Marxists Continue to Lie and Defend Jihadis in America

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 3, 2018:

Enemies of the United States continue to lie and provide cover for jihadis in the U.S. while defaming those speaking truth about real threats to the Republic.

In an article entitled “American Islamophobia’s Fake Facts” published July 31, 2018 in a little-known online blog,  the author lies and defends terrorists (jihadis) in an attempt to challenge the mountain of evidence reagarding the Islamic Movement in the United States.

While the article may never be read by more than a handful of people, the arguments in it are often raised by those collaborating with America’s enemies, so UTT thinks it wise to give our readers they ammunition they need to defeat these false and often nonsensical comments.

The article in question can be found here.

Here are the article’s main arguments followed by UTT’s rebuttal with facts:

“A major theme of those falsehoods is telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent actions, are still a threat to national security.”

In fact, all Islamic doctrine mandates war against non-muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no book of Islamic law (sharia) nor a text book used in U.S. Islamic schools – or any other Islamic school for that matter – that teaches another “version” of Islam.

That said, neither UTT nor other prominent national security organizations believe all “American Muslims are a threat,” but we have made clear that muslims who adhere to sharia and seek to impose it on others in any way, are a threat to liberty since sharia necessarily enslaves people, including muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) By-Laws state their objectives are to establish an Islamic State under sharia – same as ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The doctrinal writings of the MB make clear their main line of operation is in the non-violent realm.  Espionage, counterintelligence, subversion, political warfare, and the like are their primary tools to overthrow the U.S. government.

Conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government is a violation of U.S. Federal Code, Title 18, Sections 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) and 2383 (Conspiring to Overthrow the Government).

Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history [US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), Northern District of Texas, 2008] reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement.

“The Brotherhood has not been designated as a terror organization by the U.S. government, and there are not the slightest grounds for thinking it, or any other secret force, controls any national Muslim-American group.”

Let us start with the fact that the designated terrorist group Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  If the finance department of a major corporation were laundering money, the indictment would not read “Finance Department, Company X” – the company would be indicted.

The fact the entire Muslim Brotherhood has not been designated a terrorist organization is a reflection of a failure by U.S. officials, not an indicator the MB is not a danger to the American people.

The evidence in the US v HLF trial reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  These include, but are not limited to:  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Medical Association (IMANA), Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), and many others.

Evidence from other federal trials reveal the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are both Muslim Brotherhood organizations with CAIR being the 4th organization created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

A declassified document from the FBI’s Indianapolis office dated December 15, 1987 states:

“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was organized by the leaders of the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) in 1973 as the parent organization of various Muslim groups in the U.S. and Canada. The leadership of NAIT, MSA and other Muslim groups are inter-related with many leaders and members of NAIT having been identified as supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Government of Iran (GOI). Their support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S. has been evidenced by the financial and organizational support provided through NAIT from Middle East countries to Muslims residing in the U.S. and Canada.”

A declassified FBI confidential informant (CI) report dated 8/17/1988, details the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States at the time and states:

“(CI) advised that in addition to the internal political structure and organization of NAIT as controlled by the IIIT leadership that as members of the IKHWAN they are involved in organizing external political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government. (CI) has advised that the Ikhwan is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well organized in the United States to the point where it has set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups. They also have claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…the IIIT leadership has indicated that in this phase their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities. (CI) noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool…”

The “Ikhwan” is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood does not control “any Muslim-American group” is ludicrous.

“The document, dated May 1991 and titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” is real, but there is no evidence that it represents the views of anyone other than the single Brotherhood member who wrote it.”

An Explanatory Memorandum was discovered during the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative Ismail Elbarasse.

The author of the document – Mohamed Akram Adlouni – was a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council and is listed as the number 2 man for the U.S. MB’s Palestine Committee, also knows as Hamas in the United States.  Therefore, the author was not some random muslim as the article infers.

The Memorandum begins with confirming the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood previously approved strategic goal:  “The general strategic goal of the Group in America which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year [I987] is “Enablement of Islam in North
America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim
Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to
expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents
Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

Mohamed Akram Adlouni worked to bring the goal – stated above and approved the the Muslim Brotherhood leadership – to fruition.

Oddly, the author of the article admits Islam is working to be a “civilization alternative.”  What is this but a revolutionary strategy to replace the Constitutional Republic with and Islamic State under sharia, in violation of U.S. federal code?

Following the presentation of the Memorandum to U.S. Brotherhood leadership, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood officially published its “Implementation Manual” which implements many of the items discussed in the Memorandum.

Examples of this include:  programs for youth and women, creation of media and political organizations, and others.  Most notably, however, are:

(1)  The historical and ideological details in An Explanatory Memorandum are consistent with other Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, to include MilestonesToward a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy and the speech given by U.S. MB leader Zeid al Noman in Missouri in 1981 detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s history in America.  The transcript of this speech was entered into evidence in the US v HLF trial.

(2)  In section 20, An Explanatory Memorandum states:  ” We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”  After the Memorandum and the Implementation Manual were published, the number of Islamic organizations created, beginning in 1992, increased drastically and remains at 80-120 Islamic organizations created annually in the United States – exactly what these plans call for.

(3) The stated role of the MB in America per An Explanatory Memorandum is to wage Civilization Jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within” and to “sabotage” our “miserable house” by OUR hands – getting Western leaders to do their bidding for them.  The U.S. MB has succeed in doing this on numerous occasions.

When the U.S. State Department wrote the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan creating Islamic Republics under sharia – which fulfilled Al Qaeda’s objectives in those two places – that is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

When Muslim Brotherhood groups ISNA, MPAC, and CAIR petitioned President Obama to shut down training inside the U.S. government which factually detailed the domestic and international Islamic threat, but “offended muslims,” the President shut the training down.  That is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

“The other main thread in the anti-Muslim narrative — the charge that mainstream Muslim-American organizations generally, and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) in particular, have ‘terror ties’ — is similarly based on a single piece of ‘evidence’…The document that supposedly verifies the claim that CAIR and other groups are linked to Islamist terrorism is a list of ‘unindicted co-conspirators’…In the more than 11 years since the list was made public, no new information has emerged that corroborates the inflammatory assertion that CAIR or the other Muslim-American groups are terrorist organizations or fronts for Hamas.”

The fact the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization – a designated terrorist organization – is in no way based on the unindicted co-conspirators list.  It is, however, important to mention the U.S. government identifies CAIR in the unindicted co-conspirators list as being a “Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee” which is Hamas, and Hamas members are called “terrorists.”

Here are a few of the many facts revealing CAIR is Hamas:

  1. The Palestine Committee (Hamas) Meeting in 1994 lists CAIR as the 4th organization operating under it (Hamas). This document was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial.
  2. Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government and many governments around the world.
  3. In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on “radical Islam,” Senator Charles Schumer (NY) stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today, they declined to testify, also have intimate connections with Hamas.”
  4. In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal (Eastern District of Virginia), the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  5. In a document retrieved from CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. by one of its interns – Chris Gaubatz who was actually working undercover – CAIR openly discussed supporting Osama bin Laden. The document was titled “Proposed Muslim Platform for 2004” (dated 3/08/04) and states, in part, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates.”
  6. In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leader, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found listed the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). On the list were the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya).
  7. In the government filing rebuking CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “As of the date of this response, the Court has entered into evidence a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking CAIR and its founders to the HLF and its principals; the Islamic Association for Palestine and its principals; the Palestine Committee in the United States, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook; and the greater HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy described in the Government’s case-in-chief.”
  8. In the government filing rebuking ISNA/NAIT’s motion to have their names removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”
  9. In ruling to leave CAIR on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, Federal Judge Jorge Solis listed a portion of the overwhelming evidence against CAIR and wrote: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”
  10. In a 3-0 ruling, an Appellate panel agreed to leave CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case because of the overwhelming evidence.
  11. In a February 2010 affidavit from an FBI Special Agent in the immigration proceedings for Hamas leader Nabil Sadoun in Dallas, Texas, the affiant declared the U.S. Palestine Committee was affiliated with Hamas. He further identified four (4) Hamas organizations created by the Hamas in America: Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, United Association for Studies and Research, and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
  12. In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is) evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”
  13. In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

UTT encourages its readers to print this article and keep it handy when ignorant or nefarious people attempt to minimize the massive jihadi threat inside the United States.

We need a much greater sense of urgency in dealing with this threat, and that includes destroying the intentionally false comments and publications by enemy sympathizers and collaborators.

Michigan’s Regressive “Progressive” Gubernatorial Candidate

IPT News, July 27, 2018

While polls show him lagging in third place in a three-candidate primary, Abdul El-Sayed promises to shock the political world Aug. 7 by becoming Michigan’s Democratic nominee for governor.

He’s running an ambitious campaign that mirrors the success political novice Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to knock off incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley last month in a New York primary. Volunteers are knocking on thousands of doors. His platform calls for a universal health care for all Michigan residents and free college tuition for students whose parents make less than $150,000.

He has campaigned in a t-shirt that reads, “Abolish ICE.”

The 33-year-old Rhodes Scholar earned his medical degree at Columbia University and ran Detroit’s public health system before seeking office. The Detroit Newsdescribes him as a “far-left Democrat” running on a Bernie Sanders-like progressive agenda.

Sanders endorsed El-Sayed Wednesday, praising the candidate’s healthcare proposals and saying El-Sayed would “fight for a government in Lansing that represents all the people, and not just wealthy special interests.” Ocasio-Cortez also endorsed him and agreed to campaign with him this weekend.

El-Sayed is trying to become the nation’s first Muslim governor. That might be a nice milestone. But his connections and actions over the years indicate that – while his political agenda is “progressive,” his core beliefs are rooted in very conservative Sunni ideology.

For starters, his candidacy has been embraced by Linda Sarsour, a rabidly anti-Israelactivist who looks up to extremist clerics and who served as a key Sanders surrogatein 2016.

“This is the new face of democracy – fresh, young, progressive and unapologetic,” Sarsour wrote in a Feb. 1 Facebook post. “He will not be deterred. The movement that has been built will not be deterred. Moving forward and on the way to making history. Abdul El-Sayed, we got you.”

In addition to her political activities, Sarsour is a frequent speaker at Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraisers. While it touts itself as a civil rights organization, CAIR was created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States to join a network of charities and other groups charged with helping Hamas politically and financially.

Evidence to prove this came out during a 2008 Hamas-financing prosecution in Dallas. FBI policy since then prohibits formal interaction with CAIR except in criminal investigations. Still, El-Sayed spoke last October at CAIR’s 23rd annual banquet and fundraiser in Arlington, Va.

El-Sayed’s connections with Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups date back at least to his college days. He served as the University of Michigan’s Muslim Students Associationvice president. MSA was created in 1963 by Muslim Brotherhood members who came to the United States to complete their education. An MSA history acknowledges that its founders saw a “responsibilty (sic) of spreading Islam as students in North America. The main goal was always Da’wah [proselytizing].”

Da’wah is a key element of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate ambition to spread the faith globally and create a world governed by sharia. “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated,” wrote Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, “to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.

Five years after graduating, El-Sayed stood by the Brotherhood in Egypt as it moved to consolidate its new-found power. Led by President Mohamed Morsi, the Brotherhood’s political parties rose to power in 2012 after Arab Spring protests led to dictator Hosni Mubarak’s fall. Months late, Morsi declared near-absolute power in an edict that led to a purge of the military, police and media. The over-reach led to another popular uprising, with millions of demonstrators in the street by the following summer. Morsi was ousted July 1, 2013.

But El-Sayed, a dual American and Egyptian citizen, didn’t see a problem with Morsi’s power grab. He lent his name to a Nov. 25, 2012 statement supporting the move.

“We, leaders of the Egyptian community support the revolutionary decisions taken by the president, and we demand a purging of the media and the police as soon as possible,” an IPT translation of the Arabic statement said. “We do not hide that we do not fear the existence of such powers in the hands of the President. We would like the President to clarify that this constitutional declaration will ends [sic] once the writing the Constitution has been finished. We confirm that we as Egyptians Americans strongly reject those voices which are seducing America and Europe to take a stand against the Egyptian regime. We will stand shoulder to shoulder in support of the elected president.”

Others standing “shoulder to shoulder in support” include CAIR, the Muslim American Society – also created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States – and Islamic Relief. El-Sayed’s name included a reference to him being in New York in 2012. His resume shows he was working at that time as a project coordinator at Columbia University’s Department of Epidemiology.

El-Sayed may not have much to advance these kinds of issues as Michigan’s governor. And a new poll out Friday morning gives him 19 percent support among primary voters, less than half expected to go to front-runner Gretchen Whitmer. But first-time candidates, especially young ones, often wage statewide campaigns to increase their name recognition and build a political organization to set up future runs. Win or lose, we likely haven’t seen the last of Abdul El-Sayed.

Also see:

China, Russia, Iran Engaged in Aggressive Economic Cyber Spying

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping / Getty Images

Counterintelligence report details foreign spies theft of advanced U.S. technology

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, July 27, 2018:

Foreign spies from China, Russia, and Iran are conducting aggressive cyber operations to steal valuable U.S. technology and economic secrets, according to a U.S. counterintelligence report.

The report by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, a DNI counterspy unit, concludes China is among the most aggressive states engaged in stealing U.S. proprietary information as part of a government-directed program.

Artificial intelligence and the internet of things are giving adversaries new tools for cyber spying, the report said.

Key technologies under cyber attack from foreign economic spies are related to the energy, biotechnology, defense, environmental protection, high-end manufacturing, and information and communications industries.

“China’s cyberspace operations are part of a complex, multipronged technology development strategy that uses licit and illicit methods to achieve its goals,” the report says.

“Chinese companies and individuals often acquire U.S. technology for commercial and scientific purposes,” the report states. “At the same time, the Chinese government seeks to enhance its collection of U.S. technology by enlisting the support of a broad range of actors spread throughout its government and industrial base.”

The report warned that the problem is continuing and urged greater efforts to counter Chinese cyber economic spying.

“We believe that China will continue to be a threat to U.S. proprietary technology and intellectual property through cyber-enabled means or other methods,” the report said. “If this threat is not addressed, it could erode America’s long-term competitive economic advantage.”

Among the methods used for the Chinese economic espionage program are traditional spies attached to the Ministry of State Security and military intelligence offices as well as a wide range of non-traditional spies.

Those include some of the 350,000 Chinese students currently studying in the United States, along with Chinese engaged in business.

Beijing also uses joint ventures between Chinese and U.S. companies, research partnerships with laboratories and other research centers, the purchase of American companies, front companies, and the use of Chinese laws that seek to force American companies operating in China to provide trade secrets.

Chinese economic spying is continuing despite a promise by Chinese leader Xi Jinping in September 2015 not to engage in commercial spying. The level of cyber economic espionage, however, by China has been lower since the accord, the report said.

Security experts have identified Chinese economic espionage targeting of engineering, telecommunications, and aerospace companies.

Beijing cyber spies also hacked the popular CCleaner app that was used by China to target Google, Microsoft, Intel, and VMwar.

A Chinese hacker dubbed KeyBoy last year began conducting cyber spying operations against western corporations, and another group, TEMP.Periscope conducted cyber attacks on the maritime industry and research and academic organizations.

The security firm FireEye said “sharp increases” in Chinese cyber attacks were detected in early 2018.

“Most Chinese cyber operations against U.S. private industry that have been detected are focused on cleared defense contractors or IT and communications firms whose products and services support government and private sector networks worldwide,” the report said.

The report concluded the economic spying poses a strategic threat to the United States advanced research and technology.

“China, Russia, and Iran stand out as three of the most capable and active cyber actors tied to economic espionage and the potential theft of U.S. trade secrets and proprietary information,” says the 20-page report, noting that other states with closer U.S. ties also are using cyber espionage.

“Despite advances in cybersecurity, cyber espionage continues to offer threat actors a relatively low-cost, high-yield avenue of approach to a wide spectrum of intellectual property.”

Russian economic espionage also threatens U.S. technology as Moscow seeks to bolster an economy hit hard by international sanctions and what the report said is “endemic corruption, state control, and a loss of talent departing for jobs abroad.”

“An aggressive and capable collector of sensitive U.S. technologies, Russia uses cyberspace as one of many methods for obtaining the necessary know-how and technology to grow and modernize its economy,” the report said.

Russia uses intelligence penetrations of public and private enterprises to obtain sensitive technical secrets. Commercial and academic exchanges also are used for spying, along with recruitment of Russian immigrants in the United States who have technical skills.

“Russian intelligence services have conducted sophisticated and large-scale hacking operations to collect sensitive U.S. business and technology information,” the report said.

The report said the Department of Homeland Security in September 2017 ordered federal agencies to remove security software from Russia’s Kaspersky Lab over concerns the software could be used by cyber espionage.

The Iranians are a growing cyber economic espionage threat, according to the report.

“The loss of sensitive information and technologies not only presents a significant threat to U.S. national security,” the report said. “It also enables Tehran to develop advanced technologies to boost domestic economic growth, modernize its military forces, and increase its foreign sales.”

Under a section on emerging threats, the report states that cyber spies are infiltrating software supply chain networks and using the compromised software for spying operations.

“Our goal in releasing this document is simple: to provide U.S. industry and the public with the latest unclassified information on foreign efforts to steal U.S. trade secrets through cyberspace,” said the center director, William R. Evanina.

“Building an effective response to this tremendous challenge demands understanding economic espionage as a worldwide, multi-vector threat to the integrity of both the U.S. economy and global trade.”

***

BILL GERTZ, Senior editor at the Washington Free Beacon, Inside the Ring columnist at the Washington Times, Author of iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age (2016):

  • What is the benign China policy?
  • Implications of the massive Chinese intelligence collection in the United States

Also see:

Our Counter-Intelligence System Is Broken

Canada Free Press, by James A. Lyons, July 23, 2018:

There is no question that the United States is the number one target of every potential enemy hostile intelligence service in the world.  Yet, as recently exposed, there is no national-level effort to counter this threat.  Our free and open society is a spy’s paradise, and actually facilitates our enemies’ penetration.  Michael Waller of the Center For Security Policy stated this about our lead counter-intelligence organization: “with few exceptions, the FBI has very little to show that it has the strategy and leadership to cut off much more than low-hanging fruit.”  A perfect example of this is Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian intelligence agents who are safely tucked away in Russia and will never be brought to trial.

Handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation

The FBI is the United States’ lead counterintelligence (CI) organization.  The CIA also has a key role but is not focused on domestic CI issues, but rather on our hostile enemies.  The National Security Agency (NSA) also has an important role to play, focusing on our potential enemies.  However, it was recently learned that while NSA is not supposed to be spying on Americans, they recently deleted two-thirds of a “trillion” intercepts on American citizens using the lame excuse of “technical irregularities.”  It is not a stretch to imagine that among those trillion intercepts are Hillary Clinton’s emails from her unsecured server, which not only contained Top Secret but “special access” material that should have set off alarm bells at Fort Meade.  However, due to political bias, it was ignored.  The same situation most likely occurred with the discovery of several hundred thousand of Hillary’s emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Weiner was the husband of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Due to the tenacity of House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, astounding revelations have been uncovered and verified in the report by Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.  The text messages between the FBI’s leading CI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page, showing that he was willing to use his official CI position to stop candidate Trump from becoming President, is more than a dereliction of duty, it borders on criminal activity.

China had gained access to Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server

According to recent testimony by Lisa Page before the House Judiciary Committee, it has been reported that she revealed that a foreign entity, China, had gained access to Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server. That information was reportedly presented to the FBI’s leading CI agent, Peter Strzok, but he chose to ignore it!  Unbelievable if proven to be accurate!

The case of the Awan brothers alleged spy ring on Capitol Hill and their IT work for the 44 Democratic Congressional Representatives is another prime example of a failed CI effort.  According to many articles by Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), the House Office of the Inspector General (IG) claimed in 2016 that the Awan family logged into members’ servers that they had no business accessing, in some cases even after they had been fired.  The IG report, from September 2016, indicates that they logged into servers of offices they did not work for thousands of times, even after the House was warned that the server was being used for nefarious purposes.

Awan’s Pakistani connections

With the Awan’s Pakistani connections, it is not a stretch to connect the information flow to the Pakistani intelligence service and then on to China.  This activity should have been fully investigated by the FBI’s CI division.  Amazingly, the DOJ/FBI prosecutors could find no such evidence.  Clearly, our CI system is broken.

The inability of our national CI organization to handle these basic cases brings into sharp focus the success of sophisticated cyber-war penetration by both China and Russia.  While Russia is getting all the current CI attention, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently declared that Chinese espionage is the most significant spy threat facing the United States.  One former CIA analyst put it bluntly: Beijing agents in this country aim “to turn Americans against their own government interests and their society’s interests.”  Russia has the same objectives.

China has a state-sponsored program to obtain advanced technologies with both military and commercial applications

China has a state-sponsored program to obtain advanced technologies with both military and commercial applications.  China uses many points of entry into our open society to achieve their objectives.  Beijing is infiltrating our universities by funding language and cultural centers called “Confucius Institutes.”  They are being used as a cover for technology theft.  China is also using 350,000 Chinese students in the U.S. for intelligence activity.  Beijing pursues a program to buy small cutting edge technology companies that remain under the radar.  This hemorrhaging of our technology must be stopped.

In an article by Bill Gertz, 12 April, 2018, he reports that Michelle Van Cleave, a former national CI executive, stated that after the creation of the office of Director of National Intelligence in 2004, a national counterspy program against foreign spies was restricted under the George W. Bush administration.  Unfortunately, it continued under President Obama.  Van Cleave stated that a directive issued by then-DNI James Clapper in 2013, and still in force, reduced the national CI program authority by directing all counterspy programs to be run by individual departments and agencies.  The net result was the end of “any dedicated strategic CI program while elite pockets of proactive capabilities died of neglect.”

In short, there is no national level CI effort left.  Immediate corrective action must be taken.  This cannot be left to the agencies with their known political bias and questionable agents seeded during John Brennan’s term as CIA Director.  Therefore, President Trump should appoint a 9/11-type commission to identify the corrective actions necessary to fix our broken CI organization on an expedited basis.

Exclusive: Obama Administration Knowingly Funded a Designated Al-Qaeda Affiliate

President Barack Obama participates in a news conference at the White House, November 14, 2016. (Jonathan Ernst

The group had been on a list of terrorist funders for a decade when a government agency specifically approved funding for it.

National Review, by Sam Westrop, July 25, 2018:

The Middle East Forum has discovered that the Obama administration approved a grant of $200,000 of taxpayer money to an al-Qaeda affiliate in Sudan — a decade after the U.S. Treasury designated it as a terrorist-financing organization. More stunningly, government officials specifically authorized the release of at least $115,000 of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization.

The story began in October 2004, when the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Khartoum-based Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), as a terror-financing organization. It did so because of ISRA’s links to Osama bin Laden and his organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MK), the precursor of al-Qaeda.

According to the U.S. Treasury, in 1997 ISRA established formal cooperation with MK. By 2000, ISRA had raised $5 million for bin Laden’s group. The Treasury Department notes that ISRA officials even sought to help “relocate [bin Laden] to secure safe harbor for him.” It further reports that ISRA raised funds in 2003 in Western Europe specifically earmarked for Hamas suicide bombings.

The 2004 designation included all of ISRA’s branches, including a U.S. office called the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA-USA). Eventually it became known that this American branch had illegally transferred over $1.2 million to Iraqi insurgents and other terror groups, including, reportedly, the Afghan terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In 2010, the executive director of IARA-USA and a board member pled guilty to money-laundering, theft of public funds, conspiracy, and several other charges.

ISRA’s influence also spread to Washington. Former U.S. congressman Mark Siljander (R., Mich.) pled guilty in 2010 to obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent after prosecutors found that IARA-USA had paid him $75,000 — using misappropriated USAID grant money — to lobby the government, in an attempt to remove the charity from the government’s terror list.

Despite this well-documented history, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in July 2014 awarded $723,405 to World Vision Inc., an international evangelical charity, to “improve water, sanitation and hygiene and to increase food security in Sudan’s Blue Nile state.” Of these funds, $200,000 was to be directed to a sub-grantee: ISRA.

Responding to a Middle East Forum (MEF) inquiry, a USAID official explains that World Vision had alerted it in November 2014 to the likelihood of ISRA being on the terror list. USAID instructed World Vision to “suspend all activities with ISRA” and informed the State Department, OFAC, and USAID’s Office of the Inspector General. USAID and World Vision then waited for OFAC to confirm whether ISRA was designated or not.

USAID emails obtained by the Middle East Forum reveal that in January 2015, World Vision was growing unhappy while waiting for OFAC’s assessment. Mark Smith, World Vision’s senior director of humanitarian and emergency affairs, wrote to USAID, stating that the Islamic Relief Agency “had performed excellent work” for World Vision in the past, and that “putting contractual relationships in limbo for such a long period is putting a significant strain” on World Vision’s relationship with the Sudanese regime. Smith also revealed that World Vision had submitted a notice to OFAC indicating its “intention to restart work with [ISRA] and to transact with [ISRA]” if OFAC did not respond within a week.

World Vision’s statement stunned USAID officials, who complained that World Vision’s behavior “doesn’t make sense.” USAID official Daniel Holmberg emailed a colleague: “If they actually said that they wanted to resume work with ISRA, while knowing that it was 99% likely that ISRA was on the list then I am concerned about our partnership with them, and whether it should continue.”

On January 23, OFAC confirmed that ISRA was a sanctioned entity and denied World Vision “a license to engage in transactions with [ISRA].” Mark Smith and World Vision’s country program director in Sudan expressed their disappointment, stating that they were in discussions with ISRA as well as the Sudanese regime’s Humanitarian Aid Commission, which regulates the activities of international charities in Sudan.

Despite OFAC’s ruling, in February, World Vision wrote to OFAC and Obama-administration official Jeremy Konyndyk (who then served as director of USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance) to apply to OFAC for a new license from USAID to pay ISRA “monies owed for work performed.” According to Larry Meserve, USAID’s mission director for Sudan, World Vision argued that if they did not pay ISRA, “their whole program will be jeopardized.”

While World Vision waited for a decision, on February 22, a pro-regime Sudanese newspaper, Intibaha, reported that the Sudanese political leaders had requested that World Vision be expelled from Sudan’s Blue Nile state. USAID disaster operations specialist Joseph Wilkes and World Vision’s Mark Smith speculated that this was “punishment” for the cancellation of the grant with ISRA, which a USAID official noted is “well connected with the [Sudanese] government.”

Then, incredibly, on May 7, 2015 — after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State” — OFAC issued a license to a World Vision affiliate, World Vision International, authorizing “a one-time transfer of approximately $125,000 to ISRA,” of which “$115,000 was for services performed under the sub-award with USAID” and $10,000 was “for an unrelated funding arrangement between Irish Aid and World Vision.”

An unnamed World Vision official described the decision as a “great relief as ISRA had become restive and had threatened legal action, which would have damaged our reputation and standing in Sudan.” Senior USAID official Charles Wanjue wrote to colleagues: “Good news and a great relief, really!” In August 2015, USAID official Daniel Holmberg even told a State Department official that he had been approached by the executive director of ISRA, and requested guidance on helping ISRA remove itself from the U.S. government’s terror list.

Obama-administration officials knowingly approved the transfer of taxpayer dollars to an al-Qaeda affiliate, and not an obscure one but an enormous international network that was often in the headlines.

How was this prominent terror funder initially approved to receive American taxpayer funds ten years after it had been placed on the “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” terror list?

Existing measures to prevent the payment of government monies to designated terrorist organizations include: first, a requirement that all grantees and sub-grantees of U.S.-government grants register for a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; and second, a requirement that all government vendors register with the government’s System for Award Management (SAM) database. A designated organization should not be able to acquire a DUNS number, and any designation is explicitly recorded in the SAM database with a note that the designated organization is excluded from government grants.

However, ISRA was in fact assigned a DUNS number — as recorded at the government’s USAspending.gov website — which matched no organization in the government’s SAM database. The only listings for “Islamic Relief Agency” or “ISRA” in the SAM database are the designated Sudanese al-Qaeda affiliate and its branches.

Whoever approved this grant to ISRA either failed to check the government’s database of designated groups or did so and then chose to disregard it. Both explanations are alarming. And neither answer explains how ISRA acquired a DUNS number.

Most important: Now we know that the government deliberately chose to transfer at least $115,000 to ISRA after confirming that it was on the terror-designation list. In other words, an al-Qaeda front received taxpayers’ money with the apparent complicity of public officials.

It is no secret that the Obama administration sought to downplay the threat of Islamism, and even to coopt some Islamist movements to promote its agenda. In its foreign policy, the administration expressed support for Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, while domestically, the White House invited Islamists to design the government’s Countering Violent Extremism program. It is difficult to argue that these efforts were the product of anything but great naïveté and political dogma. Is it possible that this combination extended to deliberately funding an al-Qaeda affiliate?

Congress must investigate this question and, more broadly, where USAID is sending taxpayers’ money, for ISRA might not be the only example. The House’s Foreign Affairs, Oversight, and Financial Services Committees, along with the Senate Finance Committee, must examine how a designated group came to qualify for government monies, why OFAC and the State Department authorized the transfer of funds after learning of ISRA’s terror ties, and which bureaucrat or political appointee was responsible for this mess.

Asked to comment, current State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert told National Review: “As this occurred under the prior Administration, the current Secretary of the State, Secretary of Treasury, and USAID Administrator had no involvement in decisions surrounding this award or subsequent license.”

The American people need to know how their dollars funded an al-Qaeda affiliate. They need to know how deep this problem runs.

SAM WESTROP — Sam Westrop is the director of ISLAMIST WATCH, a project of the MIDDLE EAST FORUM.

FISA Applications Confirm: The FBI Relied on the Unverified Steele Dossier

One-time advisor of Donald Trump Carter Page addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, December 12, 2016. (Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters)

A salacious Clinton-campaign product was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, July 23, 2018:

On a sleepy summer Saturday, after months of stonewalling, the FBI dumped 412 pages of documents related to the Carter Page FISA surveillance warrants — the applications, the certifications, and the warrants themselves. Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

Based on the dossier, the FBI told the FISA court it believed that Carter Page, who had been identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser, was coordinating with the Russian government in an espionage conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

This sensational allegation came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy. The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele’s allegations had never been verified. To the contrary, each FISA application — the original one in October 2016, and the three renewals at 90-day intervals — is labeled “VERIFIED APPLICATION” (bold caps in original). And each one makes this breathtaking representation:

The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures, which include sending a copy of the draft to the appropriate field office(s).

In reality, the applications were never verified for accuracy.

What ‘Verify’ Means
Consider this: The representation that the FBI’s verification procedures include sending the application to “appropriate field offices” is standard in FISA warrant applications. It is done because the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) mandates that the bureau “ensure that information appearing in a FISA application that is presented to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] has been thoroughly vetted and confirmed.” (See House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes March 1, 2018, letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, embedded here.) The point is to assure the court that the FBI has corroborated the allegations in the warrant application in the usual way.

A hypothetical shows how this works. Let’s say that X, an informant, tells the FBI in Washington that Y, a person in St. Louis, told him that Z, the suspect, is plotting to rob the bank.

X’s story is unverified; he doesn’t know anything firsthand about Z — he only knows what Y has told him. Obviously, then, the FBI does not instantly run to court and seek a warrant against Z. Instead, the bureau sends an investigative “lead” from headquarters in Washington to the FBI field office in St. Louis. FBI agents in St. Louis then go find and interview Y. Based on that interview, the FBI gathers supporting information (perhaps physical surveillance of Z, scrutiny of available documents and records about Z, etc.). Only then, after debriefing the witness with competent knowledge, do the Justice Department and FBI seek a warrant against Z from the court. In the application, they explain to the judge that they have verified X’s information by interviewing Y and then corroborating Y’s version of events. In fact, if they get solid enough information about Z from Y, there may be no reason even to mention X, whose tip to the FBI was sheer hearsay.

But that is not what happened with the Carter Page FISA warrants.

The FBI presented the court with allegations posited by Steele. He is in the position of X in our hypothetical. He is not the source of any of the relevant information on which the court was asked to rely for its probable-cause finding that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia. In this context, source means a reliable witness who saw or heard some occurrence on which the court is being asked to base its ruling.

Steele has not been in Russia for about 20 years. In connection with the dossier allegations, he was merely the purveyor of information from the actual sources — unidentified Russians who themselves relied on hearsay information from other sources (sometimes double and triple hearsay, very attenuated from the supposed original source).

In each Carter Page FISA warrant application, the FBI represented that it had “reviewed this verified application for accuracy.” But did the bureau truly ensure that the information had been “thoroughly vetted and confirmed”? Remember, we are talking here about serious, traitorous allegations against an American citizen and, derivatively, an American presidential campaign.

When the FBI averred that it had verified for accuracy the application that posited these allegations, it was, at best, being hyper-technical, and thus misleading. What the bureau meant was that its application correctly stated the allegations as Steele had related them. But that is not what “verification” means. The issue is not whether Steele’s allegations were accurately described; it is whether they were accurate, period. Were the allegations thoroughly vetted and confirmed by proof independent of Steele before being presented to the FISA court — which is what common sense and the FBI’s own manual mean by “verified”?

No, they were not.

There Is No Reason to Believe the Redactions Corroborate Steele
I have been making this point for months. When I made it again in a Fox and Friends interview on Sunday morning, critics asked how I could say such a thing when the warrants are pervasively redacted — how could I be so sure, given all we concededly don’t know, that the redactions do not corroborate Steele?

The critics’ tunnel vision on the redactions ignores the months of hearings and reporting on this core question, which I’ve continuously detailed. Here, for example, is what two senior Judiciary Committee senators, Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham, wrote in a classified memo early this year after reviewing FISA applications (the memo was finally declassified and publicized over the objections of the FBI):

The bulk of the [first Carter Page FISA] application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.

The senators went on to recount the concession by former FBI director James Comey that the bureau had relied on the credibility of Steele (who had previously assisted the bureau in another investigation), not the verification of Steele’s sources. In June 2017 testimony, Comey described information in the Steele dossier as “salacious and unverified.”

Moreover, the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that the bureau tried very hard to verify Steele’s information but could provide no points of verification beyond the fact that Page did travel to Russia in July 2016 — a fact that required no effort to corroborate since the trip was unconcealed and widely known. (Page delivered a public commencement address at the New Economic School.) Furthermore, in British legal proceedings, Steele himself has described the information he provided to the FBI as “raw intelligence” that was “unverified.”

I freely acknowledge that we do not know what the redactions say. But we have been very well informed about what they do not say. They do not verify the allegations in the Steele dossier. I have no doubt that they have a great deal to say about Russia and its nefarious anti-American operations. But the FBI has been taking incoming fire for months about failing to corroborate Steele. No institution in America guards its reputation more zealously than does the FBI. If Steele had been corroborated, rest assured that the bureau would not be suffering in silence.

Plus, do you really think the FBI and Justice Department wanted to use the Steele dossier? Of course they didn’t. They undoubtedly believed Steele’s allegations (the applications say as much). That is no surprise given how much their top echelons loathed Donald Trump. But they were also well aware of the dossier’s significant legal problems — the suspect sourcing, the multiple hearsay. If they had solid evidence that verified Steele’s allegations, they would have used that evidence as their probable cause showing against Page. Instead, they used the dossier because, as McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, without it they would have had no chance of persuading a judge that Page was a clandestine agent.

Whatever is in the redactions cannot change that.

There Is No Vicarious Credibility
To repeat what we’ve long said here, there is no vicarious credibility in investigations. When the government seeks a warrant, it is supposed to show the court that the actual sources of information are reliable — i.e., they were in a position to see or hear the relevant facts, and they are worthy of belief. It is not sufficient to show that the agent who assembles the source information is credible.

The vast majority of our investigators are honorable people who would never lie to a judge. But that is irrelevant because, in assessing probable cause, the judge is not being asked to rely on the honesty of the agent. The agent, after all, is under oath and supervised by a chain of command at the FBI and the Justice Department; the judge will generally assume that the agent is honestly and accurately describing the information he has gotten from various sources.

The judge’s main task is not to determine if the agent is credible. It is to weigh the reliability of the agent’s sources. Are the sources’ claims supported by enough evidence that the court should approve a highly intrusive warrant against an American citizen?

Here, Steele was in the position of an investigative agent relaying information. He was not a source (or informant) who saw or heard relevant facts. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that Steele is honest and reliable, that would tell us nothing about who his sources are, whether they were really in a position to see or hear the things they report, and whether they have a history of providing accurate information. Those are the questions the FBI must answer in order to vet and confirm factual allegations before presenting them to the FISA court. That was not done; the FBI relied on Steele’s reputation to vouch for his source’s claims.

The FISA Judges
In my public comments Sunday morning, I observed that the newly disclosed FISA applications are so shoddy that the judges who approved them ought to be asked some hard questions. I’ve gotten flak for that, no doubt because President Trump tweeted part of what I said. I stand by it. Still, some elaboration, which a short TV segment does not allow for, is in order.

I prefaced my remark about the judges with an acknowledgment of my own personal embarrassment. When people started theorizing that the FBI had presented the Steele dossier to the FISA court as evidence, I told them they were crazy: The FBI, which I can’t help thinking of as myFBI after 20 years of working closely with the bureau as a federal prosecutor, would never take an unverified screed and present it to a court as evidence. I explained that if the bureau believed the information in a document like the dossier, it would pick out the seven or eight most critical facts and scrub them as only the FBI can — interview the relevant witnesses, grab the documents, scrutinize the records, connect the dots. Whatever application eventually got filed in the FISA court would not even allude en passant to Christopher Steele or his dossier. The FBI would go to the FISA court only with independent evidence corroborated through standard FBI rigor.

Should I have assumed I could be wrong about that? Sure, even great institutions go rogue now and again. But even with that in mind, I would still have told the conspiracy theorists they were crazy — because in the unlikely event the FBI ever went off the reservation, the Justice Department would not permit the submission to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations; and even if that fail-safe broke down, a court would not approve such a warrant.

It turns out, however, that the crazies were right and I was wrong. The FBI (and, I’m even more sad to say, my Justice Department) brought the FISA court the Steele-dossier allegations, relying on Steele’s credibility without verifying his information.

I am embarrassed by this not just because I assured people it could not have happened, and not just because it is so beneath the bureau — especially in a politically fraught case in which the brass green-lighted the investigation of a presidential campaign. I am embarrassed because what happened here flouts rudimentary investigative standards. Any trained FBI agent would know that even the best FBI agent in the country could not get a warrant based on his own stellar reputation. A fortiori, you would never seek a warrant based solely on the reputation of Christopher Steele — a non-American former intelligence agent who had political and financial incentives to undermine Donald Trump. It is always, always necessary to persuade the court that the actual sources of information allegedly amounting to probable cause are believable.

Well, guess what? No one knows that better than experienced federal judges, who deal with a steady diet of warrant applications. It is basic. Much of my bewilderment, in fact, stems from the certainty that if I had been so daft as to try to get a warrant based on the good reputation of one of my FBI case agents, with no corroboration of his or her sources, just about any federal judge in the Southern District of New York would have knocked my block off — and rightly so.

That’s why I said it.

***

‘Jeff Sessions, Where Are You?’: Hannity Calls Dossier News ‘Biggest Single Scandal in US History’

***

***

Also see:

Click on this  tweet and read the thread:

Mike Pompeo: Iranians Tired of ‘Mafia’ Regime’s ‘Fake News’

AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, July 23, 2018:

SIMI VALLEY, California – United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed some of the most powerful members of Iran’s expatriate community on Sunday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, during which he said, “Iranians should not have to flee their homeland to find a better life” and countered the “fake news” narrative of Iran’s regime.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced Pompeo to the crowd of approximately 1,000 Iranian Americans and Americans.

“When Mike Pompeo stands with you, you will never stand alone,” Cotton said, after noting that during his travels with America’s top diplomat, the duo became aware of secret side deals the previous administration had been conducting with the Iranian regime.

“Mike Pompeo will tell plain truths to friend and foe alike,” he said, adding that “the ayatollahs crave legitimacy but the Iranian people will not give it to them, and the United States will not confer it so long as Mike Pompeo is our secretary of state.”

Pompeo thanked the Iranians present in the crowd and said he looks “forward to hearing from you this evening, learning more about the situation in Iran, and understanding what your loved ones and friends are going through” living in Iran. He added, “Not all Iranians see things the same way. But I think everyone can agree that the regime in Iran has been a nightmare for the Iranian people … and it is important that your unity on that point is not diminished by differences elsewhere.”

He said, “I want you to know that the Trump administration dreams the same dreams for the people of Iran as you do, and through our labors and God’s providence, they will one day come true.”

Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Iranian regime’s seizure of power from Iran’s last Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Pompeo noted that the so-called “fruits from that Revolution have been bitter.”

Pompeo stated that subsidies provided to the regime’s cronies have provided the average Hezbollah combatant with roughly two to three times the monthly salary of what the average firefighter makes in Iran today.

“Regime mismanagement has led to the rial plummeting in value,” Pompeo said. “A third of Iranian youth are unemployed and a third of Iranians live below the poverty line. The bitter irony of the economic situation in Iran is that the regime lines its own pockets while its people cry out for jobs, reform, and opportunity.”

Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Iran, particularly in cities outside of the nation’s capital city, to protest against inflation. Shouts of “Death to the dictator!” and “Death to Rouhani” were prominent throughout at least eight cities where protests took place against the regime.

“The bitter irony of the economic situation in Iran is that the regime lines its own pockets while its people cry out for jobs, reform, and opportunity,” Pompeo said. He pointed out that “the Iranian economy is going great – but only if you’re a politically connected member of the elite.”

On Sunday, shortly after Pompeo’s speech, President Donald Trump tweeted a warning to Rouhani and the Iranian regime:

Trump’s statement came in response to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s saying on Sunday, “War with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

Pompeo noted on Sunday that Seddiq Ardeshir Larijani, the head of Iran’s Judiciary, has a net worth of $300 million dollars “from embezzling public funds into his bank account.” The Trump administration sactioned Larijani in January for human rights abuses and corruption.

America’s top diplomat further noted that “former IRGC officer and Minister of the Interior Sadeq Mahsouli is nicknamed ‘the Billionaire General’ [and went from being a poor IRGC officer at the end of the Iran-Iraq war to being worth billions of dollars” by winning “lucrative construction and oil trading contracts from businesses associated with the IRGC. Being an old college buddy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just might have had something to do with it.”

Pompeo also noted that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his own personal, off-the-books hedge fund called the Setad, which is worth $95 billion dollars.

“Call me crazy, but I’m a little skeptical that a thieving thug under international sanctions is the right man to be Iran’s highest-ranking judicial official,” Pompeo said.

He said America is not afraid to “spread our message on the airwaves and online inside Iran. For forty years the Iranian people have heard from their leaders that America is the Great Satan. We do not believe they are interested in hearing that fake news any longer.”
“The level of corruption and wealth among regime leaders shows that Iran is run by something that resembles the mafia more than a government,” he said.

He noted that Iran’s support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Israel, Shia militant groups in Iraq, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen all “feed on billions in regime cash while the Iranian people shout slogans like ‘Leave Syria. Think about us!’”

During his speech, Pompeo also mentioned the oppression against members of Iran’s Arab population, namely the Ahwazis. Pompeo also mentioned the reimposition of sanctions on Iran and the November 4 deadline by which all nations must stop importing Iranian oil.

The November deadline is likely symbolic.

From November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, 51 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days in what became known as the Iranian hostage crisis.

He highlighted three Iranian Americans who have made an impact on their society–namely, Goli Ameri, who has served at the State Department and the U.N.; Susan Azizzadeh, who heads the Iranian American Jewish Federation; and Makan Delrahim, who currently serves as the assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In closing, Pompeo quoted President Ronald Reagan during his Westminster address.

“Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.” He added, “Now we call on everyone here in the audience and our international partners to help us shine a spotlight on the regime’s abuses and support the Iranian people.”

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

***

***

Transcript

***

Also see: