Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Iran Nuclear Deal Is the Worst of Obama’s ‘Many Catastrophic Legacies’

Associated Press

Associated Press

Breitbart, by John Hayward, January 10, 2017:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, was tasked by SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily with choosing the “worst thing Obama is leaving this country, in terms of foreign policy.”

“Oh, that’s easy,” Gorka replied. “It’s the empowering to nuclear threshold status of a nation that his own State Department says is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Iran nuclear deal is – of all the many, many catastrophic legacies, it’s the Iran deal.”

He judged that the empowerment of Iran was a worse Obama legacy than the rise of the Islamic State because “we can wipe ISIS off the face of the earth, if we’re serious, and if we really go to war.”

“I mean, think about it: they’ve got maybe, at best, at this point, 40,000 fighters. We have twice that number of special operators alone in the United States,” he noted. “If we’re serious, we can destroy them, and then follow that up with a counter-ideological campaign. But dealing with an eschatologically informed theocratic republic that now has a crescent of influence from Yemen to Persia, which is on the cusp of nuclear capability, that’s even more dangerous.”

Gorka suggested a dissertation could be written on how the realignment of power in the Middle East became a “secret war,” largely unreported by U.S. media, because President Obama wanted to change American posture towards Iran and other regional powers.

“Obama has a legacy for using more drones to kill people in the first six months of his administration than Bush ever did,” he said. “If you look at the fact that on one day, he has bombed six different nations – but nobody’s reporting about it. During the Bush administration, we had embedded journalists. You remember embed phenomena? That doesn’t exist any more. This is the complicity of the mainstream media, that they preach peace, they preach Nobel Prizes, but this is a truly hyper-engaged administration when it comes to doing what they think is right around the world for ideological reasons. But nobody writes about it, except Breitbart.”

Gorka agreed with author Dinesh D’Souza’s contention that Obama was “the first post-American President.”

“His guiding philosophy was very simple: America is bad. If there are problems in the world, from global warming to you-name-it, we are the cause. America is the new imperial force. As a result, we have to be taken down a peg or two – and my, did he take us down a peg or two,” he said.

Gorka had no patience for Obama’s claim of a “scandal-free” presidency.

“Where to begin? Benghazi, the IRS, the Iran deal, the involvement of drone strikes against U.S. citizens without due process – on and on and on,” he said. “That is perhaps the most bare-faced lie of any of the press reporting in the last eight years, that this was a scandal-free administration.”

Kassam asked for Gorka’s take on how the Trump transition team is handling the Russian hacking story, in particular the assertion in the intelligence community’s public report that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered an effort to influence the 2016 election via media manipulation.

“I can’t talk to the transition, but if you listen to the statements that are being made, I think you’ll understand that the transition team understands better than most: this isn’t about ‘hacking.’ It’s hard to hack somebody whose password is ‘password,’” Gorka replied, making a jab at the notoriously lax security procedures of Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.

“This is about influence operations and information warfare,” he continued. “The issue is that Russia, for very little investment, managed to question the probity of our elections, without there really being anything that’s occurred to the elections themselves. That’s the big story. This is old, Cold War-style information operations at their worst.”

He said links to Russia could be seen in the penetration of the Democratic National Committee and Podesta’s email.

“If you look at the code that was used, if you look at the various modus operandi, the report from DHS, FBI, the unclassified one is clear. But the important point is, it’s not a ‘hack.’ The election wasn’t undermined. It is the perception of the probity of the election, and that’s called active measures. That’s called dezinformatsiya,” Gorka said.

Kassam noted the IC report has been criticized for offering far-reaching conclusions about Russian involvement without providing any supporting information, much of which would still be classified – the very same criticism that was leveled retroactively, for years, with white-hot passion, against the intelligence reports on pre-war Iraq. “Why are we just sort of accepting this now?” he asked.

“Look, the thing that has to be remembered – and this is the point I always try to make on any interviews – is that we have patriots and good people working inside the national security establishment,” Gorka responded. “For the majority of cases, that is absolutely true. But who runs them? Who is John Brennan? Who is General Clapper? These individuals are politically chosen. John Brennan has carried the water for Obama for eight years. That is important, and as a result, we have to reassess when one agency says something that the other agencies do not agree with. That’s the bottom line, Raheem.”

Kassam recalled that the last time unanimity was supposedly reached between the intelligence agencies, “it was Colin Powell sitting there claiming that everybody believed we had to go to war in Iraq. How’d that work out for us?”

“Yes indeed – another political actor who I’m sure regrets waving a test tube at the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, the ‘sexed-up’ dossier, Colin Powell’s behavior – these are all things we must remember,” Gorka urged.

Also see:

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

AP

AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report provides details on WikiLeaks close ties to RT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCLeaks.com began spreading GRU hacked data in June.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Also see:

Bolton on WikiLeaks Revelations: Hillary Clinton Thinks the World Must ‘Get Ready for Open Borders’

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 13, 2016:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton discussed the latest WikiLeaks revelations of favors done for “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) in Haiti on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM.

“Just to start with, Haiti, it is a series of violations of AIDs, typical procurement practices,” Bolton pointed out. “Not that I would hold them up as the best in the world, but there arerules about competitive bidding, and rules against the directed award of contracts.” (AID is the United States Agency for International Development, also commonly referred to as USAID.)

“I can speak as an alumnus of AID, having been general counsel, the chief lawyer in the agency in the Reagan Administration, and also later being in charge of policy and budget. Things have changed, obviously, since then, but the main lines of competitive bidding have never changed,” he said.

“I just this morning, in fact, in the wake of all these emails, heard from a friend who was a former senior official at AID, that he was told by a career AID person that they had been told specifically by Cheryl Mills that they should direct contracts to some company that she had never heard of. And I think that’s the sort of favors being indicated in all these emails,” Bolton added.

“It’s just extraordinary that this kind of corruption – and that’s what it is. That’s what competitive bidding is designed to protect against, to get the best value for our tax dollars obviously, but to prevent this kind of political favor,” he explained. “And when the mainstream media finally talk about it, they don’t know we’ve moved toward objective reporting in America. I don’t see much sign of it, I must say.”

 Breitbart’s Washington Political Editor and SiriusXM host Matthew Boyle observed that the mainstream media and political class are “really stopping at nothing to try to keep Donald Trump from winning.”

Bolton responded:

Well, I think within the mainstream media, the Wall Street Journal editorial page some weeks back pointed out very well, they called the media – and really it’s true both with respect to the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign – they called the mainstream media their stenographers. Whatever they put out, they write.

They’ve just abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and so it really comes down to whether the American voter can withstand this barrage of misinformation, and still make a clear choice about who they want for President and Senate and House, in all the various elections we’re going to see in less than a month now.

Bolton thought it was a little too early to draw comparisons between the 2016 presidential race and the Brexit vote, but added:

I think what was uncovered there has been something that’s happened in various American elections over the years as well. When people know what the politically correct answer is to a pollster – whether they’re doing it over the phone, whether they’re doing it automatically on a touch-tone phone, or whether it’s a real person interviewing them – they understand that their answers are gonna be seen by other people, and so they will tend, for their own protection, to give the politically correct answer, whether it’s what they really believe or not.

“So in the case of Brexit, there were undoubtedly people who didn’t want to say that they were going to vote to leave, so they either said Remain or undecided,” he continued. “It turned out to be a substantial number of people, and they prevailed on the referendum day, June 23. Now, whether that’s the case here, we don’t know, but I don’t think there’s any doubt people know what the politically correct answer is.”

Bolton said another WikiLeaks document revealing Hillary Clinton’s support for “open borders” was “not that different really, in fact it’s the same phrase that John Kerry used just a few months ago, to say that the world had to get ready for open borders.”

“It’s going to be very interesting, for example, to see if the new U.N. Secretary-General, who has held essentially that same position, pushes for that when he takes office on January the 1st,” Bolton said.

“And it ties into another statement in one of Podesta’s emails that was leaked, that it’s increasingly necessary for candidates, at least on his side, to have one public position and one private position. So, you know, if you like organized hypocrisy, if you like flat-out deceit, then that’s the campaign that’s taking it to new heights. Seems to me if this is something that matters still to the American people, they ought to reflect that in how they vote on Election Day,” he concluded.

 

Frank Gaffney: Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Policies Put U.S. on ‘Road to a Sharia State’

hillary-clinton-saudi-arabia-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 12, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, president and founder of the Center for Security Policy, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to share his observations on the latest WikiLeaks disclosure of Hillary Clinton documents.

Gaffney said his biggest takeaway was that revelations about Hillary Clinton’s “personal involvement in corrupt activities and policy choices that have been disastrous for America” are coming so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with them all – and the mainstream media have very little interest in keeping up with any of it.

“This stuff is hemorrhaging out now, and I think that especially when, as you say, we’ve got to spend really all of our available time focusing the banter, and the locker room, and so on. We’re not doing justice to a fraction of it,” he lamented.

He zeroed in on a particular disclosure from an email revealed by WikiLeaks, in which Clinton privately said the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were secretly funding the Islamic State.

“It really puts back into focus – I know Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want that, but we sure need it – it puts back into focus the double game the Saudis have been playing, and for that matter, other Islamic supremacists doing business under other banners, notably the Muslim Brotherhood,” Gaffney said.

“But we’re watching this election play out, and it’s not just the progressive Left – which you’ve made some very important points about, and Andrew Breitbart, of course, was determined to defeat. Andrew was also, as you know so well, Alex, determined to prevent the Islamic supremacists, the jihadists, from accomplishing here what they’ve sought to do in Europe and elsewhere, which is to subvert us from within,” he warned.

Gaffney recommended a “very powerful film” called The Enemies Within by New Zealander Trevor Loudon, which explores “the ties between the Clintons, and for that matter, a whole bunch of other Democratic Party operatives and leaders, in Congress and elsewhere, the labor unions and on and on – both with respect of course to the hard Left, and I’m talking not just the so-called progressives; I’m talking about the socialists, I’m talking about the communists, the radical Left – and the Islamists.”

Gaffney called The Enemies Within a “staggering indictment of what has been happening in our government now for many years.”

“What Trevor does, a scrupulously careful researcher, and he’s showing how you connect the dots between the people who have essentially penetrated our institutions – academia, the labor movement, the government, the media, and on and on, and how they have wrought this subversion from within by essentially grabbing the people who were coming up through the ranks of the Democratic Party over the years, and how they were training them, how they were getting them elected, and how they were now able to essentially direct and dominate the kinds of statutory work that they do in Congress, the kind of administrative policies and orders that the President’s been executing, and so on.”

“It’s that combination of what Trevor, and the rest of us, I think, are increasingly calling the Red-Green Axis that’s so important here,” Gaffney stressed. “It’s not just the Left we’re dealing with, it’s not just the so-called Red. It’s not just the Islamists, the so-called Green. It’s the combination of the two. And oh, by the way, you can throw in the Black, as well, because they are very actively working, as Trevor documents in The Enemy Within, the Black Lives Matter movement, Soros money, and on and on.”

“You can write this down if you want, as some elegant and exhaustive conspiracy theory,” he acknowledged, “but the dots are there to be connected. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a conspiracy. We are facing the decades-long legacy that if we don’t stop it now, if we don’t prevent it from having another four years to metastasize further, I’m sorry to say I’m not sure it’s reversible.”

“These are the sort of things that ought to be front and center in this election campaign, and I thank God for the work you’re doing every day, trying to get this back into focus, and make sure that the kind of information that is coming out – not in dribs and drabs but in a fire hose, from WikiLeaks and other sources – about Hillary Clinton’s judgment, policy predilections, associations, and corruption is given the kind of attention that it has to have before we turn over the country to her and her ilk,” Gaffney told Marlow.

Returning to the question of the Saudis and Qataris funding the Islamic State, Gaffney said, “It’s not exactly news, but the fact that they were also funding her, and her husband, and their family foundation, and the library, and on and on, is a big deal.”

“To have it now out in her own words, according to these leaked documents, is a big deal, and the fact that it has allowed the Clintons – and, I’m sorry to say, the Bushes, too – to engage in a policy that has effectively supported people who are trying to take us down, namely the Saudis. They’re supporting both the Islamic State, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other Islamic supremacist entity, with the possible exception of the guys that the Iranians, the Shiites, are supporting,” Gaffney charged, adding that “there seems to be a lot of crossover there, too.”

He said this was nothing less than “the betrayal of our country, and it ought to be front-and-center in an evaluation of whether this woman is fit to be our commander-in-chief, let alone what she would do if she were able to exercise the reins of power in that position.”

Gaffney agreed with Marlow that the “connective tissue” between other leaked Clinton emails is that “like those on the hard Left, Hillary Clinton does, in fact, admire central statism, and globalism, and yes, the elimination of our country.”

“They can dress it up with other terms, but fundamentally, as you’ve said, and several of your callers did this morning, that’s what open borders gets you,” he argued. “And, by the way, there was a terrific piece at Breitbart London yesterday about this woman, Dr. Machteld Zee out of the Netherlands, it turns out a former, pretty leftist academic there, who has done a study; she’s published it in a book that talks about what she calls the holy alliance … a powerful new book about the road to a sharia state. That is, in fact, what we’re dealing with when we talk about at least some of the people that are intent on coming across, that Hillary Clinton is intent upon bringing across our open borders, or bringing in as refugees.”

(The book Gaffney referred to is entitled Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State. Breitbart London’s article about Dr. Zee can be read here.)

“When you look at these various leaks, when you look at the documentation that’s coming out, when you look at her record, when you look at Huma Abedin, as we’ve been talking about, and her influence, it couldn’t be more clear that Hillary Clinton’s objective – as is true of so many others like her on the radical Left, and their Islamist allies – is mutating beyond recognition this country,” Gaffney warned. “The President called it ‘fundamentally transforming’ it. And if they can get away with it, over the next four years, we’re done. We’re literally done as a republic, recognizable by anyone who is familiar with our Constitution, at least.”

***

On ‘Hannity,’ ‘Defeating Jihad’ author slams Hillary’s hypocrisy uncovered in the WikiLeaks dump

Frank Gaffney: Obama Seeks to ‘Shred What Is Left of the Constitution’ by Nullifying Senate’s Role in Treaty-Making

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 14, 2016:

“I think we are at a turning point nationally, where a choice is going to be made to reject the course that we’ve been on,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“It’s not entirely clear to me that we know what the other choice is going to be,” he said, continuing:

But we’re going to see, I think, the American people saying, “You know, another Obama term – or perhaps more, and worse, than what we’ve been served up over the past eight years – is unacceptable to us. We can’t, perhaps, even survive it, as a nation.”

Gaffney said this gave him hope, and made him “feel better than I have about our country for some time, in that the public seems to be getting that choice, and it seems to me – this is maybe anecdotal or just entirely subjective – but I think they’re beginning to say, ‘Enough; we don’t want more of the same.’”

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow built on Gaffney’s comment about how Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy could be even worse than Obama’s, saying the Clintons think about “what the Clintons want, and not what’s best for the American people.”

“Again, you have an agenda, of which the Clintons have been a part for a long time, whether it’s a sort of trans-nationalism, whether it’s leftism,” said Gaffney. He added:

As you know, I’ve been particularly concerned about, with respect to Hillary most especially, has been her deep sympathy for Islamic supremacism. I don’t know how else to describe it. What we’ve seen her do, reflexively, throughout her time as secretary of state and in the period since, has been to espouse, and embrace, and empower, to fund, and in some cases, even to arm people who seek to impose this doctrine they call sharia on the rest of us.

“This is the sort of thing I think the American people are going to choose to say, ‘No more. We can’t afford that. We don’t want any part of it,’” he predicted, drawing further encouragement from news Marlow broke during the show about Donald Trump gaining five points in two days on the L.A. Times tracking poll. Gaffney called that “a trend in the right direction for our country.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about reports that President Obama would veto the bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for damages – a bill which passed the House unanimously last week.

Gaffney replied:

The argument is being made, of course, is that you’ve got considerations that will extend beyond the immediate question of whether the Saudis deserve to be sued, for what, I think, is unmistakably the participation of, not just their nationals in actually causing the attacks of 9/11, but in helping arrange those attacks. By the way, the Iranians are also implicated in a similar way, and should be subject to a similar suit.

But you’ve got people making the argument, “Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be ending up opening a true Pandora’s box to Americans being sued for a host of other reasons.” I come down on taking the Saudis to court, myself. I have to tell you, and I think the American people are there, and that’s why you see this overwhelming, probably veto-overriding, majority in the Congress.

He noted President Obama’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is that “we’re going to be subjecting our own people, our government, our personnel, to similar kinds of actions by other governments.”

However, Gaffney thought “at some level, at least, this is about protecting the Saudis.”

“Successive presidents, let’s be honest, Republican as well as Democrats, have been doing it for decades,” he pointed out. Elaborating, he said:

And it has enabled the double game that is – well, unfortunately, really, 9/11 is a prime example of it. They were able to lend, at the level of the Saudi ambassador to the United States – a deep personal friend of the George W. and George H.W. families – to engage in active material support for terrorism, as did his wife. And on and on. These are the sorts of things that, I think, would out, if there were a proper litigation that held them accountable.

“I think they should be held accountable, but I think the U.S. government doesn’t want to go there, quite apart from this other pretext that they’re concerned about being sued ourselves,” Gaffney said.

Marlow also asked for Gaffney’s take on the situation in North Korea, which just conducted its fifth illegal nuclear bomb test. Gaffney said there were “two critically important points” to be made:

One is that the North Koreans are a threat to the United States not just to our friends, and allies, and forces in their immediate area, but now increasingly to the continental United States itself. And that’s because they have been allowed, in part, enabled by a deal that Bill Clinton signed with them, back in 1994 – which was a fraud, not as great a fraud as the one Obama signed with the Iranians, but basically of a piece with it, and it set the stage for what we’re seeing now.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Miniaturizing of those nuclear weapons? Yes. And placing them on longer and longer-range ballistic missiles, including, it appears, quite possibly, on missiles that are now sending into orbit satellites – which are circling, among other places, the United States, and could be platforms for delivering those nuclear weapons.

And perhaps the most dangerous so far imaginable, and that is an electro-magnetic pulse attack. These weapons seem to be optimized for that purpose. We’ve learned that they have a super EMP design that they got from old Soviet Union.

So these are very serious problems. That’s Point One. Point Two is, Alex, as you know, the President of the United States is in his last days, and determined to shred what is left of the Constitution of the United States. In the foreign policy area, where that is manifesting itself is in connection with doing things that eliminate, essentially, one of the most important checks and balances in our government, and that is the role that the United States Senate plays as a quality-control mechanism on treaty-making arrangements that the Executive Branch might engage in.

We’ve seen this flouted with the Iran deal, we’ve seen it flouted most recently with this so-called Paris climate change accord. Next up is a treaty the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, that the president would like to get the United Nations Security Council to do some kind of blessing of, that would then supplant the rejection of that treaty by an actual majority of the United States Senate, back in 1999.

Gaffney concluded:

The reason all this matters is that you’ve got the North Koreans testing nuclear weapons at will. I believe the Russians and Chinese are doing the same, albeit in a less obvious way. Everybody on the planet, in other words, that threatens us is using this kind of capability to modernize the threat they pose to us. And it’s real, and it’s growing. And the President of the United States is hoping to bind his successor never to be able to modernize – or, I’m afraid, even maintain our nuclear deterrent.

LISTEN:

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and NATO

nt

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Thornton, July 27, 2016:

The Never Trump crowd has found another example of The Donald’s disqualifying ignorance: comments he made about NATO. He has said that our contributions to NATO are “unfair,” that they are “costing us a fortune,” that we are “getting ripped off,” and that they are “getting a free ride.” By the way, Obama in his Atlantic interview also called the Europeans “free riders,” but I don’t recall a lot of sneering at the president for his “alarming” and “dangerous” remarks, as one critic put it.

Trump also implied that he would put the European NATO members’ feet to the fire about meeting the 2006 requirement that they spend 2% of GDP on their militaries, and suggested he would negotiate a new contribution schedule. Few NATO members have met that requirement, which is a violation of Article 3 that requires member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” According to NATO’s own report, only five countries are estimated to meet the 2% requirement in 2016. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain­­––the first, third, fourth, and fifth largest economies in the EU––are not among them. The richest, Germany, is expected to remain at 1.19%. In contrast, the US will spend 3.9%. As Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General from 1999-2004, put it, European nations are “military pygmies.”

Critics of Trump are technically correct to say that he exaggerates when he claims that the US pays the “lion’s share” of NATO funding. In fact, the US pays under a fifth (22%). But the complaints about European NATO members, which predate Trump by decades, take into account more salient deficiencies. “Common funding,” of which the US covers a fifth, is “used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities),” according to NATO. In other words, mostly institutional bureaucratic infrastructure.

“Indirect spending” covers what each nation voluntarily contributes to an operation. NATO acknowledges the greater share the US spends on indirect spending: “there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.” We could also mention transport aircraft, cruise missiles, and other matériel that the European countries simply don’t have much of. For example, in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya, there were 246 cruise missiles launched. The US fired 228 of them. At $1.5 million apiece, that adds up to $342 million taxpayer dollars spent to destabilize a country and get four of our citizens killed.

This discrepancy in indirect spending and military capability was already obvious in the 1990’s when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop a vicious war. During the 1999 crisis in Kosovo, the Europeans had to make “heroic efforts” just to deploy 2% of their two million troops, according to the British foreign secretary. Historian William Shawcross writes of the bombing campaign, “The United States flew the overwhelming majority of the missions, and dropped almost all the precision-guided U.S.-made munitions, and most of the targets were generated by U.S. intelligence.”

So Trump’s complaints, as blustering and exaggerated as they may be, are legitimate. Operations conducted by NATO are overwhelmingly American funded and directed, and NATO is a diplomatic fig-leaf for American power.

No more convincing are the reasons critics give for supporting NATO. The alliance has not prevented “major state conflict since World War II,” as a writer at NRO claims. Given that some 40 million people have died in conflicts since WWII, I’m not sure what “peace” we’re talking about. During the Cold War, the peace between the US and the Soviet Union was kept by nuclear “mutually assured destruction” and millions of American troops, not NATO. Nor was Europe in any condition to fight among themselves. The Europeans were, and still are in many ways, burned out after 30 years of warring, and had neither the will, the morale, nor the belief in anything worth dying for to engage in another war. With their security underwritten by the US, they could spend their money on lavish social welfare programs and la dolce vita. Thinking NATO kept the peace is as preposterous as claiming the EU did.

Then there’s Article 5, the pledge that NATO members will fight for any member state that’s been attacked. Much is made of the only time Article 5 has been invoked, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet all that solidarity and allied good will didn’t stop France and Germany from trying to undermine the US when it tried to get the UN to sanction the war in 2003 on Saddam Hussein, who had violated 16 UN resolutions and the formal terms ending the 1991 Iraq War. Despite the consensus of American and European intelligence agencies that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, France and Germany took the lead in lobbying the Security Council to oppose the authorization to use force against Iraq.  Germany’s ambassador to the UN Council pressured members like Mexico and Chile to vote against the US. Worse yet, France and Germany, along with Belgium, formally objected to a proposal for NATO to send defensive equipment to Turkey, which wanted assurances that it would be supported by its fellow NATO members if attacked for supporting the war against Hussein.

This behavior of NATO allies did not reflect principle, but national interests and politics. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was running for re-election, and found reflexive German anti-Americanism and pacifism a convenient distraction from his terrible economic record. France had grubbier reasons in addition to its ownressentiment towards the US––renewing the arm sales to Iraq and oil development contracts it had enjoyed for years before the war, and could resume once the sanctions on Hussein were lifted, something France was actively pursuing. As Shawcross summarized, “The long friendship with Saddam, commercial considerations, the response to le défi Américain, and concern over the reactions of France’s Muslims––all these played a part in [President Jacques] Chirac’s calculations in the summer of 2002.”

The importance put on Article 5 forgets that, as George Washington said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bound by its interests.” NATO members have made and in the future will make decisions based on each nation’s estimation of its interests. So there’s no guarantee that invoking Article 5 would lead to meaningful NATO member support. And given the weakness of their militaries, just how much actual rather than rhetorical support could the Europeans provide in the event of an attack? How many battle carrier groups does NATO possess? The Europeans can’t even afford cruise missiles.

Finally, the arguments for NATO are predicated on an either-or fallacy. If we don’t have the NATO alliance and the benefits it supposedly brings for collective security, then we’ll have nothing. But of course, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US would quickly sign bilateral and multilateral defense agreements with individual countries or groups of countries, including some current NATO members. The argument that without NATO our security would be endangered is as fallacious as the argument of the Remain faction in England that leaving the EU would put the UK in danger. A country as rich and powerful as the US will find no dearth of countries eager to bandwagon with it.

Trump’s critics continue to search for dubious reasons to justify sitting out the election or even voting for Hillary. There may be many reasons not to vote for Trump, but criticizing NATO isn’t one of them.

***

Also see:

***

Frank Gaffney: The Battle Against ‘Civilization Jihad’ Is a ‘Defining Moment for Our Country’

ISIS-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, March 30, 2016:

On Wednesday morning’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, Frank Gaffney president of the Center for Security Policy and recently announced advisor to presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz’s national security team, joined SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to discuss the role terrorism and border security will play in the 2016 presidential race.

Gaffney said border security issues should be a key issue for every prospective successor to President Obama.  “This is a problem that is festering.  It has for a long time. But it’s becoming… well, it’s not a festering sore any more.  This is a metastasizing cancer, really.”

He noted the increasing evidence that the Brussels bombings were meant to be radiological attacks, or “dirty bombs,” which would have made the already horrific carnage even worse, and with the possibility of further attacks looming over the next few months, national security would surely “rocket to the forefront in this election season.”

Gaffney said it was difficult to grasp the magnitude of the threat America was dealing with, “whether it’s from immigration, illegal, or refugees, or parolees, or lottery winners, or any number of other means by which we’ve been admitting people who are potentially mortal threats to this country… or whether it’s the fact that we’ve got people here already who represent those sorts of threats, and who have an infrastructure in place in this country, as we’ve seen they had in Brussels, and in Paris, and in other parts of Europe…”

On the latter point, he clarified that the Muslim Brotherhood has been working for decades, since the early 1960s, to establish a network of “mosques, cultural centers, Islamic societies, front groups, and influence operations” that have “basically created the infrastructure for jihad.”

“I’m not saying that they’re using it for that purpose now, but that’s, I think, clearly what’s anticipated,” Gaffney warned.  “Don’t take my word for it.  This is contained in a document that the Muslim Brotherhood itself generated, called the Explanatory Memorandum.”

He directed listeners to the Center for Security Policy’s website to obtain a copy of this document, which he recommended reading to understand the concept of “civilization jihad,” the Islamist strategy to “take over countries like ours.”

“I know it sounds crazy here, but we’re watching it take place in Europe,” he said.

Gaffney addressed accusations from the Left, prominently including President Obama, that those warning against the Islamist threat are “hatemongering” and slandering Islam with the actions of a tiny, insignificant minority.

“I don’t know if he’s talking about me, or if he’s talking about lots of people who are arriving at the same conclusion – that is that not all Muslims are engaged in this kind of jihad, either of the stealthy kind, of of the violent kind,” said Gaffney.  “But an awful lot of them are.  And those that are, unfortunately, include the authorities of the faith.  They believe that jihad is part of their God-directed responsibility.”

I think that the President of the United States, who insists that this has nothing to do with Islam, this is a tiny group of people and they’re trying to hijack a great Abrahamic religion of peace, and so on… They’re either completely deluded themselves, or they’re purposely deluding the rest of us,” he said.

Gaffney commended Senator Cruz for bringing “clarity” to the debate over Islamist terrorism.  “This is a defining moment for our country,” he declared.  “It’s as important as Reagan’s efforts to help really define his differences with Jimmy Carter about the Soviet Union.  We’re dealing with a totalitarian threat.  It’s real.  It’s not the imaginings of a few of us.  It is a problem that is now becoming manifest, and we’ve got to deal with it.  It doesn’t get better when it’s being ignored.”

While he said he admired Donald Trump’s effort to “bring political space” to the debate about national security and the threat of jihad, Gaffney said he found himself “much more in alignment with the positions that Senator Cruz has taken across the board.”  He added there was no doubt in his mind that Cruz was ready to take over as Commander-in-Chief on his first day in office.

“It really comes down to judgment and instincts, as much as it does policy experience,” Gaffney said.  “I think his experience stands up to scrutiny, but I really admire his instincts, and his judgment.  I think that’s what’s desperately needed at the moment, especially after eight years of Barack Obama.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Does Islam ‘Hate’ Us?

AP_863864811400-640x480Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, March 16, 2016:

In remarks last week, Donald Trump once again made headlines about the threat we face from Islamic supremacism. As he succinctly put it, “Islam hates us.”

In the course of the most recent Republican debate, he refused to back away from that assertion, bringing a variety of responses from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and harsh criticism from some Muslims, their allies on the left and media outlets.

This is a conversation that is long overdue and needs to be had as we decide not only on the next Commander-in-Chief, but whether to provide a national security mandate for our 45th President.

It would be a more illuminating conversation – and a better guide for policy – if we are clear about our terms. There is no getting around the fact that the practice of Islam as defined by the faith’s authorities (e.g., Al-Azhar University, the clerical leaders of Saudi Arabia, the mullahs of Iran, etc.) is hateful towards those like us, who believe that our government should be defined by a man-made Constitution, not by the dictates of a deity like Allah codified in a doctrine like sharia.

That said, there are Muslims who do not practice Islam in accordance with sharia. They generally don’t want to live under its brutal repression, let alone seek to impose it on others. In fact, many of them came to this country to get away from that totalitarian program in their native lands.

Unfortunately, the folks who define Islam don’t think, as we do, that such folks are “good Muslims.” They think they are apostates. And that can be treated as a capital offense under sharia.

But ignoring these non-sharia-adherent Muslims or, worse yet, lumping them in with those who do follow sharia, is not only inaccurate. It is counterproductive. The former do not necessarily hate us; the latter are obliged to do so by what they consider to be divine direction.

For this reason, we should define the problem as the hateful doctrine of sharia and the Islamic supremacists who are determined to ensure that the entire world submits to it. Sharia not only hates us. If not thwarted, the successful imposition of sharia will achieve the end to which those who hate us – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – aspire: our destruction as a free nation and people.

Our understanding of this reality is made more complicated by the lengths to which those who should know better are going to obscure it. That’s the subject of a new book my colleague Clare Lopez and I have just published entitled See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of DefenseIt chronicles how this administration and the preceding one have insisted that “Islam is a religion of peace,” that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that those engaged in such terror are hijacking and perverting the Islamic faith.

Such comments ignore sharia and its animating of jihad, including both the violent kind and the pre-violent, stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Bad as the implications of such official dissembling or willful blindness are, matters are made worse by the fact that other influencers, including the mainstream media, are also aiding and abetting the enemy.

A prime example of the sort of propagandizing being done by some in the press was aired by National Public Radio last week. During NPR’s Morning Edition, reporter Tom Gjelten fawningly and at great length profiled an initiative called “Celebrate Mercy.” Gjelten uncritically repeated incorrect claims by Dalia Mogahed, who had previously worked in the White House as an advisor to President Obama and who even the far-left Daily Kospegged correctly as “a Muslim Brotherhood apologist.” Mogahed claimed Mohammed’s time in Medina showed him to be an exemplar of peace and tolerance and, if only Muslims model their lives on his, they will eschew radicalization.

In point of fact, the Medina period of Mohammed’s life as depicted in Islam’s revered texts is the feedstock of sharia’s doctrine of conquest, submission and jihadism. Efforts to urge conformity with it as the perfect model for the faithful Muslim is actually the agenda of so-called “radicals” and “violent extremists.” Kyle Shideler makes this point in the Federalist:

What Moghed does not say and the entire NPR article fails to address is that Islamists view Mohammed’s behavior in Medina as an example for establishing Islam as the dominant political system, at the expense of the Jews, which Islamic historiography identifies as being massacred and expelled. Moghed herself can scarcely be unaware of this, seeing as ISPU is itself a pro-Islamist think tank include numerous Muslim Brotherhood-associated thinkers.

What makes matters worse is this bottom line: Our ignoring, downplaying or misrepresenting the virulent hatred felt by sharia-adherent Muslims towards those of us in what they call the Dar al Harb, or House of War (i.e., the non-Muslim world), is seen by the jihadists not as “political correctness” or diversity sensitivity. Instead, they perceive it as evidence of the West’s submission. And, according to sharia, the appropriate response is for Islamists to redouble their efforts to make the infidel, in the words of the Koran, “feel subdued.” That means more jihad, not less.

In short, sharia hates us, its adherents are obliged to try to make us submit to their repression and, when we show signs of doing so, they will use whatever means are at hand – including more violence – to finish our destruction. We need a Commander-in-Chief who gets all that and will respond effectively.

To that end, let’s hope that Donald Trump’s latest comments about Islam will be but the beginning of a serious and informed national debate.

Clinton Silent as Number of Worldwide Refugees Reaches Record Level

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, June 23, 2015:

Hillary Clinton’s policies as secretary of state failed to address several crises that have produced a record number of displaced persons worldwide, according to a Republican group that also noted her lack of a commemoration for World Refugee Day.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said in a report last week that there were 59.5 million people who were forcibly displaced at the end of 2014, the largest number ever recorded. More than half of the displaced persons were children. Refugee levels spiked in the Middle East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, all regions where Clinton’s policies faced criticism during her tenure as secretary of state.

America Rising PAC, a GOP opposition research firm, pointed out that Clinton—the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president—did not make a statement on World Refugee Day, this past Saturday.

“Secretary Clinton’s silence on World Refugee Day was extremely telling,” Colin Reed, executive director of America Rising, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “Under her failed leadership at the State Department, the world became less stable and more dangerous, and her policies led to the global unrest that has contributed to the number of refugees reaching record levels.”

The UNHCR said one of the main contributors to the burgeoning refugee total is the four-year civil war in Syria, where an average of 42,500 people were displaced each day of last year. Syria has the world’s most internally displaced people (7.6 million) as well as refugees that have fled to other countries (3.88 million).

In March 2011, Clinton said the United States did not intervene in Syria because of the perception that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a “reformer.” Critics later derided Clinton for the comment when Assad escalated his crack down on the country’s opposition and began to kill his own people, including with chemical weapons. The civil war has claimed more than 200,000 lives.

Clinton reportedly supported efforts to arm more moderate rebels early in the civil war but failed to persuade President Obama to do so.

Terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS), capitalized on the chaos in the Syrian war to expand their territory. In June 2014, IS launched an offensive across the Syrian border into western and northern Iraq, seizing the key city of Mosul and eventually other cities in Iraq’s Anbar province. More than 3.3 million Iraqis have been displaced by IS.

Last June, Clinton said she “could not have predicted the extent to which [IS] could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamist state.” Intelligence officials have said their efforts to monitor IS were made more difficult by the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011. Clinton largely supported the removal of U.S. forces from Iraq and dismissed criticism of the Obama administration, which was unable to secure a status of forces agreement permitting a residual troop presence.

In Ukraine, the conflict between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists has displaced1.2 million people in the country and resulted in more than 6,000 deaths since last April. Clinton infamously presented a “reset” button to Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, in 2009 to promote more cooperation between the two countries, though the Russian word on the button actually translated into “overcharged.” Amid Russia’s ongoing destabilization of Ukraine and continued support for Assad, the reset policy is now widely regarded as a misguided move. Nonetheless, Clinton said last year that the reset “worked” on issues such as nuclear nonproliferation and the transport of supplies to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Additionally, the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has forced more than 1.5 million people, including 800,000 children, to abandon their homes. Hundreds of Nigerian teachers and schoolchildren were killed last year. Despite pressure from some U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, Clinton declined to name Boko Haram a terrorist group while she was secretary of state. Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) has speculated that Clinton’s decision might be related to Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian construction magnate and Clinton Foundation donor with substantial business interests in the country.

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on World Refugee Day and her policies as secretary of state.

Also see:

Congressman: Clinton Email Scandal Nixonian

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, March 5, 2015:

Revelations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton primarily conducted official state business using a private email address has prompted congressional investigators to ratchet up legal pressure on the likely Democratic presidential nominee, according to leading lawmakers and sources familiar with the ongoing investigations.

“Secretary Clinton’s claim that she asked the State Department to release her emails is meaningless since they only have access to the emails she chose to provide them,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said Thursday.

“The Committee will use all tools at our disposal to ensure we obtain every relevant email, potentially including ones Mrs. Clinton, her political advisers and lawyers chose to hold back, as we compile a full and complete record of the facts on the Benghazi attacks,” Roskam revealed.

Clinton has become engulfed in controversy following the disclosure that she conducted official government business from a private email address, which appears to run counter to established security protocols and regulations governing communication between executive branch officials.

Congressional investigators looking into Clinton’s conduct during the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans say they will step up their inquiry into Clinton following these new disclosures, which one leading lawmaker described as Nixonian in nature.

At issue is the possibility that Clinton intentionally failed to submit to Congress reams of correspondence that may have taken place over this private account, rather than over Clinton’s official State Department email address.

While the committee was aware that Clinton had been using a private email address, it did not know until recent weeks that she was using the account almost exclusively, according to sources familiar with the issue.

Sources tracking Congress’ investigation into the Benghazi attacks further told the Washington Free Beacon that lawmakers are becoming frustrated with what they see as the Clinton machine’s continuous stalling tactics.

“The Committee is clearly running out of patience for these stall tactics,” the source said. “They are ratcheting up efforts to get every piece of information relevant to the investigation in order to finally hold those responsible accountable.”

“Secretary Clinton owes the American people an explanation for what appears to be an intentional attempt to evade federal record protocols,” the source said. “Lawmakers seem poised to ensure these questions are answered in order to finally get to the bottom of this.”

Clinton said on Thursday in a tweet that she had asked the State Department to release all of her emails, though it remains unclear how the department could fully track an email address it did not operate.

A spokesman for the Benghazi committee said it “is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State.”

“Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which wasreportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the committee uncovered two email addresses,” the spokesman said.

“I want the public to see my email,” Clinton said Wednesday evening via Twitter. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

Roskam said in a subsequent statement that the Benghazi committee has been fighting with the State Department for months to gain access to all Obama administration communications pertaining to the 2012 attacks.

“For months the Select Committee has pressed the State Department for access to all communications from key officials on watch during the Benghazi terrorist attacks,” Roskam said. “Yet until last week the administration failed to mention that countless emails from Secretary Clinton have been missing from this search because she exclusively used private accounts during her tenure.”

“The last time we saw a high government official seeking to edit their own responses was President Nixon, and at least then he enjoyed the benefit of executive privilege,” Roskam added.

“We have said from the beginning that our investigation would follow the facts wherever they lead us—and we intend to keep that promise by reviewing all of the relevant facts and documents in order to issue the definitive report on what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” Roskam added.

Also see: