EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

ac5d638fd185415d8f08013cae9db38f-2Clinton donations expose political agenda behind calls for Trump to reconsider “racist” Cabinet picks

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, December 2, 2016:

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “ ffensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated $38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Gaffney: The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, November 22, 2016:

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is President of the Center for Security Policy.

Will Obama Pardon Hillary? Should He?

hillary-please-640x480And does Trump actually want her to be pardoned?

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 12, 2016:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when he engaged on the question whether President Obama would pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office. Earnest did not indicate that the president had made any commitment one way or the other, but the fact that he is clearly thinking about it is intriguing.

The question primarily arises because there is significant evidence of felony law violations. These do not only involve the mishandling of classified information and the conversion/destruction of government files (i.e., the former secretary of state’s government-related e-mails). It has also been credibly reported that the FBI is investigating pay-to-play corruption during Clinton’s State Department tenure, through the mechanism of the Clinton Foundation — the family “charity” by means of which the Clintons have become fabulously wealthy by leveraging their “public service.” Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has been spared prosecution, but we have learned that the e-mails aspect of the investigation was unduly limited (no grand jury was used); and the legal theory on which FBI director James Comey declined to seek charges is highly debatable, even if it has been rubber-stamped by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The proximate cause driving the pardon question, however, is President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment that if victorious, he would appoint a special prosecutor to probe his rival’s “situation.”

This is one of what will no doubt be many things that Mr. Trump will find were easier to say in the heat of the moment (a contentious debate between the candidates) than to do in his new political reality. During the campaign, nothing damaged Clinton as badly as the specter of criminal jeopardy. But now Trump has been elected, and he has a governing agenda that will require cooperation from Capitol Hill. A prosecution of Clinton would provoke Democratic outrage, which means media outrage, which, in turn, means Republican panic.

Much of the outrage is ill-considered — although that doesn’t stop some smart people from expressing it. The objection is that the United States is not, for example, Turkey, where the Islamist despot persecutes his political opposition. But the comparison is apples and oranges. Clinton would not be under investigation for opposing Trump; the probe would be based on evidence of non-trivial law-breaking that has nothing to do with Trump. We know this because Clinton’s misconduct has already been the subject of ostensibly serious investigations by the incumbent administration’s law enforcers. If your position is that a politician may be investigated only if her own party is in power, then you are the one politicizing law enforcement — and creating an environment that breeds corruption.

But that, of course, is logic. Politics is not obliged to be logical. Even those of us who believe Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct demands a thorough investigation must acknowledge the real-world circumstances. The Trump administration will need to move on filling Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court seat; repealing Obamacare; debt, tax and regulatory reform; Iran; and who knows what unforeseen crises. A prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, especially if it is perceived as a rush to judgment, could derail the Trump train before it even pulls out of the station.

So what is to be done? Well, let’s put the merits of prosecution versus pardon aside for a moment. Politically speaking, the easiest out for Trump would be an Obama pardon of Clinton. But will the incumbent president do it? I suspect he will. There is no love lost between Obama and Trump, and probably not much between Obama and Clinton. But the president does have himself to think about — lots of love there.

Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct occurred when she was a high-ranking member of Obama’s cabinet. Her improper use of a non-secure private e-mail system was widely known in administration circles, yet it went unpoliced. Moreover, there is good reason to believe the administration was aware of Clinton’s serial flouting of the agreement she made with the White House as a condition of being appointed secretary of state — the one that required her to disclose and seek prior administration approval of Clinton Foundation activities that generated payments and donations from foreign sources. As it is, Obama’s dereliction in failing to make Clinton toe the line reflects poorly on him. Were these matters ever to be fully explored at a public trial, though, his legacy would take a major hit.

More to the point, as we’ve repeatedly noted in these columns, Obama, using an alias, willfully communicated with Clinton via her private e-mail account at least 18 times. This implicates him in her mishandling of classified information. Indeed, the Obama–Clinton e-mails would be admissible evidence in any trial of Mrs. Clinton — as likely would be the fact that the president falsely denied knowledge of Clinton’s private e-mail usage when asked about it in media interviews.

If President Obama had wanted these matters publicly exposed, he would have encouraged an aggressive criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton, and he would not have invoked a confidentiality privilege to prevent Congress and the public from reading the Obama–Clinton e-mails.

For all the president’s gracious rhetoric this week about helping his successor succeed, the thought of leaving the thorny Clinton dilemma on Trump’s desk must be very tempting to Obama. On the other hand, Obama may calculate that a pardon for Clinton would burnish his legacy, just as historians have smiled on Gerald Ford for granting clemency to Richard Nixon (although, as I’ve argued, Nixon’s situation was very different from Clinton’s.) But all that aside, and regardless of the president’s feelings for Mrs. Clinton (which I suspect are warmer than some have suggested), this is more a matter of Obama’s self-preservation than anything else. That’s why I believe he will pardon her — after all, he seems to be pardoning everybody else. A pardon issued by Obama would make the whole affair go away, leaving Trump a clean slate.

But what if he doesn’t? What should President Trump do once the reins are in his hands?

Some are already arguing that Trump should pardon Clinton. There is some sense to this. Most of Trump’s ardent supporters would forgive him for going back on his word (as they would forgive him, it seems, for most anything). They would rationalize that he has more important fish to fry. There would also be reveling in the five or six minutes the media spent extolling Trump’s magnanimity before reverting to attack mode. As for the many in Republican circles who are tepid, at best, when it comes to Trump, a goodly number of them would cheer a Clinton pardon.

So if that’s the case, why shouldn’t Trump pardon Clinton?

Well for one thing, because a president is supposed to know what he is pardoning before resorting to that conclusive, irrevocable power. That is why the Justice Department has a pardon office, funded annually by Congress. The pardon office oversees an elaborate procedure, a key element of which is input from the prosecutor responsible for the case. The point is to ensure that the president is fully aware of the extent and nature of the criminality involved before deciding whether to grant clemency.

Mrs. Clinton has never been subjected to a full-blown criminal investigation, with FBI agents and prosecutors working jointly (rather than at cross-purposes), using the grand jury to compel the production of testimony and physical evidence. Such an investigation would be important here because Clinton did not act alone. Her use of private e-mail was systematic, with numerous staffers supporting it, covering it up, and moving classified intelligence through it; several underlings carried out the destruction of government files; many subordinates may have made false statements to FBI investigators; and the Clinton Foundation is a vast multi-billion-dollar enterprise — one that will continue its potentially criminal activities if a prosecution does not put it out of business.

Among the salient factors considered in pardon decisions are (a) where the offender under consideration fit in the pecking order of conspiratorial activity and (b) how similar offenders are typically treated. To be sure, Hillary Clinton is a special case: A prosecution against a major party’s most recent presidential candidate (which may also implicate her husband, the former president) would roil the nation and could complicate its governance. Still, we are talking about serious crimes, and Mrs. Clinton is the most culpable participant. Is the plan to pardon everyone involved, or should Mrs. Clinton get a pass while her minions face the anxiety and costs of potential legal jeopardy?

And if Mrs. Clinton is to walk away scot-free after compromising our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence operations, and after she has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars by putting our government’s foreign and security policy on sale, what is a Trump Justice Department going to do in far less consequential cases?

Trump campaigned as the people’s champion, the president who was going to “drain the swamp” and end the sordid Washington system of two sets of rules: a forgiving one for the well-connected and a harsh one for everybody else. Well, what about it, then? If Mrs. Clinton skates, is the run-of-the-mill fraudster also going to get a pass for the more mundane $100,000 scheme? How about the low-ranking naval officer who takes a couple of souvenir photos of a top-secret submarine? The mid-level CIA analyst who brings a few classified memos home rather than staying late to read them in the agency SCIF? Is everybody off the felony hook now, or just the Clintons?

These are not easy questions. If President Trump and his advisers are going to answer them fairly and properly, it ought to be done on a much better-informed basis than what we now have. The new president should direct his attorney general to select a scrupulous, objective, non-partisan special prosecutor, an attorney with solid law-enforcement experience who is respected on both sides of the political aisle (there are more of those than you might imagine). That special prosecutor and a team of FBI agents, operating outside the supervision of Trump’s political appointees at the Justice Department, should conduct a full and fair investigation — under normal law-enforcement protocols, which means no public commentary unless and until a decision is made about whether to file charges.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s pardon office should begin preparing a full clemency petition, working, as always, out of the public spotlight. Eventually, input from both Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys and the special prosecutor should be invited.

At the end of that process, with a normal investigation and a full understanding of the facts, the special prosecutor should file an indictment if the facts are so damning that prosecution is warranted. But, before or after that is done, President Trump could issue a pardon if the equities weigh in favor of one, especially if the evidence appears to be ambiguous. Significantly, the special prosecutor and the attorney general could also end up announcing that the investigation is being closed without charges and with no need to address the question of a pardon. That would give Mrs. Clinton the vindication she deserves if there truly is insufficient evidence to prosecute her.

Again, I don’t believe it will come to that. My sense is that President Obama will issue a pardon that covers not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations. That would make it case closed, sparing Obama embarrassment and Trump a political hot potato. If the current president does not act, though, the new president needs to be ready with a plan.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Racist’ Trump’s Victory a ‘Disaster’ for Muslim World

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, November 9, 2016:

The terrorist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) group — praised by Democrats, President Barack Obama, and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — has reportedly denounced “racist” Republican Donald Trump’s victory over the former secretary of state as a “disaster” for the Arab and Muslim world.

On Wednesday, a day after Trump won the U.S. presidential election, Mamdouh Al-Muneer, a spokesperson for MB who also serves as a member of the supreme body of the Egyptian Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), reportedly wrote on social media that the results of the elections were a catastrophe and a “racist” has ascended to the White House, according to the Middle East Monitor (MEMO).

“Goliath is coming himself, with his horses and men… what our nation has witnessed in the last period is something and what is to come is something different,” he added. “God willing it will be for us not against us.”

The MB was founded in Egypt and has expanded into the West — namely the United States, Europe, and Australia — in addition to other countries across the world.

Although various nations have deemed the group a terrorist organization, including Muslim-majority states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Obama administration hasrefused to join those countries and has blocked Republican lawmakers from designating MB a terrorist group.

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a declassified U.S. State Department document that shows that, as secretary of state, Clinton supported Muslim Brotherhood member and former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Obama invited Morsi to the White House and has met with other party representatives there.

Current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, as military chief, led the public movement to overthrow Morsi in July 2013.

Also see:

The preferred candidate of jihadists loses the US presidential election

obama-hillaryJihad Watch, by Christine Williams, November 9, 2018:

Prior to Election Day, imams were out telling Muslims to vote, even launching a special campaign:

October 7 is My Muslim Vote National Khutba Day a day meant to encourage American Muslims to get to the polls this November. During this week’s services, spiritual leaders will be ascending minbars, or pulpits, to preach a khutba, or sermon, that focuses on the importance of voting in this election.

The #MyMuslimVote campaign is led by the activist group MPower Change and the national Muslim Students Association.

A CAIR survey predicted that 75% of Muslims will vote for Clinton. It is well known that:

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

The Muslim Students Association – a leader in the “MyMuslimVote” campaign — also has Muslim Brotherhood links.

Most telling about Hillary Clinton was that she “raked in” over $41,000 “from prominent Islamists” in donations, which included “$19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

An Aljazeera report stated that Muslims, “blacks, South Asians, Middle Easterners and converts…form a Democrat-leaning mass, according to CAIR’s survey.” That same report painted Trump as racist and Hillary as the preferred candidate, citing the CAIR survey. Meanwhile, Pakistani American Muslims were reportedly busy making a “final push” for Hillary Clinton:

The US Council of Muslim Organisations, an umbrella group of two dozen Muslim advocacy organisations announced this week that over one million American Muslims have registered to vote in the November 8 US elections.

Despite the old us-versus-them rhetoric of Islamic supremacists, CAIR, and the Left, who are all too eager to scream “Islamophobia” and claim that Trump is the preferred candidate of the whites-only club, a Fox News report pointed out a historic shift in party alignment:

First, for the first time since anyone can remember, Republicans have broken the communications monopoly Democrats have enjoyed among African-Americans.Trump is persistently reaching out to them; visiting their churches and neighborhoods, making a commitment to rebuild America’s cities, economy and jobs.

A report from last March, summing up the CAIR view of the election: “CAIR Super Tuesday Poll Shows Muslim Voters Support Hillary Clinton, Concerned About Islamophobia”,  CAIR, March 10, 2016:

Survey shows that more older Muslim voters back Clinton, while younger Muslims support Bernie Sanders

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/2/16) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today released the results of a six-state “Super Tuesday” poll of almost 2000 Muslim voters indicating that almost half of those voters (46 percent) support Hillary Clinton, followed by Bernie Sanders at 25 percent and 11 percent support for Donald Trump.

CAIR’s poll also showed that growing Islamophobia is the top issue for Muslim voters.

“American Muslim voters are worried about the unprecedented anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by presidential candidates and are going to the polls in increasing numbers at both the state and national levels to make their voices heard by the candidates,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

An exit poll of Muslim voters in Texas and Virginia indicated that Sanders narrowed Clinton’s lead in those states – 34 to 40 percent in Virginia and 29 to 37 percent in Texas.

In upcoming primary elections in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida Clinton’s lead over Sanders ranged from 22 percent (California) to 40 percent (New York).

The survey indicated that older Muslim voters – 65 percent of those 45 to 64 and 80 percent of those 65 and older – backed Clinton, while younger Muslim voters (18 to 24) supported Sanders (78 percent). In the 25 to 44 age group, support for Clinton and Sanders was more evenly distributed at 44 percent for Sanders and 56 percent for Clinton.

CAIR noted that Muslim support for Sanders may actually be higher because its poll surveyed more voters over the age of 45.

Nationwide, Islamophobia continued to rank as the most important issue of concern for all Muslim voters (24 percent), a partisan divide was evident with Muslim Democrats ranking Islamophobia highest (27 percent) and then the economy (19 percent), while Muslim Republicans ranked the economy (38 percent) highest followed by Islamophobia (14 percent).

Support for the Democratic and Republican Parties mostly remained constant from previous surveys with 67 percent of Muslim voters supporting the Democratic Party and 18 percent supporting the Republican Party. CAIR’s February 1 poll of Muslim voters showed 67 and 15 percent respectively voiced support for the Democratic and Republican Parties…….

The Question for Tuesday

gorka34The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, November 4, 2016:

Next Tuesday, Americans will elect the 45th President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States. One of the most important issues at stake this year is National Security.

As you prepare to vote, you need to answer for yourself which candidate will make America safer. Who will better protect us and safeguard our interests? Who has a better plan to defeat and destroy America’s enemies?

Below is a summary of each candidate’s platform to better help you to answer those critical questions.

THE THREATS TO AMERICA

  • U.S. security has drastically deteriorated in the last eight years as a direct result of President Obama’s avowed policy of “Leading from Behind.”
  • There has been a significant attack directed or inspired by ISIS every 83 hours, killing over 1,200 people in cities outside of Iraq and Syria.
  • The United States suffered the deadliest terror attack since 9/11 and the worst mass shooting in U.S. history at the hands of an ISIS sympathizer in Orlando.
  • Last December, a couple who swore allegiance to ISIS killed fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino.
  • Since 2014, U.S. Law Enforcement has interdicted 124 Islamic State sympathizers for attempting to support ISIS either by traveling to the Caliphate, aiding or encouraging fellow supporters, or launching attacks on U.S. soil. See current list.

But ISIS is not the only problem. 

  • Al-Qaida is resurgent under the leadership of Ayman al Zawahiri
  • The Taliban rules half of Afghanistan
  • Syria is in its fourth year of a civil war that has sparked the largest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, with 65 million refugees currently displaced around the world.
  • Libya and Yemen are failed states
  • The countries that experienced the so-called Arab Spring continue to face instability and multiple Islamic insurgencies.
  • The theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime feels confident enough not only to harass our military vessels in international waters, but to take our sailors prisoner and steal our technologically sensitive naval equipment —
    • At the same time they are playing Washington for a gullible mark by closing a deal which brings them closer to nuclear weapons acquisition than they have ever been, including access to more than $150 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars of additional ransom money.
  • In both the Western Hemisphere and Europe, Russia has likewise drawn the correct conclusion that in a world in which America is reactive, or even worse, is absent, there are advantages to be had and nefarious interests to be realized.
  • China, always calculating and patient, has accelerated its maneuvers to intimidate regional states and expand its sphere of military, political, and economic influence globally.

THE CANDIDATES

Donald Trump’s foreign policy platform is singularly focused on defeating these threats, indeed a key slogan of his campaign has been, “Make America Safe Again.” In order to do so, he has said he will work with Congress to:

  • fully repeal the defense sequester and rebuild our depleted military with smarter spending to cut out waste and redundancies;
  • de-politicize the conversation around national security issues in order to make an accurate and effective threat assessment;
  • utilize military, cyber, financial, and ideological warfare to dismantle the Islamic State;
  • establish new extreme vetting procedures to keep terrorists out of the U.S.;
  • cancel the nuclear deal with Iran; and,
  • shift the emphasis from broad programs on countering violent extremism back to vital counterterrorism programs that have been pushed defunded by the Obama Administration.

Donald Trump understands that we are at War and knows what it will take to win this War.

I have met Mr Trump, and call assure you he understands the existential threat that ISIS and the Global Jihadi Movement pose to the United States. He understands that we are at War. Not only does he understand it, but he knows what it will take to win this war: American strength and leadership, not isolationism. America does not have to be the world’s police to do so; rather, “America First will be the major and overriding theme” of a Trump administration.

He will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East to crush and destroy ISIS, call for international cooperation to cut off their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and dedicate much-needed resources and attention to cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.

Through these policies, Trump will work to not only defeat the forces of the Islamic State, but also to destroy the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism so that it is no longer a threat.

Hillary Clinton refuses to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State.

Across the aisle, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan that would leave the United States vulnerable to increased domestic terror attacks and magnify and prolong the global jihadi threat. Throughout this election, Clinton has enumerated a list of things that the U.S. will not do if she is elected president: “We are not going to put ground troops into Iraq ever again.”

We are not going to refer to ISIS or other terrorists as radical Islamic extremists. In her own words, “repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve.” By refusing to acknowledge the religious and ideological underpinnings of the Islamic State, Hillary Clinton is obscuring the true nature of the Enemy, which in turn leads to ineffective strategies to combat them.

She is a candidate who is more concerned with political correctness and convincing Americans that “leading from behind” will keep America safe than she is with true national security. Hilary Clinton will continue the politically correct policies of the Obama Administration which prohibit talking truthfully and accurately about our Enemy.

In order to defeat groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and radical Islamic extremism as a whole, we must first identify the Enemy. If Hillary refuses to do even that, then no amount of airstrikes will succeed. Dismantling and discrediting the ideology behind radical Islamic extremism is the first step in its defeat. However, there is zero mention of this on Clinton’s campaign website.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration.

Hilary Clinton wants to continue and expand President Obama’s failing policies – increased coalition airstrikes, a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war, ramped up efforts to support and equip questionable Syrian rebel groups, relying on the American Muslim community to police itself, and a domestic ban on assault weapons.

These policies have not worked for the Obama administration, and they will not work for a Hillary Clinton administration. They may allow for limited tactical gains, such as recent successes in Mosul and elsewhere, but these policies will not lead to long-term peace. In the Cold War, we did not defeat the Soviets with airstrikes and drones.

Rather, President Reagan’s strategy to utterly delegitimize the Communist ideology meant the Cold War ended without a single shot being fired.  

It is time for America to rise to that challenge once more. The first step is to cast your ballot for a safe America under the leadership of Donald J. Trump on November 8.

Sebastian Gorka, PhD

***

Dr. Sebastian Gorka spoke at Freedom Summit 2016 on October 29, 2016 in Itasca, IL, presented by AM 560 The Answer.

Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood — on The Glazov Gang

hj-1

By Jamie Glazov, November 4, 2016:

This new special edition of the Glazov Gang was joined by Trevor Loudon, the writer and director of the new documentary, The Enemies Withinan expose on the growing communist and Muslim Brotherhood influence on our government.

[Check out the trailer for The Enemies Within here, and order your copy of the DVD here.]

Mr. Loudon came on the show to discuss Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood, unveiling the frightening ties that bind.

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-anthony-weiner-sexting-1-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 4, 2016:

Blackwater founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his “well-placed sources” in the New York Police Department, “the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making” in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received “huge pushback” from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I mean, it’s not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they’ve hacked and stolen your data,” Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

“There’s five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860,” Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated. “Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”

“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.

“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.

“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, “but they can’t convene a grand jury.They can’t file charges.”

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that,” he explained. “Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he’s a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing.”

Marlow agreed that Bharara’s “sterling reputation” as a determined prosecutor was “bad news for the Clintons.”

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

“The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

“The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

“I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

“From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

“Sure, that’s it. That’s the argument for it,” Prince agreed. “But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”

“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that “forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate.”

“This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser for the last 20 years,” he said of the new bombshells. “This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation.”

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

“There’s a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information,” he said. “Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That’s the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world.”

“That’s not who you want in the White House,” Prince declared.

Also see:

Frank Gaffney: FBI Will Probably Find Huma Abedin ‘Playing Fast and Loose’ with Facts

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 3, 2016:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said he “takes no satisfaction” from the renewed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, even though the latest developments have thrown a spotlight on top Clinton aide Huma Abedin – someone Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have long warned was a more important, and troubling, figure than the mainstream media admit.

“I’d rather be wrong,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “I really mean that. For the country’s sake, to be honest with you. But in this case, four years ago, we produced a course that’s still available online called MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com. And Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, featured prominently in it as an example – just one example, but as an example of Islamist influence operations inside the United States government.”

“I made that contention on the grounds that Huma Abedin, at that time, was known to have essentially her entire family involved in what was a Muslim Brotherhood front group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs,” he explained. “And the question occurred to me – and, in due course, to several members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – that hey, wait, maybe if you have somebody that’s got that kind of personal investment in Islamic supremacism, it might have something to do with the fact that the State Department (and the Obama administration, more generally, but specifically the department in whom Huma Abedin then worked as a deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton) was aligning its policies so dramatically with the dictates of the Brotherhood, on a whole host of issues.”

Gaffney provided some examples of those issues: “You know, letting in Tariq Ramadan, something Hillary Clinton personally did. One of the, you know, sort of capo de capos of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of its founder. Engaging the Brotherhood and suppressing freedom of speech. Helping overthrow friends of ours, such as they were, in the Middle East in favor of Muslim Brotherhood regimes or jihadist groups of other stripes. And on and on. Now we’ve learned, of course, of mishandling of classified information and the like.”

“But Alex, here’s the point: This was an inquiry, the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen, that led to an official request of the State Department’s inspector general to look into this possible, very troubling correlation. And you know who stepped up to shut that down? None other than Republican Senator John McCain. And we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks explorations of John Podesta’s emails, that John Podesta and the Clinton team took credit for setting John McCain up to that,” Gaffney revealed.

“And the real message here – and why I feel regretful about this vindication, such as it is – is poor Michele Bachmann, who simply was doing her job in Congress, suffered the consequences of it. Her career was essentially destroyed when John McCain denounced her on the Floor of the United States Senate. And what’s really bad is that every other member of Congress basically, until very recently, had taken the message: You don’t want to touch this question of Islamist influence operations,” he warned.

“Thanks to Breitbart, you guys have done your heroic work in exploring this. Few others have, but not nearly enough. Had we done more – had that inquiry gone forward, Alex – perhaps some of the damage I believe Huma Abedin is now being examined for having done might have been prevented. At least we would have known about it four years ago,” Gaffney said.

Marlow asked Gaffney if he thinks FBI Director James Comey has “got the goods” on Hillary Clinton and her aides or if the renewed investigation is just a “political thing.”

“We don’t know, but my guess is, in 650,000 emails which we’re told are on Anthony Weiner’s computer, that were from Huma Abedin’s account, I’m reasonably sure you’re gonna find lots of classified information that shouldn’t have been there,” Gaffney replied.

He also anticipated the FBI would discover more evidence that “Huma Abedin was playing fast and loose – in the service of Hillary Clinton, to be sure – with all of the procedures for handling such classified information.”

“And that has resulted, according to Congressman Chris Stewart, who I talked with yesterday, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the compromise not just of that information, but of sources and methods by which it’s obtained, which is a hugely serious problem,” Gaffney said.

“I think you’re also going to see that Hillary’s right-hand gal perjured herself repeatedly in the course of the investigations conducted to date, and that in so doing has helped to cover up Hillary’s own malfeasance in many of these areas,” he added. “It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we know so far. I think if the FBI does do its job, and that’s a big ‘if,’ we’re going to find out a lot more about what was really a criminal conspiracy.”

Gaffney recommended a video called “Who is Huma Abedin?” which he said exposes “not simply that her father and her mother and her sister and her brother are all in a family business that was established by a guy by the name of Abdullah Omar Nasif – one of the top Saudi financiers of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – but that Huma herself was involved in this family business, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, through its Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs.”

“And here’s the other thing about this, Alex: the Journal, and the Institute of which it was the sort of mainstay, had as its express purpose, in a radical Islamist sense, promoting Muslim minority rights by encouraging Muslims not to assimilate in countries in which they were minorities – to become, in other words, part of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that was ultimately designed to take down those non-Muslim majority countries,” he said.

“This is the thing that’s so troubling,” Gaffney argued. “You had a woman with this in her DNA, if you will, at the right hand of the Secretary of State, and before that, the Senator from New York, and before that the First Lady of the United States. There’s no question, the more we look into this, Alex, with these emails hopefully shedding further light on it, we’re gonna find more and more evidence, I think, not only of Huma Abedin’s direct involvement in the compromise of classified information and various other misconduct with respect to treating classified communications and conversations and devices in inappropriate ways, but also advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said the “most worrying” example was “promoting this idea that our freedom of speech must be restricted so as not to give offense to Muslims.”

“This is being used against Breitbart. It’s being used against me and my Center for Security Policy. We’re attending a meeting up in Stoughton, Massachusetts, tonight, which will be picketed by – get this – not only the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Hamas front group, but also rabbis and interfaith dialoguers of various stripes, and who knows who all else – all designed to suppress me and other patriots who are warning about this Islamist supremacist agenda that Huma Abedin has advanced,” Gaffney said. “The object is to silence us because the President has said, at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Think about it.”

“This is the story of our time,” he concluded. “It could be the time bomb that actually takes down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. At the very least, the American people need to know, as they vote, whether we’re going to get more of the same – more of this embrace of the Islamists and enabling of their agenda – or whether we’re gonna get a course correction. I pray it will be the latter.”

LISTEN:

Hillary Clinton Gave Visa to Egyptian Terrorist to Visit State Dept, White House To Lobby For Blind Sheikh Release

hani-noor-eldin-hillary-clinton-egypt-terrorist-sized-770x415xtPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, November 2, 2016:

In June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued a visa to enter the U.S. to Hani Noor Eldin – an avowed member of the Egyptian terror group Gamaa Islamiya that was designated by the U.S. in October 1997 during the Clinton Administration.

But not only was Eldin allowed into the U.S., he was escorted into Hillary’s State Department where he met with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Under Secretary Robert Hormats, and then later received at the White House by Denis McDonough, then Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor and currently the White House Chief of Staff.

According to published reports, Eldin used these meetings as an opportunity to press Obama administration officials to release from federal prison the leader of his terror group, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his leadership role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks. That case was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

Those meetings resulted in serious Obama administration discussions about transferring the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt, then under control of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, who had vowed to pressure the U.S. for the Blind Sheikh’s release while Eldin was in Washington D.C.

The Blind Sheikh’s transfer was only stopped when members of Congress began asking about the deal, and the possibility of his transfer was publicly denounced by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who presided over the Blind Sheikh’s trial as a federal district court judge.

When Congress asked about Eldin’s visit to the U.S., then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed that more foreign terrorists would be allowed in.

Questions were initially raised about how Eldin was allowed in the country and the details of his visit to Washington D.C. when the story broke from reporter Eli Lake, who interviewed the terror group member. Eldin had no problem admitting he was a member of the banned Gamaa Islamiya:

It was supposed to be a routine meeting for Egyptian legislators in Washington, an opportunity for senior Obama administration officials to meet with new members of Egypt’s parliament and exchange ideas on the future of relations between the two countries.Instead, the visit this week looks like it’s turning into a political fiasco. Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The group was banned under former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and is now a recognized Islamist political party. Its spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman—also known as the “blind sheik”—was convicted in 1995 of plotting attacks on New York City landmarks and transportation centers, and is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina federal prison.

Eldin, according to his Facebook page, was born in 1968 and resides in Suez, near the canal that unites the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. He was arrested in 1993 on terrorism charges after members of Gamaa Islamiya got into a shoot out with Egyptian security officials at a mosque. He has proclaimed his innocence in the shooting and says he was arrested because of his political activism against Mubarak.

In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya. By U.S. law, that means he would be denied a visa to enter the country. Nonetheless, he says, he got a visa from the State Department. A State Department spokesman said, “We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group.”

The State Department blamed the visit on the U.S. government-funded Wilson Center, who then turned around and blamed the State Department:

While in Washington, Eldin also visited the Wilson Center, a think tank that specializes in foreign policy issues. A State Department spokesman said the delegation was “invited to Washington by the Wilson Center. I refer you to the Wilson Center for any additional information on their visit.”A spokesman for the Wilson Center, however, said the delegation was selected by the State Department. “We can’t speak to the background of Eldin,” said Drew Sample the media relations coordinator for the Wilson Center. “The Wilson Center was one of the places on the delegation’s Washington visit. We did not invite these people, the State Department arranged the visit.”

With Eldin openly admitting his affiliation with Gamaa Islamiya to members of the D.C. establishment media and even noting his membership on his own Facebook page, the State Department’s press briefing by Victoria Nuland on the affair turned into Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis comedy routine:

QUESTION: Yeah. How did a guy who’s a member of a foreign terrorist organization get into the country and have meetings with – in the White House and at the State Department?MS. NULAND: Well, as you know – I mean, I can’t speak about the specifics of the visa adjudication of any individual case. What I can say is that anybody issued a visa goes through a full set of screenings.Those screenings do depend, however, on the integrity of the information that’s available to us at the time that we do screen. And this particular case is one that we are now looking into.

QUESTION: Well, how – it’s on the guy’s Facebook page. It doesn’t seem like it would be too difficult to find out. I mean, what kind of screening is there? Does anyone do a Google search on names? I mean, it seems like this is pretty basic stuff. I mean, was – you seem to be saying this was a mistake.

MS. NULAND: Again, we are looking into the circumstances of this particular case, and I don’t have anything more . . .

QUESTION: So when you say it’s under review, does that mean that he could be deported?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to what may result from a review; simply, to say that we’re trying to better understand this particular case.

QUESTION: You’re trying to better – you’re trying to find out if, in fact, he is a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization?

MS. NULAND: No. I’m saying we are reviewing the case of the visa issuance.

QUESTION: Do you know that this man is a member of a foreign terrorist organization?

MS. NULAND: Well, he has himself made such statements in the last day or two to the press, right? So that – we are seeing the same reports that you are seeing.

QUESTION: No, no, I understand that. But I think that it goes beyond that, and that it goes – I mean, he was a self-admitted member of this organization well before he was invited to come to the United States as part of this delegation. And it just – I don’t know; I’m just a little bit confused as to how a thorough screening would not have turned up his membership in this group given that it is literally on his Facebook page. Can you explain that?

MS. NULAND: Again, I said we are looking into it, and we are.

A spokesman for the terror group told CNN that the purpose of Eldin’s White House visit was to press for the Blind Sheikh’s release:

But according to Tarek Al Zumor, a party spokesman and founding member of Gamaa Islamiya, el-Din pressed American officials for a transfer into Egyptian custody of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric serving a life sentence in the United States for a conspiracy conviction in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.The request mirrors the demands of Gamaa Islamiya members in Cairo who have protested in Tahrir Square, seeking the sheikh’s release.

Coincidentally, at the same time that Eldin was in Washington D.C. lobbying for the Blind Sheikh’s release, the Muslim Brotherhood’s newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi gave a speech in Cairo pledging to work for the Blind Sheikh’s freedom.

The following September when reports of discussions about the transfer of the Blind Sheikh were possibly in the works, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey pointed to Eldin’s Washington D.C. visit as the launching point for the effort in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

The first hint of something fishy came in June, when Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the terrorist group that carried out the Luxor slaughter and who had himself spent 11 years in Egyptian jail on terrorism charges, was granted a visa to come to the United States, where he visited the White House and urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Members of Congress immediately raised questions about how such allowances were made for a member of a designated terrorist organization.The assistant secretary of homeland security for legislative affairs, Nelson Peacock, responded in a July letter. It suggested that no warning flags had been raised during the processing of the Eldin visa, but the letter acknowledged that, as a member of a designated terrorist organization, Hani Nour Eldin would have needed a waiver from someone in authority to get a visa.

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) then demanded that the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general investigate how that waiver was secured and explain what role the department would play in any transfer of Abdel Rahman. Acting Inspector General Charles K. Edwards answered on Sept. 10 with a letter promising that the department would conduct the requested review “and add it to our FY 2013 workplan” (for which no deadline is announced).

It is unclear who in Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued the waiver for Hani Noor Eldin or what else the Homeland Security inspector general discovered.

And Mukasey noted the denials from the Obama administration’s about any discussions of the Blind Sheikh’s transfer were carefully couched and were contradicted by the Egyptian Embassy:

A congressional staffer I spoke with last week recently called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington and asked to speak with the official in charge of the request to release Abdel Rahman. This call elicited not a denial but rather the disclosure that the matter was within the portfolio of the deputy chief of mission, for whom the caller was invited to leave a message.Then there are the statements of U.S. officials on the subject, which all have sounded excruciatingly lawyered. Asked before Congress in July whether there is an intention “at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded: “Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention.”

The State Department’s spokesperson last week, after the ceremonial “let me be clear,” said that there had been no approach on this topic “recently” from any “senior” official of the Egyptian government—an elucidation laden with ambiguity and certain to send chills up the spine of anyone familiar with Abdel Rahman’s record and President Morsi’s inclinations.

Obama administration officials were openly unrepentant about Eldin’s admission to the U.S.

When Rep. Peter King, then chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, questioned Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano about the matter in July 2012, she not only defended Eldin’s visit but vowed that more terrorists could possibly be admitted to the U.S. in similar circumstances.

Did Hillary Clinton play a direct role in allowing Hani Noor Eldin – a known member of a designated terror group – to visit the U.S., meet with senior State Department officials, visit with Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, all in a plan to lobby for the release of the terror group’s imprisoned leader who was responsible for acts of terrorism inside the United States?

If only we had a media willing to ask the Democrat presidential candidate such questions…

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

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

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

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

Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

Is the Abedin/Weiner Laptop the Last of It?

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 3, 2016:

A nagging question has been lost amid the tempest over the FBI’s revival of the Clinton e-mails investigation. As everyone knows, the file has been reopened because of a trove of e-mails found on a laptop shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. What we don’t know, however, is: Why has the FBI only recently learned about a computer used by Ms. Abedin?

Remember, Abedin is said to have cooperated in the Clinton e-mails investigation and sat for a lengthy interview with FBI agents. The agents asked her about her e-mail practices. Assuming they asked basic questions, as agents are trained to do, they would have methodically itemized the computers and e-mail accounts she used. Yet, the Abedin/Weiner computer, which is said to contain 650,000 e-mails (an unknown number of which are relevant to the Clinton investigation), was not acquired by the bureau in connection with the Clinton investigation. It was seized in an unrelated investigation of Weiner, reportedly involving his alleged “sexting” with a teenage minor.

Why did the FBI agents on the Clinton e-mails investigation fail to acquire and search this computer months earlier? The question becomes more pressing in light of the Washington Examiner’s report that the FBI failed to ask not only Abedin but other Clinton aides to surrender their computers, smartphones, or other communications devices.

Now, there could be a good explanation, at least in connection with some Clinton aides. If, after a reasonably thorough investigation, the FBI had found no indication that potentially classified information was transmitted or stored on a particular device, there’d be no need to seize it. Let’s say X is a Clinton staffer. Let’s also say the FBI finds that X appears only to have used her government e-mail account for official business; that X did not have an account on the clintonemail.com domain; that whenever Clinton or other government officials e-mailed X, they addressed the e-mail to X’s state.gov account; and that X was cooperative when interviewed and convincingly said she never used her private e-mail for government business. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable not to ask for the surrender of X’s private cellphone or computers.

Let’s now consider, though, the case we actually have. Several Clinton staffers appear to have sent and received e-mails about government business on private devices and private e-mail accounts. A number of those e-mail exchanges involved classified intelligence. It seems like a no-brainer to me that these devices should have been seized and searched.

Why was this not done? There are at least four reasons, none of them good.

First, the Obama Justice Department under Loretta Lynch denied the FBI’s Clinton e-mails investigators access to the grand jury. The grand jury’s power to compel production of evidence and testimony is the source of much of the FBI’s power to convince people to be cooperative. Defanged by DOJ, investigators were forced to negotiate and cajole when they should have been able to demand. That makes it much harder to investigate. It undoubtedly drummed into the agents the message that they should not press too many requests for the voluntary surrender of items the owners would not want to part with — and no one wants to give up personal laptops and smartphones. If a request made by an agent was denied, the agent could have no confidence that the Justice Department would back him.

Second, the Good Ship Clinton overflows with lawyers. It is also very close to the Obama Justice Department (many Obama-administration lawyers were once Clinton-administration lawyers). Lawyers know that the FBI worries about being accused of violating attorney-client privileged communications. They also know that the Obama Justice Department is indulgent of extravagant claims about what the attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure. Lawyers’ devices are thus a big hassle for agents, and they no doubt shy away from asking for them unless it’s patently necessary (as it was, for example, with the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, since those computers were used to store and vet all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails). And when you start shying away from seeking access to the computers of important subjects (such as Mills) because you don’t want to deal with lawyer complications, it becomes much easier to rationalize not seeking the devices of other subjects. Once it is established by habit that obtaining computers is not a priority, you stop asking.

Third, it’s never good to compartmentalize an investigation. In this case, the classified e-mails investigation has apparently been severed from the Clinton Foundation investigation, as if they were completely separate and unrelated. When obviously related matters are joined together, there is a broader basis to demonstrate probable cause that evidentiary items, such as computers, are relevant and should be seized. But that advantage is lost when what should be one investigation is divided into two or more. If you are an agent investigating the classified e-mails case, you are not going to make efforts to acquire a computer that might be very relevant to the Clinton Foundation investigation but only marginally tied to the classified-information probe. When an investigation is artificially carved up, agents do not see the big picture: Things that ought to be acquired end up falling through the cracks.

Fourth and finally, there is the enervating effect of working on an investigation that agents strongly suspect is not going to result in charges. Even as the agents on the classified-information investigation gradually assembled compelling evidence, they had to know that the president and the Justice Department were very unenthusiastic about the case. President Obama talked the investigation down, going out of his way to say Mrs. Clinton would never do anything to harm national security. Justice Department officials leaked the same message to the press.

Put yourself in the shoes of FBI agents who witness things they’ve never seen before: subjects of the investigation given immunity from prosecution and then allowed to appear as lawyers for other subjects; Justice Department lawyers more accommodating of defense lawyers than of FBI agents; witnesses who lie to the FBI given immunity rather than being arrested and squeezed for cooperation. The agents see the handwriting on the wall that their hard work is going to come to nothing. An agent no doubt asks himself: “Why should I push to acquire this computer? If DOJ wanted me to have it, they’d let me subpoena it; if they wanted to make the case, some of these suspects would already be in cuffs.”

This is an understandable attitude, but it’s not an acceptable one. The FBI is not just the nation’s premier investigative agency; it is also our domestic-security service. Wholly apart from whether a computer contains evidence that can be used to prosecute a case, that computer has become a threat to national security if — as a private device that is not hardened against espionage and operates on networks that are not hardened against espionage — it is likely to contain classified information. Even if no one is indicted, the hacking or dissemination of the intelligence on the computer could damage national security.

The reports of the FBI’s investigation that have been made public indicate that there could be dozens of computers and other communications devices which may be storing classified information, but which the FBI has neither seized nor made plans to try to obtain. If that is true, it is inexplicable. That the Justice Department and senior FBI officials have adopted a theory that undermines prosecution of crimes involving mishandling of intelligence is beside the point.

It also raises another question: Is the Abedin/Weiner laptop the last one? Or will late discoveries continue to rock Camp Clinton and roil our politics?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

‘Validly Predicated Investigation’: Reports Prove FBI ‘Aggressively Investigating’ Clinton Foundation For Potential Pay To Play Crimes

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Breitbart, by Matthew Boyle, November 2, 2016:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — A pair of reports out on Wednesday evening from two of the nation’s biggest broadcasters brings gloomy news for the already hurting presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton: The FBI has been “aggressively investigating” the Clinton Foundation for a year.

All of this comes as a third report, from the Wall Street Journal, walks through how “secret recordings” have “fueled” the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation—a separate but parallel probe from the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Pamela Brown, CNN’s Justice Department correspondent, announced on air on Wednesday:

My colleague Evan Perez and I have spoken to more than a dozen officials and agents and have learned that agents in the FBI wanted to aggressively investigate the Clinton Foundation several months ago. Earlier in the year, the Justice Department told the FBI essentially you don’t have enough evidence here for predication to get more tools such as warrants and subpoenas. ‘Go back and see what else you can dig up.’ We are told that after the Clinton email probe initially wrapped up in July that those agents wanted to continue their work on the case and again DOJ said ‘you don’t have enough evidence here to really investigate’ and so things are sort of on hold and this has sort of caused tensions to flare in the FBI and the Department of Justice. Some of those agents feel like those roadblocks are politically-driven.

WATCH PAMELA BROWN’S CNN REPORT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION CORRUPTION PROBE:

Similarly, over on Fox News, Special Report anchor Bret Baier dropped another bombshell on Wednesday night:

Two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following: The investigation into the Clinton Foundation, looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year led by the White Collar Crime Division, Public Corruption Branch of the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a ‘very high priority.’ Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case and even before the WikiLeaks dumps these sources said agents had collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one source said ‘a lot of it, and there is an avalanche of new information coming in every day—some of it from WikiLeaks, some from new emails.’ The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case and they will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time. As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the Justice Department would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened and those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C., and are being exploited. The source points out any immunity deal is null and void if any subject has lied at any point in the investigation.

Baier also had new information on the investigation—a separate but parallel criminal probe—into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Baier reported:

Meanwhile, the classified email investigation is being run by the National Security Division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They have found emails they believe came from Hillary Clinton’s server and that also appear to be new—as in, not duplicates. Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known, but will likely be known soon.

WATCH BRET BAIER ANNOUNCE THE BOMBSHELLS ON FOX NEWS

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday night also broke a big story on this front.

“Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe,” read the headline from the Wall Street Journal’s Devlin Barrett and Christopher Matthews, with a sub-headline reading: “Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation.”

“Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said,” Barrett and Matthews wrote.

In the wake of Breitbart News Editor at Large and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer’s bombshell spring 2015 book Clinton Cash, the Wall Street Journal reported that FBI agents “using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation.”

Agents wanted to pursue a more aggressive investigation, they reported, but officials at the politically tainted Department of Justice wouldn’t let them. The Wall Street Journalreporters wrote:

Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other, as often happens within and between departments. At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear, these people said. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Capers declined to comment. The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said.

But more importantly, FBI agents actually presented the case to prosecutors—after which they were told by officials in the politically controlled DOJ to “stand down.” Barrett and Matthews wrote:

As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York—Mr. Capers’ office—didn’t attend, these people said. The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. ‘The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ‘ a person familiar with the matter said. Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to ‘stand down,’ a person familiar with the matter said.

Most damning for the Clintons, however, is the revelation that according to the Wall Street Journal report, even FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe confirmed that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a “validly predicated investigation” to some people at the Justice Department who tried to shut down the case.

***

FBI Leaks: Clinton Foundation Probe a ‘Very High Priority,’ Will Likely Lead to an Indictment

“Because my former assistant Jim Comey made the wrong decision in July,” Giuliani replied. “You have outraged FBI agents that talk to me. They’re outraged at the injustice. They’re outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You’ve got people in the Justice Department  involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people…. This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we’ve  seen.”

Giuliani said that the dissension within the FBI is very real.

“These are men and women who uphold the law. They’re not a bunch of slimy Washington politicians like the Obama administration and the people Clinton would bring in. And the reality is that they are outraged with what they have seen,” the former prosecutor said.

“Mrs. Clinton has violated easily 20 – 30 federal laws,” he continued. “I could outline them for you, I could show you how I could prosecute and convict her.”

Giuliani said that back in July when he read FBI Director Comey’s prosecutorial memo about the email case, “it was just the opposite of what he said.”

He continued, “Every reasonable prosecutor would have prosecuted that case in a second. I’ve won convictions on half the evidence that the FBI had gotten in July, and Jim has an FBI that’s in revolt right now and I think that’s one of the reasons he came out and did what he did to try to control his agents — who after all are true law enforcement people. And what they see is some of the slimiest stuff that we’ve seen in Washington since probably Teapot Dome.”

“This is worse that Watergate,” Giuliani declared. “They’ve corrupted the State Department with ‘pay to play’ and they’ve corrupted the Justice Department. You can’t go much further than that, Megyn.”

Also see: 

In case you haven’t seen it yet:

Under Hillary Clinton Presidency, U.S. Muslim Population Would Exceed France’s by 2024

muslims-pray-at-white-house-evan-vucci-ap-photo-640x480-640x480Breitbart, by Julia Hahn, November 2, 2016:

If Hillary Clinton’s expansionist immigration policies were put into effect, the U.S. Muslim population could exceed France’s current Muslim population by the end of a President Clinton’s second term, according to data from Pew Research and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Muslim population of France is reportedly 4.7 million and the current U.S. Muslim population is roughly 3.3 million, according to estimates from the Pew Research Center.

Based on the most recent DHS data available, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has indicated that if she were elected president, she would expand Muslim migration by admitting an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.

Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as president. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her presidency, she could potentially resettle roughly 1.7 million Muslim migrants during her first two terms.

These projections suggest that after seven years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the U.S. could have a Muslim population that is larger than France’s current Muslim population of 4.7 million.

These projections are rough estimates, and the population size could be impacted by additional various factors— including births, deaths, and conversions.

Hillary Clinton’s support for open borders is shared by Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Ryan has championed policies to expand Muslim migration into the United States. Last year, Ryan voted to increase Muslim migration and fund visas for nearly 300,000 (permanent and temporary) Muslim migrants in a single year.

While polling data shows that his constituents overwhelmingly back proposals to temporarily pause Muslim migration, Ryan has also repeatedly ruled out the possibility of making any cuts to Muslim migration— insisting that “that’s not who we are,” and that such a proposal is “not reflective of our principles.”

Neither Ryan nor Clinton have explained how importing hundreds of thousands of migrants that come from nations which may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America, benefits the United States or helps to protect our Western liberal values.

Many have warned if the U.S. continues at its current record pace of Muslim migration—or if pro-Islamic migration politicians, such as Ryan and Clinton, further increase Muslim migration—the U.S. risks following in Europe’s footsteps.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions has previously explained, “It’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalisation and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe.”

France’s struggle to curb the spread of Islamic extremism has been well documented. As Time has reported:

Some 1,800 people left France to join ISIS and other militant groups in Iraq and Syria as of May 2015, according to the Soufan Group, a security firm based in New York, citing estimates from the French authorities… Jihadist groups find fertile ground for recruitment in France and Belgium due to those states’ staunch secularism “coupled with a sense of marginalization among immigrant communities, especially those from North Africa,” according to the report from the Soufan Group.

Almost precisely one year ago, the Paris terror attacks killed 130 people and injured more than 360 others in what was the deadliest day of attacks on French soil since World War II. Last month, the Telegraph reported that “the majority of the ISIL extremist who carried out the November 13 Paris attacks entered Europe… [and] slipped through Hungary’s borders while posing as migrants.”

Similarly this summer, 84 people were killed and hundreds were injured in Nice when a Tunisian native mowed down civilians with a 19-ton truck as the civilians were watching a fireworks display to celebrate Bastille Day.

Multiple reports have also documented a rise in anti-Semitism throughout France, which has pushed French Jews to “flee” in record numbers.

As USA Today reported in September:

“The number of French Jews immigrating to Israel rose from 1,900 in 2011 to nearly 8,000 last year, said Jacques Canet, president of La Victoire, the great synagogue of Paris. He said the country’s 500,000 to 600,000 French Jews — the third largest Jewish population in the world — “feel threatened.”

“Increasingly, Jews in Paris, Marseilles, Toulouse, Sarcelles feel they can’t safely wear a kippah (yarmulke, or skull cap) outside their homes or send their children to public schools, where Muslim children bully Jewish children,” Canet said.

A poll by the French Institute of Public Opinion in January showed 43% of France’s Jewish Community are considering a move to Israel, and 51% said they have “been threatened” because they are Jewish.

Under current federal policy, Pew projects that the number of Muslims in America will outnumber Jews by 2040– however, as projections based on DHS data have suggested, under a President Hillary Clinton, that date could likely come much sooner.

Feel Safe? Here Are 3 Times Hillary Apparently Took Bribes From Terror Funders

hillary-pay-for-play-sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Robert Spencer, November 1, 2016:

Despite the old and new scandals swirling around her, Hillary Clinton still has a better chance of being elected president of the United States next week than anyone else. Once installed in the Oval Office, she is likely to govern in the same way she has behaved during three decades of public service.

Regarding the global jihad threat, that could herald nothing less than national and global catastrophe.

This “Most Damaging Wikileaks” compilation contains numerous disturbing revelations. On August 17, 2014, Clinton wrote to her campaign chairman John Podesta to say:

[T]he governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia … are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

The Islamic State is not the only questionable recipient of Saudi and Qatari largesse, according to the Daily Caller:

Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation.

During the third presidential debate, Donald Trump mentioned the donations she had received from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He asked Clinton:

Why don’t you give back the money that you’ve taken from certain countries that treat certain groups of people so horribly?

Clinton changed the subject.

Accepting huge sums of money from governments that Hillary herself stated fund the Islamic State is bad enough. What’s even worse is that the donations seem to influence her positions.

There are many, many, troubling indications that Clinton is susceptible to bribes.

On January 18, 2015, Clinton’s closest aide Huma Abedin wrote to Podesta and Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook about a proposed meeting between Clinton and King Mohammed VI of Morocco:

Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter. CGI [Clinton Global Initiative] also wasn’t pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn’t their first choice. This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request.The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it.

The king of Morocco gave $12 million to the Clinton Foundation “to support” a meeting with Clinton.

Why?

In November 2015, the State Department approved the sale of a $157 million missile system to Morocco, a state with an extremely poor human rights record.

On April 16, 2012, while Clinton was still secretary of State, Amitabh Desai of the Clinton Foundation wrote that Qatar’s ambassador:

… would like to see WJC [Bill Clinton] ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011.

One million dollars as … a birthday present? Or did Qatar get something out of it?

According to a May 2015 International Business Times report:

[D]uring the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term.The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

All this went to Qatar, which is not only a funder of the Islamic State, but also of al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Boko Haram.

That’s right, Boko Haram — a player in yet another Clinton scandal.

Investigative journalist Patrick Poole noted in July 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram terror designationin the face of FBI, CIA, DOJ, and Congressional urging to do so is a documented fact.But the reason for Hillary’s obstruction, which the establishment media has never pressed Clinton for, remains unanswered.

In March 2015, Bridget Johnson of PJ Media reported that Senator David Vitter (R-LA) had a suggestion for the answer:

Vitter has suggested that Clinton’s deep donor ties to Gilbert Chagoury, a major Lebanese-Nigerian land developer who has given millions to Democratic campaigns, the Clinton library and Clinton Foundation global initiatives, could have accounted for some of Clinton’s reticence in the terror designation — a recognized terrorist group operating in the region, after all, makes more than a dent on local economies and investors get scared off.

Coincidences? What are we to think when such “coincidences” keep piling up, and they all look exactly the same, and all point in the same direction?

We are to think that President Hillary Clinton could be tempted by monetary favors to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

A Hillary Clinton presidency could prove to be the biggest boost that jihad forces worldwide have received since … the presidency of Barack Obama.

Finally! Now Let’s Focus on Why Hillary Approved Sale Of At Least 20% of Our Uranium to Russia

ap_ap-photo-274-e1477083316565-640x479

But tell us again how Trump is in cahoots with Putin….

Truth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, November 2, 2016:

Democrats, led by the Clinton campaign, have doubled — even tripled-down — on peddling the Trump-Putin-Russia conspiracy theory in order to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton’s myriad transgressions — not least of which is the fact that it is she who has more dubious ties to Russia than anyone else.

For some reason, even too many Republicans have been reticent about the UraniumOne deal, which ultimately saw then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approve the sale of 20 percent (and slated to grow to 50 percent) of our nation’s uranium production to Russia.

During a recent Special Report, Bret Baier interviewed  New York Times reporter Jo Becker, who actually first broke the story about how the Clintons, through mega-donor Frank Giustra, played a role in selling-out our nation’s uranium production to the Russia-owned firm, UraniumOne.

The video report featured above explains how Frank Giustra, a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, was interested in purchasing uranium mines in Kazakhstan. In order to help his friend, Bill met with the country’s president and publicly praised his record on human rights (a joke considering this is Kazakhstan). In return for Bill’s PR-plug,  Kazakhstan approved the sale of uranium mines to Giustra, who in turn turned an “worthless shell company” into a lucrative one. Giustra in return donated $31 million to the Clinton foundation and pledged $100 million more.

In 2007, Giustra’s company merged with a company dubbed UraiumOne, which went on a “buying spree” of uranium stores in the U.S. Well, UraiumOne was then bought out by the Russian government.

The key here is that this deal required the approval of the Secretary of State. There are many different ties that go deep and link directly to the Clintons, who did not disclose the hefty donations from Giustra nor their affilations with UraniumOne, to  the State Department (even though they were required by law to do so).

Peter Schweizer, author of the book, Clinton Cash, also makes an appearance to discuss the findings of his investigation. It was refreshing to see a reporter with the New York Times display journalistic integrity, and Jo Becker certainly does that here in the interview, as she did when she first reported the story.

The video segment above is well worth watching and sharing, as I believe this is one of the most underreported stories in this entire election season.

***

Devastating Timeline Reveals the Transfer of Half of U.S. Uranium Output to Russia as Hillary Clinton’s Foundation Bags $145 Million

nuclear-deal-timeline