What Hillary Clinton Got Wrong About the World

48981920.cached

As DNC 2016 begins, many of Secretary Clinton’s signature causes are now a problem for candidate Hillary.

Daily Beast, by Nancy A. Youssef, July 24, 2016:

America was supposed to make big changes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton would spearhead a reset in U.S.-Russia relations. She’d usher in an era of new, internet-enabled democratic activism. And rather than focus on protracted wars in the Middle East, the U.S. would pivot toward Asia.

None of that quite came to be. If there is a connective thread in Clinton’s tenure, it was an overestimation in the U.S. ability to shape events around the world and an underestimation of the unintended consequences of change.

In places like Egypt, rather than democracy, there is a return to an even more aggressive police state, where thousands of opponents are in jail, free speech no longer exists and Islamist jihadists are expanding their grip. Rather than improved relations with Russia, the U.S. is trying to dodge a proxy war with the former Soviet bloc in Syria. Through competing airstrikes, the U.S. is supporting opponents to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Russia has helped prop up the regime. And in Asia, rather than a pivot, the U.S. has only kept one eye on a rapidly changing region. China has increasingly claimed its stake to the South China Sea, and in North Korea Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile launches have rattled his U.S. allied partner in the south.

In other words: The job that was supposed to best prepare Clinton to be the next president could also be the albatross of her campaign, thanks to the chaotic world that emerged since she left the post in 2013.

Presidential campaigns aren’t known for their foreign policy nuance. But this one is looking to be particularly dense, even though one candidate led U.S diplomacy during one of the most complex periods of U.S. foreign policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the kind of quarter-turns that led to failed strategy; the Clinton campaign can’t afford to rehash them.

Take Trump’s acceptance speech on Thursday. He hit Clinton for allowing Egypt to be “turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control.”

It’s a legitimate target. The U.S. government’s handling of the Arab Spring—particularly in Egypt—during Clinton’s tenure was, in hindsight, a total mess. But the Brotherhood did not take over; it was democratically elected. And the military chose to step in and oust the president.

A year earlier, as iconic images of thousands of Egyptians filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square during a so-called “Twitter Revolution,” U.S. officials initially resisted supporting the uprising against Egypt’s strongman president, Hosni Mubarak. It was not until Mubarak’s fall seemed all but certain that the U.S. backed the military forces that took over. But for those protesting, it came too late. They felt that America’s support was wavering. And for Mubarak’s supporters, some of whom now are back in power in Egypt, it was a betrayal. That is, the U.S. gained few benefits from a seemingly bold move by Clinton’s State Department to walk away from a three-decade-long ally.

When the presidency of a democratically elected Islamist, Mohammed Morsi, appeared in peril, the Egyptian military ousted him. In the process, both sides were angry at the United States. Morsi supporters suspected the U.S. was behind the coup; the military resented the lack of U.S. support. And Egypt-U.S. relations have been frayed ever since, even as the U.S. has continued to provide military equipment and aid.

“The administration believed it was supporting democracy when it engaged elected Islamists after the Arab Spring but when those Islamists behaved like tyrants and governed Egypt into the ground, many Egyptian resented what they saw as U.S. support for Islamists,” Eric Trager,  an expert on Egyptian politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast.

In her 2014 book, Hard Choices, which was devoted to her time as Secretary of State, Clinton signaled that she was hesitant about Arab Spring, saying she was not convinced the military likely would do much better than Mubarak.

“There is little reason to believe that restored military rule will be any more sustainable than it was under Mubarak. To do so it will have to be more inclusive, more responsible for the needs of the people, and eventually, more democratic,” Clinton wrote.

She also described current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who announced Morsi’s ouster, as someone who “appears to be following the classic mold of Middle Eastern strongmen.”

In Libya, while Trump has focused on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a consulate in Benghazi, smarter critics point to a more important issue: Clinton’s calls for intervention in Libya a year earlier.

Obama administration insiders say Clinton’s failing in Libya was twofold and predated the attack in Benghazi. What began as a humanitarian mission to save the residents of Benghazi from a government assault during the 2011 uprising somehow evolved into regime change. Who made the decision? And why? Critics have yet to get a clear answer.

To make matters worse, once the regime change decision was made, there was a lack of planning for how Libya would look once its four-decade-long leader, Muammar Gaddafi, fell from power. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained to The Daily Beast, the post-Gaddafi plan did not exist. “We were playing it by ear,” Gates said.

Libya has devolved into a fractured state battling a burgeoning jihadist threat, where ISIS has set up a hub in the city of Sirte, Gadhafi’s former hometown.

Testifying on Capitol Hill in January 2013, Clinton conceded that events in Libya had unfolded in unexpected ways. But she said that the criticisms directed at her were too often about politics, not improving U.S. strategy.

“We are in a new reality. We are trying to make sense of changes that nobody had predicted but which we’re going to have to live with,” she said. “Let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s avoid turning everything into a political football.”

Beyond the Middle East, Clinton proposed a reset with Russia, hoping for better relations to reset relations, which had hit a nadir after Russia attacked Georgia in 2008. She even presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with an actual red button supposedly labeled “reset” in Russian. Lavrov would later say the Russian word that appeared actually translated as “overcharge.”

The reset didn’t go much better after that. Early on, Russia agreed to allow the U.S. military to fly over its airspace en route to Afghanistan and both sides agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenal. But since then, Russia has claimed Crimea, contributed to the ongoing unrest in Ukraine and rattled parts of NATO which is fearful that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks a geographical expansion through member states, like Poland. Most notably, on Sept. 30, 2015, Russia began launching strikes on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the Obama administration once said had to go. With the help of Russian strikes, Assad resurrected his once moribund grip on power. In some cases, Russia has attacked U.S.-allied forces, including a strike last month in southern Syria.

In an October 2015 interview with PBS, Clinton refused to concede that she may have misread the Russians, telling the NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff: “No, I don’t think so at all.”

In Asia, the Obama administration sought to signal that the United States would no longer be focused on the Middle East but rather would turn its attention to Asia. Clinton’s first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia and reportedly a quarter of her foreign travels after that were dedicated to the region.

But like the Russian reset, while there were initial successes, the pivot eventually faltered. During his confirmation hearing in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry was ambivalentabout the pivot toward Asia, saying: “I’m not convinced that increased military ramp-up [in the Asia-Pacific] is critical yet.”

Perhaps most notably, candidate Clinton has distanced herself from the work Secretary Clinton did on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with the 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the U.S., that has since drawn the ire of critics who say it kills American jobs and doesn’t address currency manipulation. The agreement was a keystone in the pivot toward Asia; some see her new position as an example of flip-flopping on the agreement in a bid to win favor with organized labor.

“What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” Clinton said during the same PBS interview.

With little specifics from the Trump campaign on how it would tackle the emergence of ISIS, an emboldened Russia and the rise of inspired terrorism, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to deflect questions about her role in current world affairs. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an email from The Daily Beast seeking additional comments about her tenure at the State Department.

So far, Trump has suggested a policy of appeasement toward Russia, a potentially reduced U.S. role for NATO and increased U.S. isolationism. But he has never explained how those changes would happen—or addressed the possible consequences of such changes.

“The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention, in perhaps his most specific offering for the way ahead.

Free Global Broadcast of ‘Clinton Cash’ Documentary Online at Breitbart.com

Clinton-Cash-Poster-640x480

Breitbart, July 22, 2016:

The highly anticipated Clinton Cash documentary will air for free on Breitbart on Saturday, July 23 at 8:00 p.m. ET and on Sunday, July 24 at 2:00 and 8:00 p.m. ET.

***Due to the overwhelming demand to view this film, we’ve decided to broadcast it online for free with no password required.***

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE MOVIE ONLINE AT 2:00PM & 8:00PM ET ON SUNDAY, JULY 24. 

The next global broadcast of “Clinton Cash” will be SUNDAY, JULY 24 at 2:00PM ET and 8:00pm ET at this link.

The weekend Clinton Cash global release, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, will set the tone for Hillary Clinton’s nomination. MSNBC calls the movie “devastating” for presumptive Democratic nominee and says it “powerfully connects the dots.” The Guardian lauds the film as “a powerful message, one that is clearly designed to stir up trouble at the convention at just the moment when Clinton should be reveling in her victory in the Democratic race.” And the Fiscal Times warns that Clinton Cash is a “weapon that could knock Clinton out.”

The film, based on the New York Times bestselling investigative book Clinton Cash by Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, has sent shockwaves through media. The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and other Establishment Media haveverified and confirmed the book’s explosive revelations about how Hillary Clinton auctioned State Department policies to foreign Clinton Foundation donors and benefactors who then paid Bill Clinton tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees.

Time says the movie’s power comes from its focus persuading liberals. “[The film is] a scathing broadside aimed at persuading liberals,” reports Time. It is “likely to leave on-the-fence Clinton supporters who see it feeling more unsure about casting a vote for her.”

CNN’s Michael Smerconish says the book-turned-film is shaping up to be the political “playbook for the fall campaign.”

Clinton Cash’s weekend global airing on Breitbart will be for two days only. Click here to watch the film. No password required.

“We wanted Breitbart Nation to see the Clinton Cash movie first and for free,” said the Stephen K. Bannon, Breitbart Executive Chairman and the film’s writer and producer.

Bannon added: “It’s imperative that progressives and conservatives alike see the film to understand Hillary Clinton’s unprecedented auctioning of State Dept. policies.”

Also see:

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties

Presumptive Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton with her choice for vice-president Tim Kaine.

Presumptive Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton with her choice for vice-president Tim Kaine.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 23, 2016:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s newly-announced running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has a history of embracing Islamists. He appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission; spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect and received donations from well-known Islamist groups.

Appointing a Muslim Brotherhood Front Leader Who Supports Hamas

In 2007, Kaine was the Governor of Virginia and, of all people chose Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish to the state’s Immigration Commission. A Muslim organization against Islamism criticized the appointment and reckless lack of vetting.

Federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” AChicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed this, as well as MAS’ crafty use of deceptive semantics to appear moderate. Convicted terrorist and admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member Abdurrahman Alamoudi testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Read our fully-documented profile of MAS here.

According to Omeish’s website, he was also president of the National Muslim Students Association (click there to read our profile about its Muslim Brotherhood origins) and served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which the Justice Department also labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial.

His website says he was the vice president of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque known for its history of terror ties, including having future Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki as itsimam and being frequented by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood shooting. Omeish’s website says he remains a board member.

Omeish’s website also says he was chairman of the board of Islamic American University, which had Hamas financier and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Al-Qaradawi chairman of its board until at least 2006.

Omeish was also chairman of the board for the Islamic Center of Passaic County, a New Jersey mosque with heavy terrorist ties and an imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport for having links to Hamas.

Omeish directly expressed extremism before Kaine appointed him. He claimed the Brotherhood is “moderate” and admitted that he and MAS are influenced by the Islamist movement.

In 2004, Omeish praised the Hamas spiritual leader as “our belovedSheikh Ahmed Yassin.” Videotape from 2000 also surfaced where Omeish pledged to help Palestinians who understand “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land” (he denied this was an endorsement of violence).

When a state delegate wrote a letter to then-Governor Kaine warning him that the MAS has “questionable origins,” a Kaine spokesperson said the charge was bigotry.

Kaine obviously failed to do any kind of basic background checking in Omeish.

Omeish resigned under heavy pressure, and Kaine acknowledged that his statements “concerned” him. But, apparently, they didn’t concern him enough to actually learn about the Muslim Brotherhood network in his state and to take greater precautions in the future.

Speaking at a Dinner Honoring Muslim Brotherhood Terror Suspect

In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a “Candidates Night” dinnerorganized by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award for Jamal Barzinji, who the Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch describes as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

He first came on to the FBI’s radar in 1987-1988 when an informant inside the Brotherhood identified Barzinji and his associated groupsas being part of a network of Brotherhood fronts to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said Barzinji and his colleagues were “organizing political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government” using “political action front groups with no traceable ties.”

Barzinji had his home searched as part of a terrorism investigation in 2003. U.S. Customs Service Senior Special Agent David Kane said in a sworn affidavit that Barzinji and the network of entities he led were investigated because he “is not only closed associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.”  Counter-terrorism reporter Patrick Poole broke the story that Barzinji was nearly prosecuted but the Obama Justice Department dropped plans for indictment.

Barzinji played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the U.S. and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which came under terrorism investigation also. Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s President considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity.

The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights (emphasis mine).”

The quotes about Brotherhood operative Barzinji’s aspirations to use civil rights advocacy as a means to influence politicians are especially relevant when you consider that video from the event honoring Barzinji shows Kaine saying that it was his fourth time at the annual dinner and thanked his “friends” that organized it for helping him in his campaign for lieutenant-governor and governor and asked them to help his Senate campaign.

Islamist Financial Support

Barzinji’s organization, IIIT, donated $10,000 in 2011 to the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji that Kaine spoke at. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005. That figure doesn’t even include other political recipients that assisted Kaine’s campaign.

The PAC has very strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the Virginia Public Access Project tallying almost $257,000 in donations. This likely explains why Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration and then became the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community.

The Middle East Forum’s Islamist Money in Politics database shows another $4,300 donated to Kaine’s Senate campaign in 2011-2012 by officials from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another $3,500 came from Hisham Al-Talib, a leader from Barzinji’s IIIT organization.

It’s worth noting that Barzinji’s IIIT donated $3,500 to Esam Omeish’s 2009 campaign delegate campaign, tying together the cadre of Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders who got into Kaine’s orbit.

Conclusion

Kaine has no excuse. If he has an Internet connection, then he and his staff should have known about their backgrounds. They were either extremely careless (something Kaine would have in commonwith the top of the ticket) or knew and looked the other way in the hopes of earning donations and votes.

Clinton’s choice of Kaine is widely seen as a way of strengthening her campaign’s national security credentials. Yet, Clinton is asking us to trust a candidate on national security who appoints a Hamas supporter to an immigration commission and speaks at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect.

And she is asking us to trust her, who chose such a candidate.

28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, July 15, 2016:

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups.

As Breitbart News has reported exclusively, the “Abedin family business” is an academic group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs that is based in the London offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and its parent organization, the Muslim World League.

Huma Abedin, born in the United States but raised in Saudi Arabia, has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996 and is now Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the vice-chairwoman of her presidential campaign. Abedin, who is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, is also at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Page 24 of the 28 Pages report discusses Osama bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI. Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 Pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 Pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

In the past, all efforts to vet or ask basic questions about Abedin have been shut down by the mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison.

A footnote on page 24 of the 28 Pages is inconclusive but doesn’t rule out the possibility that WAMY’s senior leadership may have supported terrorism.

According to the FBI’s November 8th, 2002 response, although several officials in WAMY support Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, the intelligence is insufficient to show whether the organization as whole and its senior leadership support terrorism.

Although the footnote makes it clear that the depth of WAMY’s full support for terrorism wasn’t fully known in 2003, the matter is clearly a subject that should have been both investigated and discussed, especially given the connection between New York Senator Clinton, and one of her top aides at the time, to the group.

Further, it’s very clear that WAMY supports the Wahhabist strain of Islam that is both the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is behind nearly every terrorist group today, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban.

As Breitbart News previously reported exclusively, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she even admitted that Saudi Arabia was using the Muslim World League and WAMY to fund terrorism, writing in a 2009 memo:

Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities. However, these restrictions fail to include &multilateral organizations such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

For decades, the Saudis have spent millions of dollars promoting Wahabbism through organizations like WAMY, its parent the Muslim World League, and other “charities” that promote Da’wa or Islamic evangelism throughout the world via activities such as building mosques.

The mainstream media has either ignored these clear connections between Huma Abedin and Saudi NGOs or, worse, smeared the people making the charges, most notably the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Further, the fact that the Bush administration’s compliance with the Saudi’s request to bury the information that is damaging to The Kingdom raises new questions of what influence the Saudis has on President Bush.

Breitbart News reported exclusively that just a month after 9/11, Newsweek claimed that the Muslim World League — the parent organization of WAMY with connections to Huma Abedin — was removed from a list of terror funders under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

The 28 Pages were available to members of Congress to read, although only under the right security conditions.

It is not known whether Sec. Clinton, then the Senator for New York, ever read the 28 Pages.

DEVELOPING…

***

Also see:

Islam at war with a delusional, suicidal West

Obama_CairoWND, by Matt Barber, July 16, 2016:

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

– Barack Hussein Obama

Isn’t it about time we crusade for self-defense?

I’ll say it again. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a pathway to tyranny.

It’s also deadly.

As I beheld across my social media feeds last night, the horrific, blood-bathed images of 84-plus slaughtered innocents on the streets of Nice, France (at the hands of yet another Muslim named Mohamed), I was reminded of a quote by the great Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

I was also reminded of a statement by Hillary Clinton: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

At best, this woman is an appeaser. Apart from Barack Obama, she has proven chief chumming chump to the crocs of the caliphate. This level of willful self-delusion requires suspension of disbelief stimulated by strong medicine indeed. That medicine is multiculturalism – the global “progressive” left’s pet project, save cultural Marxism, in a disastrously failed globalist public policy.

While Hillary is an appeaser, an apologist for Islam (or “dhimmi”), President Obama, I fear, is something far worse.

Tears welled in my eyes as I viewed the now viral image of a child sprawled lifeless on the streets of Nice, covered by a body blanket and flanked by her doll. As I stared at this image, a ghastly metaphor for modern multiculturalism, an ember of rage burst aflame within me. I reflected upon how Obama once described the Muslim call to prayer as, “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And I felt disgust for the man.

That call to prayer asserts, among other things:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Standing before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, Obama uttered these chilling words: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed. The dead of Nice have no future at all.

Will we?

We know where Barack Obama’s sympathies, if not his loyalties, lie. But what of his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton?

The answer requires little speculation. Ms. Clinton has indicated her intention to resettle at least one million Muslim refugees in the U.S during her first term alone.

She plans to house the hounds in the hen house.

And hounds many will be.

Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

Writing last year in Investor’s Business Daily, investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted that “60 percent of Muslim-Americans under 30 … told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

A treasonous heart leads to treasonous acts.

And that’s just the tip of the scimitar. Consider these terrifying numbers:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them.”

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Hillary Clinton’s delusional, PC-poisoned and bat-guano-crazy words here bear repeating: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Some are and some don’t.

Yet hundreds of millions do.

The best thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.

***

New Ties Emerge Between Clinton And Mysterious Islamic Cleric

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at the Turkish Cultural Center, Sept. 2007. (Youtube screengrab)

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at the Turkish Cultural Center, Sept. 2007. (Youtube screengrab)

Daily Caller, by Chuck Ross, July 13, 2016:

A newly-released email and lobbying documents filed with Congress reveals new ties between Clintonworld and members of a network operated by a mysterious Islamic cleric from Turkey.

Connections between Clinton and acolytes of the imam, Fethullah Gulen, could muddle the complex relationship between the U.S. and Turkey, a key NATO ally, if the former secretary of state wins the White House.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has mounted an aggressive crackdown against Gulen and his followers, known as Gulenists. Erdoğan, who was once allied with Gulen, has even personally asked President Obama to extradite the 74-year-old guru, who has lived in self-exile in Pennsylvania’s Pocono mountains since 1999.

(RELATED: Followers Of A Mysterious Islamic Cleric Have Donated Heavily To Hillary’s Campaign And Charity)

Erdoğan has accused Gulen of attempting to undermine the Turkish government. Gulen’s followers control many Turkish institutions, including the media, courts, and police force.

In addition to muddying that complex geopolitical dynamic, a 2009 email recently released by Judicial Watch provides yet another example of access being provided to a Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation donor.

In the April 1, 2009 message, a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama.

Ozkok is founding board member of the Turkish Cultural Center and part of a network of businesses and non-profits affiliated with the Gulen movement, also known as Hizmet.

Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.

Another link between Gulenists and the Clinton orbit was revealed in a lobbying registration disclosure filed last month with the Senate. It shows that a Gulen-aligned group called the Alliance for Shared Values hired the Clinton-connected Podesta Group to lobby Congress on its behalf. The group seeks to lobby for the “promotion of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”

The group’s executive director is Alp Aslandogan, a former professor at universities in Texas. He has also donated to Clinton’s political endeavors, campaign finance records show.

The Podesta Group is a natural choice for those seeking influence with Clinton. The firm was co-founded by John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and his brother Tony, a major Clinton campaign bundler.

Through various non-profit groups, both Gulenists promote the cleric’s teachings, which are relatively moderate and pro-Western. They are also involved in the Gulen movement’s money-making endeavor: a vast network of taxpayer-funded charter schools.

Those schools, which number more than 150, have been a source of controversy for the Gulen movement.

Federal investigators have reportedly investigated some of the schools for using work visas to bring Turkish citizens to the U.S. to teach. In some cases, taxpayer funds were used to pay immigration and legal fees for family members of teachers who worked at the facilities. Funds allocated to the schools have also been funneled to contractors controlled by Turkish nationals with connections to the Gulen movement.

A 2011 New York Times article focused on suspicious ties between Gulenist schools operating in Texas under the name Harmony Public Schools. Harmony contracted with a company controlled by a pro-Gulen non-profit called the Cosmos Foundation. In 2002, Aslandogan purchased property that was later sold to Harmony. He also founded the Texas Gulf Foundation, which has also been awarded taxpayer-funded contracts to provide services to Gulen schools.

Aslandogan did not return a request for comment. Nor did Ozkok, who has affiliations with Gulen-connected education firms Sema Education and Apple Education Services.

The partnerships between the schools and contractors allow taxpayer funds to remain within the Gulen network. Teachers at the schools, many of whom are not fluent in English, are also used to help finance Hizmet, according to one former teacher at a Gulen institute.

The teacher, who is now a government whistleblower, told “60 Minutes” in 2012 that Turkish teachers are required to return a large portion of their salary to the Gulen network. She said that her Turkish husband, who taught at one of the schools, was required to return 40 percent of his salary.

Accusations of visa fraud and other impropriety, which Gulenists largely deny, have contributed to an increased profile for Gulen, who ended up staying in the U.S. permanently after coming here for medical treatment.

Erdoğan’s campaign to rid Turkey of Gulen’s influence has also thrust the recluse onto the public spotlight.

On top of his efforts to crackdown on Gulenists within the Turkish media, judiciary and police, Erdoğan has sought to exert influence over Gulen in the U.S.

During a 2014 visit with President Obama, Erdoğan, who served as prime minister prior to his presidential term, reportedly asked Obama for Gulen’s extradition. The Turkish government has also retained the law firm Amsterdam & Partners in an effort to undermine Gulen and Gulenists in the courts as well as the media.

The connections between the Gulen movement and Clinton are not the first to be revealed. They also add to questions about what it is the Gulenists want from Clinton and whether the Democrat has rewarded their financial support with favors.

Last year The Daily Caller reported that numerous Gulen followers have donated to Clinton’s various political campaigns and to her family charity. One Gulen movement leader, Recep Ozkan, donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

As senator from New York, Clinton gave a keynote address at the Turkish Cultural Center’s annual banquet.

The email to Abedin, which is the first piece of communication showing that a Gulen follower had direct access to Clinton’s staff, sought a favor.

“Please tell Madam Secretary that it would be great if President Obama can include a 15 minutes [sic] meeting with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of of [sic] the Islamic Conference (OIC), in his trip to Turkey,” wrote Ozkok.

April 1, 2009 email from Gokhan Ozkok to Huma Abedin. Obtained by Judicial Watch

April 1, 2009 email from Gokhan Ozkok to Huma Abedin. Obtained by Judicial Watch

It is unclear if Abedin forwarded Ozkok’s request to Clinton or anyone else in the Obama administration. But Ihsanoglu, who is an ally of Gulen’s and lost to Erdogan in the 2014 presidential election, did meet with Obama in Istanbul several days after the email. There, Obama reportedly extended an invitation to Ihsanoglu to visit the White House. The academic visited in June 2009 and reportedly asked Obama to create a U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world.

Huma Abedin (R) and Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill (L). (REUTERS)

Huma Abedin (R) and Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill (L). (REUTERS)

Some terror watchdog groups flagged the meetings, pointing to Ihsanoglu’s past praise of the terrorist group Hamas and for Sudanese president and U.S. foe Omar al-Bashir. But Ihsanoglu does not appear to be a radical firebrand like so many Islamists in the Middle East.

Read more

Hillary’s Libya Debacle

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi_1

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, July 13, 2016:

Colin Powell’s famous words, “You break it, you own it,” are coming back to haunt Hillary Clinton. Powell said those words in cautioning President George W. Bush about the harsh unintended consequences that could result from the military action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Hillary voted to support while in the Senate. As Secretary of State, Hillary forgot all about Colin Powell’s prescient warning. She became the prime mover within the Obama administration for military action to forcibly remove Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi. In fact, upon learning of his death at the hands of a mob, Hillary Clinton exulted. Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, Hillary proclaimed on Oct. 20, 2011:  “We came, we saw, he died.”

What followed the toppling of Gaddafi’s regime, however, was utter chaos, not the smooth transition to a pluralistic democracy that Hillary had naively envisioned. Indeed, the anarchy that ensued has created a dire strategic threat to the United States and its Western and Arab allies that had not existed during the last years of Gaddafi’s reign. Especially after Gaddafi announced the end of his nuclear weapons program in December 2003 and followed through with allowing the removal of nuclear materials thereafter, his regime posed no strategic threat to U.S. national security.

No doubt Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, who sought to ruthlessly put down the rebellion that threatened his rule. However, his death and the end of his regime, which Hillary celebrated, fixed nothing.

Robert Gates, Obama’s Defense Secretary at the time, along with other senior leaders in the Obama administration such as Vice President Joseph Biden and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, foresaw the dangers of an ill-planned U.S. military intervention without a realistic plan for a peaceful transition. They warned against it. But Hillary’s call for intervention won out.  She persuaded a reluctant President Obama to enter the fray in support of our European and Arab allies on humanitarian grounds.

Hillary spent countless hours shuttling among foreign capitals to shore up what became a NATO-led coalition against Gaddafi’s regime.  She engineered the passage of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force in Libya to protect the vulnerable civilian population, which she apparently interpreted to authorize outright regime change. Hillary had personally met with the chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and other Libyans who might become a part of a successor regime. Her top aide Jake Sullivan explained Hillary’s confidence in these leaders’ ability to bring the various factions in the country together to form a relatively stable, democratic and inclusive post-Gaddafi transitional government. He said Hillary had received written pledges to bring about just such a transition from the Transitional National Council.

In a succession of e-mails, Hillary’s senior aides at the State Department, and her informal outside confidante Sidney Blumenthal, sang her praises for leading the implementation of the Libyan strategy she had pushed Obama to accept.

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

Hillary chomped at the bit to take credit for what she initially regarded as a great success in Libya when things seemed to be going well. She sent an e-mail to her top aide at the State Department, Jake Sullivan, forwarding Blumenthal’s recommendation. “Pls read below,” Hillary wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic.”

Sycophant Sullivan wrote back, “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”

Sullivan had already written an e-mail to two other high level State Department officials, Cheryl Mills and Victoria Nuland, just a day before the above-mentioned Blumenthal e-mail, effusively praising his boss for her leadership role in steering Obama administration policy on Libya. “HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.”

Sullivan then laid out a detailed chronology of all the actions Hillary had taken to accomplish her mission.

However, Hillary’s mission turned into a strategic disaster.  Weapons in the hands of non-state actors, including jihadists, were spreading from Libya across national borders to help further inflame conflicts in Mali, Syria, and elsewhere. Migrants were using Libya as a disembarkation point to try and reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea in overwhelming numbers. Armed militias fought each other within Libya, while rival governments were formed. Anti-American jihadists, who benefitted from the outcome of the ‘Clinton Doctrine” in Libya, filled the power vacuum. The tragic result was the terrorist attack in Benghazi that took four Americans’ lives on September 11, 2012, including the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Just as Hillary was, in the words of FBI Director James Comey, “extremely careless” in the handling of classified information on her private e-mail system, she was reckless in ignoring clear warning signals leading up to the deadly September 11th Benghazi terrorist attack. Indeed, in addition to threats, there were previous terrorist attacks, including one in June 2012 against the U.S. consulate compound itself and another the same month hitting a convoy carrying the British ambassador. The British decided to evacuate from Benghazi. Yet Hillary pressed on to establish a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens took his fateful trip to Benghazi in September 2012 in part to advance Hillary’s plan. “At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified to a Congressional committee in 2013.

Multiple requests from people on the ground in Libya for more security, including some from Ambassador Stevens himself, were sent to the State Department prior to the September 11, 2012 attack.  Stevens’ last diary entry was “never ending security threats.”  Somehow the security concerns never reached Hillary’s desk. She told the House Benghazi Committee that “I was not responsible for specific security requests.”  But Hillary’s attempt to wash her hands of any responsibility raises more questions than it answers.

Hillary said that Stevens was a friend. She had, in her words, “hand-picked” Stevens for what she knew was a highly dangerous post even as her so-called Clinton Doctrine unraveled. By her own account, there was “lawlessness” in Benghazi, which she said Stevens had been aware of. Yet she never bothered to reach out to him directly to ask whether there was sufficient security for the mission she had hand-picked her friend to carry out.  She simply said that Stevens knew the risks and “felt comfortable” with conditions on the ground. One phone call or e-mail directly to her personal friend would have informed her of Stevens’ concerns over the “never ending security threats.” Hillary had not even provided Stevens with her cell phone number, fax number or personal e-mail address in case he needed to reach her. Apparently, Hillary had less compunctions about giving out that contact information to Blumenthal.

Through her reckless indifference to the security needs of Stevens and other Americans who became caught in the terrorist attack at the Benghazi facility that she wanted to make permanent, Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes left them there unprotected to face the deadly consequences. She then lied to the families of the victims of the attack, telling them that an obscure anti-Muslim video was the cause of the attack when she knew at the time that the attack was a coordinated, pre-meditated act of jihadist terrorism. And she doubled down on her reckless indifference – literally – a year later at a Senate hearing with her infamous remark: “What difference at this point does it make?”

As she runs to become the next president and commander-in-chief, Hillary Clinton is trying to disown what she broke in Libya. Her recklessness and indifference to the consequences of her actions, as well as her lies to cover up her mistakes, follow the same pattern as her e-mail debacle and should disqualify her from the presidency.

Also see:

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi

witch-of-benghazi

Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 5, 2016

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

***

RESCUE INTERRUPTED:

What did not happen to save American lives the night of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya? In recent days, the House Benghazi Committee released results of its investigation. Full Measure asks real intelligence officers what should have happened that night.

 

***

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) Press Conference June 29, 2016 – National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
CCB releases new report and comments on release of House Select Committee on Benghazi report.
Participants are as follows:
Roger Aronoff, Clare Lopez, Dennis Haney, Charles Woods, Tom McInerney, Ace Lyons, Chuck Kubic, John Clarke

Also see:

FBI: ‘Hostile Actors’ Likely Hacked Clinton Email Secrets

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, July 6, 2016:

An extensive FBI investigation found evidence that foreign government hackers accessed private emails sent by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton but no direct evidence spies hacked into the several unsecure servers she used.

FBI Director James Comey revealed Tuesday the 11-month probe into Clinton’s private email servers uncovered negligent handling of very sensitive classified information that was placed on several unsecure servers between 2009 and 2013, when Clinton served as secretary of state.

In an unusual public announcement, Comey outlined findings that included discovery of highly classified information sent and received on Clinton’s private email servers, and signs that “hostile actors” gained access to email accounts of people who were sharing emails with Clinton.

Comey said no clear evidence was found that Clinton and her aides intended to violate laws but “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Despite the evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing regarding communicating top secret, secret, and confidential information in emails, Comey announced at FBI headquarters that he is not recommending Justice Department prosecution of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

“Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

The decision drew fire from Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee. “FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security,” he stated on Twitter. “No charges. Wow!” Trump added that the “system is rigged” since Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, “got in trouble for less. Very very unfair.”

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon praised the FBI announcement.

“As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved,” Fallon said.

On the foreign counterintelligence aspects of the case, Comey said investigators found no “direct evidence” foreign state hackers gained access to the private email system. Advanced state cyber attackers, however, would be unlikely to leave traces of such intrusions, he added.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” Comey said, without elaborating or identifying the people in question.

During foreign travel, Clinton also used the personal email system extensively on “the territory of sophisticated adversaries,” likely a reference to China and Russia.

“Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” Comey said.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden, commenting on Comey’s remarks, said Clinton’s use of private email servers highlights the danger posed by the use of such servers, noting he believes it is very likely foreign states hacked into her server.

“I would lose respect for any serious intelligence agency on this planet if they had not accessed the emails on the server,” said Hayden, also a former director of the NSA.

According to Comey, seven email “chains” examined by the FBI contained classified information labeled “top secret, special access program,” among the highest security classification levels.

Special access programs are used in government to protect extremely sensitive information requiring extraordinary security measures. They can include such things as the identity of clandestine human agents or secret intelligence operations, military operations, or the characteristics of electronics used by foreign radar systems.

“Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters,” Comey said.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

A small number of the emails contained markings indicating the presence of classified information, Comey said.

That contradicts Clinton’s repeated statements that she did not misuse any information marked as classified data. The campaign website also contains the statement that “no information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

Comey said even if the data was not marked as classified “participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, said she was surprised that the FBI announcement did not address whether federal Records Act violations occurred, or whether evidence was found of corruption involving improper actions by Clinton to support the Clinton Foundation.

“Is the FBI’s investigation into those matter still ongoing?” she asked.

On the foreign intelligence targeting of the Clinton emails, Van Cleave said there is no question the former secretary of state knew her email messages were and are targeted by spy services.

“The working assumption of the intelligence community is that they have it all and damage assessments are still underway,” Van Cleave said. “She simplified their job by neatly packaging all of her email out of the hands of government security personnel. If that isn’t an open-and-shut case of ‘gross negligence’ under the espionage laws I don’t know what is.”

Van Cleave said she is concerned by the precedent of not prosecuting a former senior government official who mishandled classified information. “If government workers see their leaders play fast and loose with classified information with impunity, what is the incentive for them to behave differently,” she said.

The FBI announcement comes just over a week after former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, raising charges of political interference in the investigation. Lynch was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York by Clinton in 1999.

President Obama also appeared to interfere with the investigation by announcing in October that “I can tell you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, former White House National Security Council staff intelligence director, said the FBI’s decision not to recommend prosecution is a case of politicization. “The Bureau is indelibly stained by this blatantly political act,” deGraffenreid said. “What would have happened to any other government official?”

DeGraffenreid said Comey overstepped FBI authority by asserting that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton. “He is not a prosecutor,” he said. “That is the attorney general’s job. Not Comey’s.”

The Justice Department’s National Security Division now must decide whether to follow the FBI recommendation or prosecute Clinton, who spent three and a half hours last weekend undergoing questioning by FBI agents.

Analysts say the Justice Department has been politicized through liberal appointees and thus is unlikely to go against the FBI recommendation.

The FBI announcement clears the way for Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination for president later this month at the party’s convention in Philadelphia.

Comey, in an unusually detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation, announced that his recommendation was not cleared in advance with the Justice Department and was more detailed than usual “because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

The FBI investigation was launched in August of 2015 following a July 24, 2015, referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and Intelligence Community. The notice said classified information may exist on at least one server and a thumb drive.

The FBI director also faulted what he said was a lax security culture at the State Department regarding the care and handling of classified information.

Comey said the probe examined if classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal system in violation of laws that make it a felony to mishandle classified information intentionally or in a grossly negligent way. A second law makes it a misdemeanor to remove classified information from secure systems.

The FBI found Clinton used not one but several servers and numerous mobile devices to read personal emails.

From the 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the State Department, the FBI found 110 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent, including eight emails with top secret data, 36 with secret information, and eight with less-sensitive confidential data, Comey said.

Some 2,000 additional emails were later re-classified to “confidential.”

“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014,” Comey said, noting the emails were found from deleted emails and traces on servers and devices.

Comey said no evidence was uncovered indicating Clinton deleted emails containing classified information an in effort to cover up a crime.

But he added: “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.

“But their presence is especially concerning because all of the emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,” Comey said.

Based on factors such as strength of evidence, criminal intent, and how similar situations of mishandling or removing classified data were handled in the past, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” he added.

Comey said the announcement would trigger public debate but insisted the probe was done “honestly, confidently, and independently.”

“Criminal intent aside, anyone experienced in these matters knows that the real sin here was the original sin,” said Hayden, the former CIA director who noted that that the initial creation of the private server without security procedures was a major vulnerability.

“[It meant] bad things with regard to preserving federal records and really bad things with regard to security,” he said.

***

Hillary Clinton can be blackmailed 

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

l1MaMIlkPoh1MRvphR7Lujl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy — July 5, 2016

Muslim Nations Defend Palestinian Terror During UN Terrorism Review After U.S. Citizen Murdered Near Hebron

OIC-at-UN.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 3, 2016:

Thirteen-year-old Hillel Ariel, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist last week while sleeping in her bed in her home near Hebron.

The day after her murder the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the group representing all 57 Muslim-majority nations, tried to insert justifications for Palestinian terror during a United Nations review of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Stephanie Granot of The Jewish Press reports:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), attempted to introduce language condoning terrorism under certain conditions into a draft of a UN Counter-Terrorism Resolution. The official document is expected to be finalized on Tuesday when the General Assembly concludes a bi-annual Review of its UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.The OIC, an organization of 57 member-states that considers itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world”, has Permanent Delegations to the United Nations as well as to the European Union. Several days prior to the start of the Review, OIC Representative Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi (Saudi Arabia) sought to insert the following clause to the draft of the resolution: “Terrorism in the name of self-determination and national liberation does not constitute terrorism.”

Shortly after Rep. Al-Mouallimi addressed the General Assembly, Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador David Roet delivered an impassioned and powerful speech…

Subsequent to Ambassador Roet’s speech, some significant diplomatic maneuvering by the Israel’s Mission to the UN, and a steadfast refusal on Israel’s part to allow member-states to compromise draft language for the sake of a unanimous consensus, the clause was ultimately not included in the final draft of the review, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review”.

As the article notes, the OIC, which is the second largest inter-governmental body in the world behind the United Nations, has a permanent delegation at the UN.

In May, just a month before the Orlando terror attack targeting a gay nightclub that killed 49, the OIC blocked LGBT groups from attending a UN conference on AIDS held days before the attack.

The defense of Palestinian terrorism is a recurring topic of the OIC.

In April 2002, in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, the OIC adopted a declaration on international terrorism. But during the debate the OIC could not agree on a definition of terrorism, but did reject “any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.”

The OIC’s Islamic Fiqh Council published a January 2003 resolution explicitly endorsing Palestinian terror attacks, saying suicide attacks are a legitimate form of jihad:

3- The Islamic Fiqh Council asserts that jihad and martyr operations done to defend the Islamic creed, dignity, freedom and the sovereignty of states is not considered terrorism but a basic form of necessary defense for legitimate rights. Thus the oppressed peoples who are subjected to occupation have the right to seek their freedom via all means possible.4- The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

5- It is not allowed to use terms such as “jihad”, “terrorism”, and “violence”, which have become frequently used by today’s mass media as scientific terms, to mean other connotations beyond their basic well known meanings.

In between its unashamed defense of terrorism, the OIC has taken up the cause of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of combating “Islamophobia.”

As I noted last year here at PJ Media, the OIC remarkably called for more free speech limits immediately following the terror attack on the Paris offices of French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo. After reporting that, the OIC’s representative to the UN, Ufuk Gokcen, blocked me on Twitter.

I also reported exclusively that the OIC had funneled $325,000 to Georgetown University through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front group to push its “Islamophobia” agenda.

Through the OIC’s 2005 10-Year Plan of Action and supporting implementation plan, they stated their intent to push for the international criminalization of criticism of Islam.

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically backed the OIC’s push for criminalizing “Islamophobia,” with the U.S. co-sponsoring UNHRC Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan on behalf of the OIC which calls for free speech restrictions in the name of banning “defamation of religion.”

At a July 2011 meeting with the OIC in Istanbul, she reaffirmed her commitment to Resolution 16/18, vowingto use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton hosted the OIC in a three-day closed-door conference in Washington, D.C., in December 2011. The official OIC media center characterized the meetings with Clinton as an effort to enact its “defamation of religion” agenda spelled out in the OIC’s annual Islamophobia Observatory.

No word if now-Democratic Party presidential candidate Clinton endorses the attempts by the OIC to justify Palestinian terrorism.

Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton

ABDULLAH DOMA/AFP/GettyImages

ABDULLAH DOMA/AFP/GettyImages

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollak, June  28, 2016:

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report on Tuesday morning, comprising some 800 pages of investigations and conclusions that suggest former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since Sep. 11, 2001.

The report also details how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public about the cause of the attack.

The committee had already slammed a separate report Monday by its Democratic members, who had long maintained that the investigation was politically motivated. “Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” an official statement by the committee declared.

For its own part, the committee published a list of facts that it said were new insights revealed by the investigation:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

The report also slams the Obama administration for “intentional failure to cooperate with this and other congressional investigations.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Also see:

It’s Sharia, Stupid!

STR/AFP/Getty Images

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Steve Hantler, June 21, 2016:

I am not now and have never been a gun owner. I would support a ban on assault weapons if constitutional and depending on the definition of “assault weapon.” I do not, however, support and vehemently oppose the blatant cover-up of the cause of the tragedy in Orlando.

Hillary Clinton tells us lax gun control laws are the root cause of the Orlando tragedy in which 50 of America’s young adults and children were barbarically murdered. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Blaming lax gun control laws is not only dead wrong, it will cost more American lives because it hides the real cause of the Orlando tragedy from the American people.

The real cause of the loss of so many promising lives is a barbaric legal, “moral,” political, and “ethical” code called SHARIA. Sharia commands its adherents to kill gays and lesbians. Andrew McCarthy writes in the National Review (June 12, 2016) that “wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed.” McCarthy cites in that article a 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq).

Sharia is not a religion. So, this is not about Islam nor all Muslims. And, not all Muslims are sharia-adherent. Perhaps only 25% to 40% of Muslims worldwide are sharia-adherent. Unfortunately, this works out to a few hundred million people who would prefer to live in the 6th Century — where women are treated like property and gays and lesbians must be killed. Sharia is the evil that separates Medieval Islam from Modern Islam.

Sharia is the root cause of the Orlando tragedy, yet Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, and the anti-gun crowd go to great lengths to cover this up. Why?

Some people, including Hillary Clinton, abhor guns so much that they instinctively default to lax gun laws as the cause of everything they find wrong with America. Give them enough time and they will find that lax gun laws cause global climate change.

Mrs. Clinton has additional reasons for participating in, actually leading, the cover-up. First, her family foundation has accepted tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in donations from sharia-adherent countries. These are countries where gays and lesbians are routinely killed on account of their sexual preference. These are countries where women are treated, at best, as second-class citizens and, at worst, as property.

Second, accepting the truth – sharia is the root cause – proves that bringing more Syrian refugees to America and opening our borders is a suicide pact. She cannot be seen as campaigning for a suicide pact, but that is exactly what she is doing.

Third, accepting sharia as the root cause prevents her from falsely casting Donald Trump as anti-Muslim or as calling for a permanent ban on Muslim immigration to America. Let’s set the record straight; Donald Trump never called for a permanent ban on Muslim immigration. Instead, he called for a temporary pause in immigration until the government could ensure those entering the country did not come here to kill gays and lesbians and Christians and Jews who refuse to submit to sharia.

I want a president who cares more about protecting my life than praying at the altar of political correctness. A growing number of my gay and lesbian friends feel the same way. In fact, one friend told me that she was “weighing the scales” with Hillary Clinton on one scale and Donald Trump on the other scale. Hilary, my friend said, would preserve her right to marry her partner, but not save her life. Donald would preserve her safety and save her life. Not a close call.

She is voting for Donald Trump because he understands the existential threat to our way of life in America and will make the tough decisions to protect Americans from this threat. Hillary Clinton will go out of her way not to offend the very people who are here to kill us.

My friend does not like the way that Donald Trump sometimes says things. She cares far less about how people say things than what they do. She wants a president who will protect her safety and America’s security rather than one who does not want to offend the people who want to kill us.

Paraphrasing James Carville – It’s sharia, stupid!

Steven Hantler is a retired auto industry executive and frequent contributor to Breitbart.

***

Also see:

Gorka: Every Part of the World That Obama & Hillary Have Touched Is ‘On Fire’

gorka1Fox News Insider, June 15, 2016:

Tonight on Hannity, Dr. Sebastian Gorka weighed in on the Obama Administration’s foreign policy failures, which he said made things worse at every turn.

Gorka: “Wherever you look, the world is on fire. In the Middle East. In Africa. In South Asia. Wherever they have touched a region, our enemies are emboldened and our friends and allies are fearful. Whoever the next president is, it will be a job of Herculean proportions to win back the confidence of everybody who no longer trusts us because of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy and the national security policy of Barack Obama.”

Shortly before that, Sean Hannity listed the human rights abuses of several countries that have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Gorka commended Hannity and his team, saying that if other so-called progressive media outlets also published that information, Clinton’s campaign would “go down in flames.”

He said that it exposes Clinton as “a person who loves power more than anything else,” and that that obsession extends to the entire Democratic Party.

“For the Democrat party today, reality is optional,” he said. “It has been kidnapped by the Alinskyites. For them, it is just the cause. You say whatever you like as long as you can maintain power. It’s not about truth, Sean, anymore, it’s about staying in power and getting the millions.”

Also see: