole non-Muslim world.

Indeed, on one occasion, Clinton was instrumental in enforcing Islam’s blasphemy penalty on an American citizen. Like others in the administration, Clinton claimed that the spark for Benghazi and the Arab Spring riots was a fifteen-minute trailer spoofing Muhammad that was made by an obscure California filmmaker. She promised that he would be punished for this outrage, and, sure enough, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in prison shortly thereafter.

Even more troubling is Secretary Clinton’s close relationship with her longtime assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin. Abedin’s late father had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother, sister, and brother still do. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood, her mother has been a strong advocate for sharia law—even to the point of opposing a proposed ban on female genital mutilation.

Huma Abedin herself was for twelve years the assistant editor of a Muslim Brotherhood publication—The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Interestingly, one of JMMA’s top priorities is to encourage Muslim minority communities not to assimilate with their host cultures. Its policy, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is “to grow an unassimilated aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Huma Abedin stopped working for the cause of Muslim separatism just before she started working at the State Department. Or did she? We may never know. In 2012, Congress blocked a request by five House members for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government. The request specifically named Abedin.

Huma Abedin may be completely innocent of any subversive activities, but her family associations and her own background would seem to disqualify her for the sensitive positions she has held. In other, more commonsensical times, it’s unlikely that Abedin would have been hired as a receptionist at the State Department, let alone as deputy chief of staff. And, should Clinton be elected, Abedin might well serve as White House chief of staff, or—as some have suggested—as our next Secretary of State.

It’s important to understand that when Hillary Clinton talks about the need for close cooperation with the Muslim community, she doesn’t have Zuhdi Jasser in mind, or any other genuinely moderate Muslim. She’s thinking instead of groups like CAIR, the OIC, and the Muslim Brotherhood—and of individuals like Huma Abedin.

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com