HuffPost Fires Contributor, Deletes Articles Questioning Hillary’s Health [VIDEO]

Daily Caller, by Christian Datoc, Aug. 29, 2016:

Former Huffington Post contributor David Seaman was terminated Sunday evening for writing two articles questioning Hillary Clinton’s health.

Seaman uploaded a lengthy video to YouTube early Monday morning explaining the reason behind his firing.

“It’s chilling,” Seaman noted. “I still haven’t really absorbed it.”

Seaman’s articles — “Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Super (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens)” and “Donald Trump Challenges Hillary Clinton To Health Records Duel” — “were pulled without notice… just completely deleted from the Internet.”

Screen-Shot-2016-08-29-at-9.41.09-AM

“I’ve written hundreds of stories, filed hundreds of stories over my years as a journalist and pundit, and I’ve never had this happen,” Seaman stated. “A couple of times in the past, I’ve had legal concerns with something I’ve reported on so there was discussion with something I’d reported on… but they didn’t simply delete the articles, make them disappear from the Internet and revoke my access.”

“I’ve honestly never seen anything like this, and this is happening in the United States in 2016,” he continued. “It’s frankly chilling. I’m a little scared.”

I’m doing this video right now to say I’m not suicidal, I’m not a clumsy person. I don’t own a car at the moment, I uber everywhere,” Seaman told the audience. “So if I am to slip in the shower over the next couple of days or something like that, we have to employ probability and statistics here, because I am not a clumsy person and I am not a depressed person.”

“I am a person who is spooked out though.”

Follow Datoc on Twitter and Facebook

***

***

***

Speaking of things being censored:

Aiding and Abedin

Credit: Dave Clegg

Credit: Dave Clegg

Weekly Standard, THE MAGAZINE: From the September 5 Issue by Stephen F. Hayes:

As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter’s in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan.

There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.

Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.

Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia.

Win, win, and win.

The White House naturally insisted that Hillary Clinton’s views had no bearing on her husband’s decision to change his itinerary. And a subsequent New York Times article about the curious sequence of events found “no evidence” she had prevailed upon the president to alter his plans. But that same article, published under the headline “Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices,” noted the “unique aspect” of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: “While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign.”

In fact, people did. The hosts of the event moved it up so that it might take place before a final decision had been made on the South Asian schedule. Suhail Muzaffar, one of two primary organizers of the fundraiser, told the paper: “‘We thought it went very well, in terms of the message and the timeliness of it, especially in terms of the president’s going to the region.” His co­host, Dr. Asim Malik, added: “I cannot deny that the fact that she’s the president’s wife makes a difference.”

A similar dynamic is at play in the growing controversy over Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation: People sought to influence her decisions as secretary of state by making donations to his foundation. And while we cannot yet offer definitive conclusions about the extent to which those efforts were successful, disclosures over the past several weeks make clear that Clinton and her top aides eagerly provided special access to Clinton Foundation donors—and, in some cases, provided that special access because they were Clinton Foundation donors.

Such conflicts of interest—perceived and real—should come as no surprise. They were the focus of Clinton’s cabinet nomination. “The main issue related to Senator Clinton’s nomination that has occupied the committee has been the review of how her service as secretary of state can be reconciled with the sweeping global activities of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation,” said Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, moments after her nomination hearing was gaveled to order on January 13, 2009. “The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state, although neither Senator Clinton nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the foundation.” The keys, Lugar said, will be transparency and preventing overlap between the work of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Large chunks of the hearing were devoted to an extended discussion about whether a Memorandum of Understanding drafted to make clear the lines between State and the foundation went far enough. Republicans wanted more assurances and a more detailed statement of the rules. Democrats, for the most part, were happy to leave things vague. Democrats won.

The recent revelations leave in tatters Clinton’s unequivocal claim from July: “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”

There are, in fact, many connections.

In June 2009, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain, sought a meeting with Secretary Clinton. He initially made requests through normal diplomatic channels but they went unfulfilled. Khalifa, a Clinton Foundation donor, got creative. Doug Band, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who helped create the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary Clinton. Band noted that Khalifa, “a good friend of ours,” would be visiting Washington and was seeking a meeting with Secretary Clinton. Abedin responded, noting that she was aware of Khalifa’s requests made “through normal channels.” She told Band that her boss didn’t want to commit to a meeting.

Two days later, the situation had changed. Abedin emailed Band to inform him that Khalifa was on the schedule and would be seeing Secretary Clinton in Washington. “If u see him, let him know,” she emailed. “We have reached out thru official channels.”

Another email, this one from Dennis Cheng, a fundraiser at the Clinton Foundation, to Abedin at the State Department, reveals that Clinton invited Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor, to a reception at her home in 2012. When Clinton’s team was asked about her involvement with Pinchuk in 2014, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the New York Times that Clinton had never met Pinchuk and the Ukrainian “was never on her schedule” during her tenure at the State Department. (Cheng had been a colleague of Abedin at the State Department before moving to the Clinton Foundation.)

That same month, in June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, traveled to New York City to interview two candidates to lead the Clinton Foundation. Mills, Clinton’s top aide, appears to have had significant involvement with those at the highest levels of the Clinton Foundation. Laura Graham, chief operating officer of the Clinton Foundation, left 148 telephone messages for Mills between 2010 and 2012, according to State Department records obtained by Citizens United via Freedom of Information Act requests and first reported by James Rosen of Fox News. The tally covers only half of Clinton’s tenure at the State Department and does not include calls in which Graham and Mills connected. Still, the 148 messages from Graham were exponentially more than any other individual left for Clinton’s top aide.

Many of these recent revelations have come despite efforts by Clinton defenders to keep them from the public. The FBI last week turned over to the State Department nearly 15,000 emails it recovered during its investigation of Clinton’s private server. Many of them—”thousands,” according to FBI director James Comey—were “work-related” emails that Clinton claimed she had turned over to the State Department. On August 8, 2015, Clinton signed a declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., swearing “under penalty of perjury” that she’d directed all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related turned over to the State Department.

That plainly didn’t happen. Why not? Comey offered several explanations in his July 5 press conference announcing he wouldn’t be charging anyone in connection with the scandal. Perhaps they were lost in routine system purges of the kind that any email user might perform. Or maybe her lawyers mistook these thousands of “work-related” emails as “personal” because their search techniques weren’t as sophisticated as those used by the FBI.

While the FBI recovered thousands of work-related emails that Clinton failed to turn over, Comey reported that many others had been deleted. The FBI director acknowledged that while the FBI did not have “complete visibility” as to the contents of these emails or a thorough understanding of how they were permanently erased, he nonetheless offered his assurances that “there was no intentional misconduct” in the sorting of the emails.

If Comey’s explanations seemed generous when he made them, they seem even more charitable today. In his telling, Clinton’s failure to turn over thousands of work-related emails—at least some of which include evidence of coordination between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that Clinton World was eager to keep secret—was merely the result of incompetence or bad luck. And the efforts her lawyers undertook to delete the others were unremarkable, benign. “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,” Comey said at his press conference. Yet moments later, Comey acknowledged: “They deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

There may be a simple reason the FBI didn’t find evidence of intent: They didn’t ask. That’s the explanation Representative Trey Gowdy offered in an interview with Fox News on August 24. “I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent,” Gowdy said, referring to the FBI’s notes from its interview with Secretary Clinton.

And the evidence the FBI collected, particularly with respect to how some of Clinton’s “personal” emails were deleted, indicates that questions about intent ought to have been among the first ones asked. FBI interviews with the techs responsible for erasing Clinton’s emails suggest that her team went to great lengths to ensure the messages would never be seen again. The Clinton team used a technology called “BleachBit” to permanently delete those emails. BleachBit, according to its website, allows users to “shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery” and “overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files.” The techs used additional tools to ensure those emails would be unrecoverable.

So Clinton, who took virtually no precautions to safeguard her emails—”personal” or “work-related”—while they sat on her server, went to great lengths to ensure that the emails she withheld from the State Department could never again be seen by anyone. She did this nearly two years following her departure from the State Department and only after she understood that the government was interested in seeing her emails. Seems like a lot to do to protect yoga schedules and emails about the grandkids.

The challenge for Clinton is simple: survive until November 8. So she’s avoiding the media—265 days and counting since her last press conference—and trying to offer reassurances about the Clinton Foundation.

There’s little reason to believe her. This is the same woman, after all, who promised during her nomination hearing seven years ago that she would take extraordinary measures to separate the foundation from her work at the State Department and do her best to “avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

***

***

***

Also see:

Huma Abedin’s mom linked to shocking anti-women book

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a "town hall" meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin's mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 28, 2016:

As secretary of state, women’s-rights champ Hillary Clinton not only spoke at a Saudi girls school run by her top aide Huma Abedin’s ­anti-feminist mother, but Clinton invited the elder Abedin to participate in a State Department event for “leading thinkers” on women’s issues.

This happened despite ­evidence at the time that Saleha M. Abedin had explored the religious merits of sexual submissiveness, child marriage, lashings and stonings for adulterous women, and even the ­circumcision of girls.

The elder Abedin, whose daughter helps run Clinton’s presidential campaign, did take a pro-gender-equality stance on at least one issue: Muslim women’s right to participate in violent jihad alongside men.

As The Post first reported, Huma’s mom edits the Journal of Muslim Minority ­Affairs, which has suggested that America had 9/11 coming to it, because of “sanctions” and “injustices” the US allegedly imposed on the Muslim world.

The journal also opposed women’s rights as un-Islamic, arguing that “ ‘empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit.”

But that’s not all.

In 1999, Saleha translated and edited a book titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,”  published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices ­under Sharia law.

“The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse,” the book states on Page 202, even if she is not in the mood. “She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition.”

But getting in the mood may be difficult. The book says female genital mutilation is permissible: ­“Cir­cumcision for women is ­allowed.”

Laws promoting feminist equality, moreover, are ineffectual, since “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

And forget about working in a position of authority: “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam,” the book says.

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

“Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations,” it explained. “Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

There is one exception to the sexual division of roles: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad ­becomes an individual duty.”

On the back cover, Saleha says she is “pleased to launch” the book as part of a series on the study of women’s rights in Islam sponsored by the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), for which she is listed as chairperson.

Founded by Huma’s mom, the Cairo-based IICWC has advocated for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era laws in favor of implementing Sharia law, which could allow female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape.

Saleha is paid by the Saudi government to advocate and spread Sharia in non-Muslim countries like America.

In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse.

Pakistan-born Saleha main­tained that men who serially beat women tend to be unemployed, making their abuse somehow more understandable. “They are victims of a different kind,” she claimed. “And they are simply taking [their frustrations] out on women.”

Despite all this, Huma Abedin in 2010 arranged for Clinton, then the secretary of state, to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to meet with her mother and speak at a girls school she founded and helps run as dean. Speaking to a roomful of girls, Clinton said Americans have to stop stereotyping Saudi women as oppressed, before assuring the audience that not all American women go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

While there, Clinton formed a partnership with Saleha’s Dar al-Hekma college called the US-Saudi Women’s Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, and prom­ised to reverse post-9/11 curbs on Saudi student visas to America.

The next year, Clinton invited Saleha and the president of the Saudi school to Washington to participate in a State Department colloquium on women, as revealed by internal emails released in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told the Post that while Huma Abedin was in fact listed as an editorial staffer of her mother’s radical journal from 1996 to 2008, she didn’t really do anything for the publication in her long tenure there.

Asked if Clinton regrets honoring the Islamist mother and bestowing ­legitimacy on her extreme views, Merrill had no comment.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

Hillary’s health: Emails show Clinton obsessed with sleep, “exotic drugs”

clinton-health-thumbnailThe Rebel Media, by Ezra Levant, August 26, 2016

Four years ago, she had a concussion, and a blood clot in her brain sent her to the hospital. Later, her head was still so injured that she was seeing double. That’s why she wore those Fresnel prism glasses: to counter double-vision.

Have you seen that video of her apparently having a seizure while being asked a question? The Clinton spin doctors say that’s just a joke. Really?

And then there’s the guy who is always with her, but he’s not Secret Service. He’s a paramedic — you can see by the badge he sometimes wears. He carries an injection device, maybe it’s anti-seizure medication. He’s been seen talking her through a stressful situation.

Why does Hillary Clinton always wear the strangest pant suits that look like they’re specifically made to order. Are they tailored to conceal things underneath? A medical device?

Here’s an e-mail that Clinton originally hid from the public, that was released only after a court ordered it. In it, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide, says her boss is “often confused” and needs to take naps.

That topic comes up a lot.

I typed the word “sleep” into a searchable archive of Clinton e-mails, the ones a court ordered the State Department to disclose.

WATCH to see what I found.

There were a lot of troubling results:

Clinton herself says she’s “chronically exhausted”. Her staff calls her a “champion napper”.

And then there’s her email about the symptoms of “decision fatigue.” Another about Provigil, a drug “often prescribed to treat excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and multiple sclerosis.”

That’s just the beginning…

Being president is the most stressful job in the world. You need energy — both physical and mental.

What exactly is wrong with Hillary Clinton? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed before the election.

Why isn’t the mainstream media interested in covering it?

Also see:

Corruption: The Clinton Foundation and Boko Haram

Michelle-obama-bringbackourgirlsDid the State Department use Boko Haram to subvert Nigeria’s presidential election out of Obama administration policy, or because of the mass donations to the Clinton Foundation from a Nigerian oil billionaire?

CounterJihad, Aug. 24, 2016:

World News has an important story about the State Department’s meddling in Nigeria’s presidential elections using the tool of Boko Haram violence.  C-SPAN has a further interview with the author of that piece here.  Yet there is still an important question to be asked: was the meddling in Nigeria’s Presidential election merely an Obama administration decision to effect regime change by subverting a free election, or was it in service to a major Clinton Foundation donor from the Nigerian oil fields?

Evidence that Obama intended to subvert the election is strong.  Obama’s own former chief strategist for his Presidential campaigns, David Axelrod, had his consulting firm AKPD was brought in to run Presidential competitor Buhari’s campaign.  The campaign was largely based on allegations of then-President Goodluck Jonathan’s corruption, and inability to fight Boko Haram successfully.  Of course, President Obama as Commander in Chief had the ability to support Nigeria with American forces, and President Jonathan had been begging for such forces to come to his aid.  Indeed, Jonathan ultimately accomplished a significant military victory just a few weeks before the election with the use of South African private military contractors providing training, advice, and helicopter transport.  These were all things denied to the Nigerians by the State Department. And almost immediately upon Buhari’s victory, the Obama administration announced it was open to expanding cooperation to fight Boko Haram.

This suggests that had the State Department not opposed the designation and blocked counter terrorism cooperation, Boko Haram could have been militarily suppressed during the Jonathan Administration.  Combined with the aid given to the political opposition by the President’s own political operatives, the picture is one of a democratic election intentionally subverted by allowing a terrorist organization to flourish until the election could be won.

But there may be more to the story.  From 2009 through 2013, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had refused to designate Boko Haram as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in spite of intense bipartisan pressure to do so.  Why?  Both Citizens United and Senator David Vitter have sought FOIA releases of documents explaining State’s thought process at this time. However, there is a major Clinton Foundation donor who had a clear interest:  a Nigerian oilfield billionaire named Gilbert Chagoury.

Gilbert Chagoury has substantial oil exploration interests in Nigeria. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2009, the same year Hilary Clinton took office as Secretary of State. Gilbert Chagoury is part of a small Nigerian clique that includes President Muhamadu Buhari.  He was interested in seeing Buhari elected, and is reportedly the one who pushed for Axelrod’s firm to be brought in.

It would have been in the business interests of Chagoury, and Buhari to keep former president Goodluck Jonathan from initiating oil ventures in northern Nigeria until Buhari was able to secure the presidency.  That would make sure that the contracts got into the right hands.

Now, with that in mind, return to the World News story:

Meanwhile, Boko Haram often showed up better equipped than the Nigerian military: “Boko Haram was extorting even government officials in the north, state and local officials, and certainly the military,” said an American working in the area for more than a decade, who spoke to WORLD and is not named for security reasons. “Very wealthy Muslim businessmen totally have been backing Boko Haram. There was huge money involved. Money used to purchase arms—it was crazy.”

Where were the funds and support coming from? In part from a corrupt oil industry and political leaders in the North acting as quasi-warlords. But prominently in the mix are Nigerian billionaires with criminal pasts—plus ties to Clinton political campaigns and the Clinton Foundation, the controversial charity established by Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton in 1997.

The Clintons’ long association with top suspect tycoons—and their refusal to answer questions about those associations—takes on greater significance considering the dramatic rise of Boko Haram violence while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Did some Clinton donors stand to gain from the State Department not taking action against the Islamic terrorist group?…

Critics argue it was Clinton herself who has led the way on U.S. indifference, spurning the standard FTO designation (issued 72 times since 1997) that could have bolstered U.S. efforts against Boko Haram years before the infamous [“#BringBackOurGirls”] kidnappings. [Emphasis added.]

Both Clinton and the Obamas made a big noise about those kidnapped girls.  They didn’t actually do anything to help them, though.  Perhaps now we begin to see why they did not.

NY Post’s Sperry on Huma Abedin’s Role at Radical Muslim Journal: ‘Clearly She Has Two Faces’

huma and hillary2Breitbart, by Pam Key, Aug. 24, 2016:

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” New York Post columnist Paul Sperry detailed the connections of  Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin had with a radical Muslim journal run by her mother.

Sperry said, “Well, I found one article where the mother actually wrote an article arguing for the subjugation of women and actually excuses wife beating. In another article, I found she actually blamed America and American foreign policy for 911 using the same excuses that Osama bin Laden used in fatwa against us.”

Sperry said Huma Abedin was listed as an assistant editor, “For 12 years from 1996 to 2008. and so, it’s — I mean, it’s really hard for the campaign to reconcile this. They admit that she actually was on there, but they’re saying well, she actually didn’t do any editing which is hard to believe because even if you buy that excuse, Huma had to know how odious this radical journal was because her mother was the editor and her brother and sister worked there as editors.”

He continued, “So Hillary had to know too about this. She went over to Saudi Arabia in 2010 as secretary of state to give a speech to the radical mother’s … so she went over to this radical girl’s school that’s run by the Huma Abedin’s radical mother and actually apologized for American women wearing bikinis. So I mean, is Hillary really this champion of women’s liberation? I mean, this is very problematic for the campaign because it’s the centerpiece of it is Hillary stands up for women’s rights, but here you have her campaign manager actually publishing articles that oppose women’s rights as un-Islamic.

When asked if Huma Abedin agrees with her mom or Hillary Clinton Sperry said, “That’s a good question. Clearly she has two faces. The face that we all see and then the face that she shows to the Saudis and other radical Muslims. So this raises a lot of questions that unfortunately aren’t being asked of the campaign. I mean, if this was Trump’s campaign manager being attached to such an extremist publication, the media would be hounding him around the clock about this.”

He added, “She could be running the White House as Chief of staff if Hillary gets in.”

See video

Also see:

Bribery: Clinton Approved Arms Sales After Big Clinton Foundation Donations from THIS Arab Nation

Screen-Shot-2015-12-18-at-4.52.50-PM (1)CounterJihad, Aug. 23, 2016:

Yesterday Judicial Watch released emails showing that a Crown Prince of Bahrain was able to secure a meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundationafter being rejected by official State Department channels.  Today, the International Business Times follows up on that report by revealing that the timing of this meeting lined up with a sudden, and large, increase in arms sales to Bahrain.  Furthermore, this increase came in spite of Bahrain being engaged in massive human rights abuses and suppression of peaceful civilian protests.  Finally, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers destroyed the emails documenting this meeting without turning them over to the State Department.  These were among the emails destroyed as allegedly “personal.

Now, Bahrain is an important regional ally of the United States.  The US 5th Fleet, also called NAVCENT as it is the fleet permanently assigned to US Central Command, is based out of Bahrain’s harbors.  Bahrain would thus ordinarily enjoy some US military arms sales, as well as occasional access to high level State Department officials.  However, in this case the State Department had already turned down the request for a meeting when it came through official channels.  So, Crown Prince Salman contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask them to get him a meeting anyway.

And they did.

Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band personally contacted Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman, Huma Abedin, to request that she arrange the meeting in spite of official refusal.  Band described Crown Prince Salman as a “Good friend of ours,” and he certainly was that.  The Judicial Watch release details that Salman arranged more than thirty million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  From the perspective of the State Department, he was just another Arab prince.  From the perspective of the Clinton Foundation, he was a good friend who needed special treatment.  He got it.

He got more than that, too, according to the Times.

Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests….  As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

During those Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 — when Bahrain was accused of using tear gas on its own people — the Clinton-led State Department approved more than $70,000 worth of arms sales classified as “toxicological agents.”

In addition to that, there were sales of armored vehicles, missiles, ammunition, and more.  The sale faced intense opposition in Congress, especially given Bahrain’s ongoing massacres of its own citizens in its streets merely for peacefully protesting the government.

But the Crown Prince wanted his meeting, and he wanted his arms, and he got both because he was a good friend of the Clinton Foundation.

Not that the public would have known this, but for the FBI investigation.  Clinton’s lawyers deleted these emails without turning them over to the State Department, though it turns out that they are clearly public records that explain just how a momentous decision was made on a major arms deal.

In spite of that, the FBI recommended no prosecution.

Also see:

The Coming Free Speech Apocalypse

shutterstock_238626832The Federalist, by Daniel Payne, Aug. 22, 2016:

Americans generally do not appreciate the United States’ astonishing free speech regime, particularly compared to the historical bastions of political liberalism in Western Europe.

The French penal code criminalizes “defamation” of people based on “their membership or non-membership, real or supposed, of an ethnic group, nation, race or religion;” in Britain the police can investigate you for criticizing Muslims; in Ireland they have something called the “Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act,” which prohibits “inciting” “hatred” against anyone based on, among other factors, “membership [in] the travelling community” and “sexual orientation” (Ireland also forbids speech that “undermine[s] public order or morality or the authority of the State”). Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, forbids people from “incit[ing] hatred against any identifiable group.”

America is not like that: in the United States, you can incite hatred against a gay gypsy Muslim bureaucrat, even specifically becausehe is a gay gypsy Muslim bureaucrat, and you will not be thrown in jail. In America you can say just about any offensive thing imaginable, directed at just about any group or person imaginable, and you’ll be okay. Add to that the strong protections for political speech that statute and Supreme Court precedent have established, and America is almost unique among the nations of the world in terms of freedom of expression. We have it good.

But that might not always be the case. In fact in the very near future American free speech may be sharply curtailed. It is not a sure thing—Supreme Court precedent regarding the First Amendment is robust enough to present would-be censors with something of a challenge—but nevertheless there is a good chance that American enemies of American free speech will shortly mount a sustained and eventually successful effort to drastically reduce American speech freedoms.

Who are these enemies? There are three of them: Hillary Clinton (backed by a Democratic Party that is rabidly anti-free speech), Donald Trump (unchallenged by a weak and useless Republican Party), and, most tragically, the American people themselves.

Hillary Clinton

With the possible exceptions of John Adams and Woodrow Wilson, there might never be a president more hostile to freedom of speech than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton has promised, if elected, to introduce a constitutional amendment within her first month in office that would effectively repeal the First Amendment by overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v FEC decision from 2010.

Very simply, Citizens United ruled that Americans do not lose their freedom of speech rights when they band together in corporate form and under the auspices of labor unions and other types of organizations. Practically speaking, this was an uncontroversial and obvious affirmation of American First Amendment rights. But Hillary Clinton has set herself up against this ruling as if it were the Black Death, claiming her litmus test for nominating Supreme Court justices is if they will vote to overturn Citizens United and thus make it more difficult for Americans to speak freely and openly.

Clinton actually has a long history of anti-free speech positions, so in a sense this is unsurprising. But now she is poised to become president of the United States, and with that bully pulpit—and the power of the executive order—you can be sure her avaricious, relentless desire to curtail free speech will be a potent threat to our precious First Amendment freedoms.

You can be equally certain the Democratic Party will be happy to help her out. The Democratic platform not only calls for overturning Citizens United but also calls upon the Justice Department to “investigate allegations of corporate fraud” of fossil fuel companies “accused of misleading shareholders” on “the scientific reality of climate change.” This is a creative way of calling on government to prosecute skeptics of global warming hysteria.

In addition, the DNC calls upon Democrats to “condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence.” It is essentially guaranteed that, within a few years’ time, the “condemnation” of “hate speech” will progress to demands for an outright prohibition. Progressives in Europe have already done it; progressives in America are assuredly not far behind.

Donald Trump

You might think the Republican nominee for president would stand as a counterweight to the Democratic nominee’s censorious tendencies. You would be wrong. Trump himself has come out against super PACs, which are simply coalitions of American citizens who have banded together to voice their political opinions. Trump has also vowed to “open up” libel laws in order to silence his critics.

Lest you think this is an empty threat, it’s important to note Trump has already admitted to using libel laws to silence his critics. He also called for “closing [the] Internet up in some way” to combat terrorism, while dismissing those who would be concerned about freedom of speech as “foolish people.”

Would the GOP stand against Trump’s demonstrable hostility to the First Amendment? Not likely. Much of the Republican establishment has already proven itself reluctant to challenge Trump in any substantive way. Trump’s obvious antipathy to freedom of speech, coupled with his strongman ambitions and lack of resistance from an emasculated GOP, could pose a serious if not existential threat to American freedom of expression.

The American People

Surely, even if our corrupt and power-hungry elite ruling class opposes freedom of speech, the American people will resist any real efforts to curtail the First Amendment, right? Not so fast. There are genuinely distressing signs that the culture of American free speech is as endangered as the policy.

Some poll numbers suggest as much: two-thirds of Americans, for instance, think people who engage in “hate speech” are “more dangerous” than the people who would censor it. Among younger Americans—millennials—the polls indicate a staggering opposition to freedom of speech: out of 800 students polled at colleges across the country, more than a third believed the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” with a third also claiming the First Amendment is “outdated;” more than half believe colleges should have speech codes to police the speech of students and professors.

Forty percent of millennials, meanwhile, think government should be able to censor “offensive statements about minorities.” Indeed, millennials appear to be the most censorious generation alive. As older generations die off or become less politically active, we can assume that more and more anti-free speech millennials will make up a larger and larger share of the electorate.

All of which is to say: if we are worried about the anti-free speech ambitions of our two presidential candidates and the parties they represent, we should also be concerned about the American body politic, a substantial percentage of which is greatly inclined to censor “offensive” speech. A generation so inclined to muzzle its fellow Americans could pose an existential threat to the First Amendment.

Fight for the Right to Speak Freely

So how do First Amendment-loving Americans fight against this rising tide of illiberal anti-speech hostility? The solution is actually quite simple: we must take an absolutist zero-tolerance position regarding censorship and speech policing. In the same way that the National Rifle Association is relentless in fighting the curtailing of Second Amendment rights, Americans must relentlessly protect First Amendment rights.

Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.

Also see:

Huma Abedin’s Successful Influence Operations

huma-1-640x480Paul Sperry reports at the New York Post that a Clinton spokesman denies Huma Abedin played an active role in the editing of the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs. The Journal is decidedly pro-sharia. The question of Huma’s position on Women’s  rights in view of her past ties is relevant as Hillary Clinton has made it a campaign issue.

Brian Lilley comments on the story at Rebel Media:

And now, in today’s White House press briefing, Fox News’ James Rosen asks about Huma:

What we should also be focusing on is evidence of a successful influence operation on Hillary Clinton as laid out in a 2013 article by Andrew McCarthy titled “The Huma Unmentionables”

Excerpt:

In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University

has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

  • The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
  • The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but amember of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
  • On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

Also see:

Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for 10 years

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 21 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.

One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.

However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.

Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.

“‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.

“By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,” she argued, “Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.”

“Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”

She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.

She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”

She opposed the UN conference widening the scope of the definition of the family to include “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”

Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,”she said in a recent profile in Vogue.

Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Huma Abedin is Clinton’s longest-serving and, by all accounts, most loyal aide. The devout, Saudi-raised Muslim started working for her in the White House, then followed her to the Senate and later the State Department. She’s now helping run Clinton’s presidential campaign as vice chair and may end up back in the White House.

The contradictions are hard to reconcile. The campaign is not talking, despite repeated requests for interviews.

Until now, these articles which Abedin helped edit and publish have remained under wraps. Perhaps Clinton was unaware she and her mother took such opposing views.

But that’s hard to believe. Her closest adviser served as an editor for that same Saudi propaganda organ for a dozen years. The same one that in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, while claiming “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

And in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human-rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”

If fighting for women’s rights is one of Clinton’s greatest achievements, why has she retained as her closest adviser a woman who gave voice to harsh Islamist critiques of her Beijing platform?

Paul Sperry is author of  “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Just how radical has Hillary become on illegal immigration?

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Aug. 19, 2016:

Many of us who follow politics every day are like frogs in slow boiling water who don’t realize the gradual yet inexorable change in political temperature. Many commentators are trying to suggest that a group of conservatives have departed from our traditions and have moved far to the right on immigration. The reality is just the opposite. The entire political landscape has shifted so far to the left that most contemporary Republicans are to the left of where prominent Democrats used to be on the issue of immigration just one generation ago — and that is when the problem was trivial compared to the enormity of the security, economic, and cultural issues we face today. To get a sense of how radical Hillary Clinton’s views have become over the years — and how tepid the GOP reaction to it has been — watch the following clip from none other than Hillary’s husband during the 1995 State of the Union Address:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

Can we run the Bill Clinton of 1995 for the GOP nomination, please?

When do we ever hear even Republican politicians speak with this much clarity on immigration, let alone any issue? Clinton referenced the “Jordan Commission,” which was headed by a liberal Democrat and pushed an all-out war against illegal immigration. Oh, and it called for reductions in legal immigration. That was at a time when our immigration level was a fraction of what it is today. I think most of us would pine to go back to the “1995 problems.” It was that effort that led to the series of immigration laws passed by the GOP Congress in 1996 (back when eve moderate Republicans actually stood and fought for real big ideas). Unfortunately, all of those laws were ignored. Nonetheless, when it came to deportations, the Clinton administration still repatriated four times the number of illegal aliens that Obama has deported.

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books?

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Harry Reid (D, Nev. (F, 2%) had made similar comments about mass migration and illegal immigration and promoted enforcement legislation, the likes of which we don’t see today from Republicans.

Fast-forward just 20 years and the wife of the former president who spoke so clearly about the unfairness and dangers of illegal immigration (in a pre-9/11 world) has openly tapped an illegal alien as a campaign operative. As the Washington Free Beacon reports, the illegal alien employed by Hillary to register Latino voters is tied to George Soros’s operation to campaign against America sovereignty.

Let’s put aside for a moment the extreme nature of holding such a political view — that America must have complete open borders. How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books? Even if one believes in open borders and desires to change our existing laws, they have no right to flaunt illegal aliens in broad daylight and tap them for campaign positions.

We have a very polarized nation and we disagree on politics. But there is no disagreement on the rule of law. Sure, there is a concept of unjust laws or faux laws “passed” by federal courts that, as our Founders explicitly said, have no force of law behind them when they step beyond their constitutionally enumerated powers. However, nobody disagrees that immigration laws are the bedrock of sovereignty for any nation-state, and in this country, that power lies exclusively with the United States Congress. One may disagree with those laws as a matter of policy, but has no right to question their legality. For Hillary to run for an office predicated upon the faithful execution of the laws and then openly violate the most bedrock laws of a sovereign nation — openly hiring illegal immigrants and calling for the right to vote against the sovereign citizen — is beneath contempt.

Watching Democrats openly flaunt illegal behavior and dismantle the most inviolable laws of a nation state is yet another demonstration of how this is no longer a liberal party. It is a party of de-civilization.

***

Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Aug. 18, 2016:

DANIEL HOROWITZ, senior editor at Conservative Review, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America”:

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

  • Supplanting Western civilization through Muslim immigration
  • Support system in the West enabling radicalization
  • The latest on criminal justice reform

Also see:

This week in jihad: ‘If we lose Africa, we lose the War on Terror’

Boko HaramConservative Review, by Nate Madden, Aug. 18, 2016:

As Turkey arrests tens of thousands of political prisoners following last month’s coup attempt, and ISIS horrifically executes dozens of captives accused of spying, Boko Haram’s new leader and new mission in West Africa highlight the precipitous state of jihadism on the continent.

It has been over two years since almost 300 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram militants in April 2014.

New video released Sunday by Nigerian-based ISIS-affiliate Boko Haram highlights the sad and troubling reality that the insurgency — now the deadliest terror group in the world — is still terrorizing West Africa, with a new focus on targeting Christians.

According to a report from the Associated Press:

The video posted Sunday on Twitter shows a young woman, covered in a hijab with just her face showing, who was one of the students abducted from a remote school in northeastern Nigeria in April 2014. She claims that some of her kidnapped classmates died in aerial bombardments by the Nigerian Air Force. She also said that 40 have been “married” to fighters.

The video shows a militant warning in the Hausa language that if President Muhammadu Buhari’s government battles Boko Haram with firepower, the girls won’t be seen again.

“Presently, some of the girls are crippled, some are terribly sick and some of them, as I had said, died during bombardment by the Nigerian military,” the fighter says, appearing before a group of more than 40 young women in hijabs, some holding babies.

The video’s release comes just two weeks after news broke of an internal shakeup in the Boko Haram’s organization’s ranks, in which its long-time leader Abu Bakr Shekau was reportedly replaced by Abu Musab al-Barnawi, who has pledged to re-focus the group’s terror focus on Christians and churches while ending attacks on markets and mosques.

In an interview published by ISIS and reported by SITE Intelligence on August 8, al-Barnawi vowed to respond to what he called attempts to “Christianize the society” by “booby-trapping and blowing up every church that we are able to reach, and killing all of those (Christians) who we find from the citizens of the cross.”

Al-Barnawi, who was confirmed by ISIS’ English language magazine, Dabiq, as the new governor of its so-called West Africa Province — a name that Boko Haram adopted last spring — had been a spokesperson for the group for over a year, speaking in lieu of the mysterious Shekau, leading to speculation of the latter’s death.

Boko Haram’s new announced strategy in West Africa echoes sentiments laid out in the latest issue of Dabiq, in which the multinational insurgency focused attacks directly at Christianity with articles as titled “Break the Cross” and “Why we hate you and why we fight you.”

Elsewhere in Africa, a Ugandan Islamist group hacked at least 64 people to death with machetes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The massacre was carried out by the Allied Defense Forces in the town of Beni, according to a report at the Daily Mail. The ADF is known as a quasi-jihadist militant group initially focused on overthrowing the Ugandan government with the intention of installing Sharia law in the East African country.

As pointed out in a previous two-part series at Conservative Review, the continued violence perpetrated by Boko Haram and the spread of jihadism in other regions is largely a result of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s failed and reckless Africa policies. These have helped increase the jihadist footprint on the continent.

“We’re on the verge of losing the whole continent of Africa,” to jihadist groups Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole told Conservative Review in a phone interview for the series.

“Africa is the war on terror,” he added. “If we lose Africa, we lose the war on terror.”

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religion and culture. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate has previously written for The Washington Times, Catholic News Service, Patheos, and The Christian Post. Follow him @NateMadden_IV.

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:

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Failures: A Recent History

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 15, 2016:

On Monday, fifty Republican national security veteransreleased a letter saying that none of them will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. They said in their letter that Trump would be a “dangerous President” on foreign policy and national security.

Monday also marked the 2-year anniversary of the war launched by the U.S. against Islamic State. NBC recently released a map showing the global expansion of Islamic State, showing how the U.S. policy to defeat them clearly has failed.

According to NBC:

U.S. State Department documents indicated that in 2014, when the U.S. military began its campaign to destroy the extremists, there were only seven nations in which the fledgling state was operating. A map from the National Counterterrorism Center shows the worldwide expansion of ISIS as of August 2016. By 2015, according to the State Department’s own numbers, there were nearly double that — 13 countries. The current briefing map shows 18 countries where  ISIS is fully operational. The map also displays a new category — “aspiring branches” — and lists six countries where  they’re taking root: Egypt, Indonesia, Mali, the Philippines, Somalia and Bangladesh.

We are currently facing a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East not seen since WWII. In 1945, Democratic President Harry Truman used the atomic bomb against the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending WWII, killing over 150,000 people. Truman stated that he did it to save lives and end the war. He argued that it wasn’t an option to prolong the war resulting in more bloodshed. President Obama has done nothing in the Syrian conflict and little in the global war on Islamic State, which has resulted in over400,000 deaths in Syria alone and displacing millions under his Presidency. Prolonging the war costs lives and money.

A do-nothing foreign policy as we have seen under President Obama and Hillary’s State Department is dangerous, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump would win and end the war against Islamic State, ultimately saving lives.

It is Hillary Clinton that has a proven record of a dangerous foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she has a consistent track record of supporting our enemies and alienating our allies.

A short list of Hillary’s policies that have jeopardized American national security include: undermining the service and sacrifice of thousands of men and women in uniform by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops; supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of Islamic State; supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt,UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined America’s Muslim allies; refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria; undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009; and supporting the Iran Nuclear deal.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram in Nigeria, which was named the deadliest terrorist organization in 2015, a terrorist group. She not only refused, but she hindered the efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation.

The FBI, CIA and Justice Department wanted Boko Haram designated but, ultimately, the State Department opposed the designation despite hard evidence from our Intelligence services.

Clinton’s refusal to designate them a FTO could be because of conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and a Nigerian businessman. Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian businessman with Lebanese dual citizenship and land developer, gave $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation throughout the years and pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009 through the Chagoury Group. He hosted former President Bill Clinton in Nigeria as head of the Clinton Foundation.

Chagoury would have a financial interest in the impact on Nigeria that would have followed a FTO designation. The FTO designation would affect his developments in Nigeria.

Boko Haram is responsible for kidnapping over 260 young female students in 2014. If the designation for Boko Haram occurred sooner, the search for the girls could have started sooner. Boko Haram gained significant footing and expanded during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Boko Haram has killed more than 20,000 people and displaced 2 million.

Hillary calls herself a “champion of women’s rights,” but did not designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization despite being responsible for killing and kidnapping thousands of people, including women and children, using them as sex slaves and suicide bombers.

One of the most strategic consequential failures of the Hillary State Department was in 2009 when the U.S. undermined the Iranian Green Revolution. Not only did the U.S. do nothing to help the opposition against the terrorist Iranian regime, but US funding was cut for democratic organizations/programs in Iran under Clinton’s State Department. Democracy funding under the State Department continued in countries like Egypt, where the US supported “democratic” opposition groups which led to the removal of US ally Mubarak, but were cut for opposition groups that were pro-western against a terrorist regime.

According to a Wall Street Journal article published in October 2009, democratic organizations that were funded under the Bush Administration were cut under Hillary’s State Department. The article states

Less widely known is that Freedom House, the nonpartisan watchdog group founded in 1941, also lost State Department funding. It applied in April for significant funds to support initiatives including Gozaar, its Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights, and was turned down in July. Since 2006, Freedom House had received over $2 million from the U.S. and European governments for Iran-related efforts. “We might have to close Gozaar if we run out of money,” deputy executive director Thomas O. Melia told us this week…then there’s the International Republican Institute (IRI), which for several years received State Department support to train Iranian reformers and connect them to like-minded activists in Europe and elsewhere. IRI’s recent application for funds was denied, an IRI official told us last week.

The article continued saying, “In a recent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Iran policy, seven congressmen including Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Bob Inglis (R., S.C.), and James Moran (D., Va.), wrote: ‘We are particularly concerned by reports that the State Department and USAID are being ‘extremely cautious’ in their funding decisions, have stopped funding projects, and have approved no new strategy for promoting civil society and the rule of law.’ Mrs. Clinton has not responded.”

The war in Libya is another one of Hillary’s greatest foreign policy mistakes, leading to thousands killed and millions displaced. Gaddafi was not a good man, but he had a stake in the global war on terrorism after he allegedly dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. In 2007, the United States removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism andresumed normal diplomatic relations.

Under Gaddafi, Islamists were consistently trying to overthrow his regime, so he had an interest in standing up against Islamist terrorists, using state force against them. Libyan intelligence worked with the CIA and the US intelligence during the Iraq war to arrest members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

The LIFG has been a U.S. designated terrorist organization since 2004. According to aWest Point study conducted in 2007, Libya contributed far more foreign fighters in Iraq to fight American troops per capita than any other country.

It was Hillary Clinton’s State Department that gave a contract to the February 17th Martyrs Brigade in Libya to protect America’s Consulate, who were known sympathizers to Al Qaeda and are main suspects in the Benghazi attack on the U.S. consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

In Afghanistan, Hillary undermined American and Afghan troops by leading and spearheading the negotiations with the Taliban, pushing for an office in Qatar while the Taliban refused. She led negotiations with the Taliban while they were killing American troops.

As Secretary of State, the US failed to secure the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIS – undermining the sacrifice that thousands of Americans gave in securing victory in the war.

In Yemen, Hillary Clinton met with one of the leading members of the opposition, Tawakkol Karman, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen and was a leader in the overthrow of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime. Hillary Clinton stated, “”the United States supports a democratic transition in Yemen and the rights of the people of Yemen – men and women – to choose their own leaders and futures.”  The White House issued a statement supporting the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution that called for a peaceful transition in Yemen, stating, “a united and unambiguous signal to President Saleh that he must respond to the aspirations of the Yemeni people by transferring power immediately.” Today, Yemen is a failed state and fighting a proxy war, another disaster of Hillary’s Arab Spring.

The Middle East is on fire because of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration’s policies of fighting against the rule of law and supporting those that break the law – creating anarchy and safe havens for terrorists. Hillary will bring anarchy and lawlessness, which she has already done as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous for America’s national security, not Donald Trump.

Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

The Royal Kingdom and 9/11

186361482Secure Freedom Radio With Paul Sperry on Aug. 16, 2016:

PAUL SPERRY, Editor-in-chief of CounterJihad.com, columnist at the New York Post, author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America”:

READ TRANSCRIPT

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • 28 pages containing damaging evidence against top Saudi diplomatic figures
  • Raw data could prove to be much more damning than that in 28 pages
  • Investigating Bandar bin Sultan and Saud al-Faisal

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Relationship between the Royal Kingdom and the Global Jihad Movement
  • Saudi-financed mosques in the US
  • Role played by the Muslim World League

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Obama Administration giving out massive number of student visas to Saudi nationals
  • Huma Abedin’s family history

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Abedin’s potential influence in a Hillary Clinton presidency
  • Evidence gained from the US Holyland Foundation trial
  • How the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the US government

(PART FIVE): (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • The Khan spectacle continues in the media
  • Khan’s expertise in Sharia law
  • Social unrest and violence in Milwaukee