Huma Abedin’s Father Trashed Thomas Jefferson


Wrote that founding father should have appeased Barbary Muslim pirates, paid jizya tax.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Ocober 27, 2016:

The late father of Huma Abedin, the devout Muslim who’s co-chairing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, sympathized with the Barbary pirates in America’s first bout with Muslim terrorism and criticized President Thomas Jefferson for not appeasing them by paying their infidel tax.

In a 1974 dissertation for his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, Syed Z. Abedin slammed Jefferson, one of America’s most popular founding fathers, for raising a U.S. naval force and invading Tripoli during the Barbary Wars against Islamic pirates attacking U.S. ships in the early 1800s.

Over several years, the Muslim extremists in North Africa had been firing on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean and killing crews and passengers, while taking survivors hostage. Jefferson received shocking reports from Algiers and Tripoli of mistreatment of captured American men and women who were turned into slaves of the Muslim states.

Muslim corsairs demanded the US pay tribute, or jizya, as ransom for the hostages, as well as protection for safe passage through the Mediterranean. The level of tribute amounted to millions in today’s dollars and at one point reached a whopping 10 percent of the US national budget.

Jefferson inquired why the Barbary potentates thought they had the right to prey on American shipping and enslave passengers, and he said he was told by Muslim envoys that “it was written in the Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This in mind, Jefferson refused to pay the jizya tax, arguing that paying tribute would encourage more attacks; and he started a navy and marine corps to defend US ships. The stand infuriated Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, who declared war on the US in 1801. Jefferson, in turn, deployed destroyers to the Barbary Coast and heavily bombarded their ships and ramparts. Eventually, the Muslim pirates released American hostages and ceased their aggression in the Mediterranean.

Karamanli wasn’t the only Muslim embittered by Jefferson’s resolve against Islamofascism.

In his 350-page doctoral thesis, “America’s First Foreign War: A New Look at U.S.-Barbary Relations,” Abedin argued that Jefferson should have adopted the strategy of appeasement set forth by diplomat Joel Barlow, the American consul at Algiers from 1795 to 1797, who had used State Department funds for ransoms to free 100 American merchant sailors from the Muslim pirates. Barlow helped draft the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which includes the phrase: “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded by the Christian religion.”

Abedin praised Barlow as a “gentleman” who respected Islamic “principles.”

“He could not escape the obvious conclusion that a small naval force effectively employed could easily coerce the ancient potentates of the North African coast into submission,” he wrote. “But this observation never tempted him into calling forth for fire and brimstone for all Barbary. He responded to the people of North Africa as people, and not as pawns in some game of power.”

Added Abedin: “He did not, again like Jefferson, have one prescription for Europe and another, altogether different one, for North Africa.”

Abedin implied that Jefferson wasn’t really defending Americans but exploiting the North African Muslims, who he claimed “were not after money” and “made no captures.” He did not take kindly to Jefferson calling them “lawless pirates.”

“Through centuries of experience the North Africans had learnt to be on guard against the Western powers,” Abedin wrote, adding that “American methods and techniques gradually took on the aspect of the hated Europeans — and in no case is this more painfully evident than in that of Thomas Jefferson.”

Abedin suggested that by creating the Navy and Marine Corps, Jefferson gave license to American warmongering and imperialism.

“Once the exploits of American naval heroes were underway, Jefferson’s task at home became easier,” he wrote. “Where once the very existence of the navy was under threat, now increasing appropriations became available with every year of the conflict.”

“The Tripoli War had saved the American navy,” he lamented, and led to the spreading of “the American way.”

To Huma Abedin’s father, a noted Islamic supremacist, the Marines’ victory over the Barbary savages — memorialized in their hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” — was an invasion of Muslim lands. And Jefferson was the original Islamophobe.

Several years after writing his dissertation, Syed Abedin helped found an Islamic institute in Saudi Arabia whose mission is to spread Sharia law in the West. He also edited and published the institute’s propaganda organ, the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

After he died in 1993, his wife took over the radical Muslim publication — which opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11 — and Huma Abedin helped her mother edit it for 13 years.

In a 1971 interview titled “The World of Islam,” which was broadcast on Western Michigan University television, Syed Abedin claimed governments should uphold Sharia law and that Islamic institutions are the only ones acceptable in the Muslim world.


BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin


Witnesses say Clinton aide “overrode security protocols,” hoarded classified information at home.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the ( domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her account to either her or her account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Big Brotherhood is Watching You


Why is the U.S. government only interested in partnering with the most radical Islamic groups?

Front Page Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, October 19, 2016:

According to pollster Frank Luntz’s audience meter, one of Hillary Clinton’s best moments in the first presidential debate was when she asserted that we need to cooperate with the Muslim community and not alienate them.

That makes sense, but only if you’re cooperating with the right people in the Muslim community. The trouble is, we’ve been cooperating with all the wrong people—namely, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These are not moderate Muslim groups. They are stealth jihad organizations whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in turn, has been designated as a terrorist group by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. And the UAE has also named CAIR—whose representatives are frequent visitors to the White House—as a terrorist group.

Our government has been doing community outreach to groups that ought to be highly suspect. In their bookMuslim Mafia, authors Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz contend that CAIR operates like…well, like the Mafia. Instead of urging the Muslim community to cooperate with the authorities, CAIR has been instructing them not to cooperate. According to Jihad Watch, on two occasions CAIR chapters actually printed posters urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. Like the Mafia, CAIR and similar Islamic organizations have worked to impose the omerta code on their fellow Muslims.

It sounds enlightened to say that we should be cooperating with the Muslim community, but what’s so enlightened about organizations that want to transport the Muslim community back to the Dark Ages via sharia law? There are enlightened, moderate Muslim groups in the U.S., but our government studiously ignores them. Where’s the outreach to Zudhi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Where’s the outreach to the moderate Muslim groups and individuals listed on the Clarion Project’s website?

It seems that our government is more interested in cooperating and consulting with Muslims of a more radical stripe. For example, Jeh Johnson, the director of Homeland Security, recently addressed the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America. He told them that theirs was “the quintessential American story,” and he apologized profusely for the “discrimination,” “vilification,” and “suspicion” they had been subjected to. That’s all very nice, but isn’t it the main job of Homeland Security to be suspicious—especially of groups like ISNA which are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Johnson’s boss, President Obama, has shown remarkable sympathy not only for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but also for the Brotherhood itself. His administration did everything it could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, and everything it could to keep them in power. By contrast, the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate with Egypt’s new government under President El-Sisi—a genuine moderate.

Hillary Clinton herself was involved in the machinations to keep Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in power. And, although it wasn’t widely reported, many members of the Muslim community were not happy with her. When she visited Egypt in 2012, her motorcade was pelted with shoes and tomatoes.

Another, not-so-widely-known feature of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was her collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in their efforts to find ways to silence criticism of Islam and even to criminalize such criticism. For many years the OIC’s chief ambition has been to impose omerta on the whole non-Muslim world.

Indeed, on one occasion, Clinton was instrumental in enforcing Islam’s blasphemy penalty on an American citizen. Like others in the administration, Clinton claimed that the spark for Benghazi and the Arab Spring riots was a fifteen-minute trailer spoofing Muhammad that was made by an obscure California filmmaker. She promised that he would be punished for this outrage, and, sure enough, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in prison shortly thereafter.

Even more troubling is Secretary Clinton’s close relationship with her longtime assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin. Abedin’s late father had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother, sister, and brother still do. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood, her mother has been a strong advocate for sharia law—even to the point of opposing a proposed ban on female genital mutilation.

Huma Abedin herself was for twelve years the assistant editor of a Muslim Brotherhood publication—The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Interestingly, one of JMMA’s top priorities is to encourage Muslim minority communities not to assimilate with their host cultures. Its policy, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is “to grow an unassimilated aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Huma Abedin stopped working for the cause of Muslim separatism just before she started working at the State Department. Or did she? We may never know. In 2012, Congress blocked a request by five House members for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government. The request specifically named Abedin.

Huma Abedin may be completely innocent of any subversive activities, but her family associations and her own background would seem to disqualify her for the sensitive positions she has held. In other, more commonsensical times, it’s unlikely that Abedin would have been hired as a receptionist at the State Department, let alone as deputy chief of staff. And, should Clinton be elected, Abedin might well serve as White House chief of staff, or—as some have suggested—as our next Secretary of State.

It’s important to understand that when Hillary Clinton talks about the need for close cooperation with the Muslim community, she doesn’t have Zuhdi Jasser in mind, or any other genuinely moderate Muslim. She’s thinking instead of groups like CAIR, the OIC, and the Muslim Brotherhood—and of individuals like Huma Abedin.

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website,

Islamist Ties and Security Clearances: An Urgent National Security Debate

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 7, 2016:

In a lengthy article at, Christine Brim asks, “Should Family Affiliation With Foreign Islamist Movements Prevent a Security Clearance?”

While the article concerns an official in the office of the Defense Department Inspector General named John Crane, an even more urgent example would be longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who has similar family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might be just a few months away from access to the Oval Office.

John Crane rose to the position of Assistant Inspector General after 25 years with the Defense Department, even though his father Robert Crane converted to Islam in 1980 and became “a high-level official in multiple Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated organizations in the U.S. and Qatar.” Crane told Brim he was never once asked about his father’s affiliations during his long DoD career.

The younger Crane has a position in the battle over Edward Snowden, who has lately been the beneficiary of a massive left-wing effort to rehabilitate his reputation as a “whistleblower” and secure a pardon for his offenses. As Brim explains:

Crane has recently been the subject of numerous media interviews as “The Third Man” in the new book Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden, a defense of Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the U.S., UK and Australia. John Crane was quietly removed from his Inspector General and whistleblower office positions in February 2013, four months before the Edward Snowden case became public knowledge.  He immediately became a consultant for the General Accountability Project (GAP), the legal counsel for Snowden. GAP was founded in 1977 by the extreme far left Institute for Policy Studies.

[…] Crane’s allegations against the DoD in Bravehearts have been cited as a vindication of Snowden’s acts by the Intercept, the website of Snowden advocate Glenn Greenwald (“Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga”).

He was suspended from his job as Defense Department Assistant Inspector General in 2013, accompanied by the loss of his security clearances, but is now appealing for reinstatement. This means Crane will have to complete a new security clearance questionnaire, Form SF 86, which now asks about the affiliation of relatives with any “foreign government, military, security, defense industry, foreign movement, or intelligence service.” This is where the elder Crane’s relationship with Islamist groups could enter the picture.

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood might not be as problematic as it should be. The Obama Administration has labored mightily to rehabilitate the group’s image, but Brim lays out a convincing case that it is exactly the kind of “foreign movement” our guardians of national security should worry about. It is already been designated a terrorist organization by a number of U.S. allies (plus Russia), and will obtain that designation in the United States if the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 is enacted.

Brim recalls the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto – “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” – and notes their determination to “impose strict Islamic law in Muslim-majority countries and the world, using a mix of politics and violence.” They have ideological ties to some of America’s worst non-state enemies, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Islamic State.

And yet, there does not seem to have been any effort made by this Administration, or its predecessors, to explore Robert Crane’s Muslim Brotherhood ties, or the possibility that they might compromise his son. CounterJihad’s exhaustive investigation ended with picking up the phone, calling John Crane, and asking if his father was that Robert Crane. He answered in the affirmative, but based on Brim’s report, no one in the U.S. government bothered to ask.

Robert Crane, who did not respond to an interview request from CounterJihad, has a lively resume, explored in detail by CounterJihad. He was, for example, appointed Deputy Director for National Security Planning by Richard Nixon, and then fired by Henry Kissinger; his connections in the Gulf Arab states made him Ronald Reagan’s choice for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but his appointment was scuttled by Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Brim writes of Robert Crane’s conversion to Islam:

In 1980 Crane “became Muslim after seeing Sudanese leader Hasan al-Turabi preach and pray at an Islamic affairs conference in New Hampshire” (a variation on the conversion anecdote here). That Robert Crane would credit Hasan al-Turabi for his conversion is both surprising and concerning. Hasan al-Turabi became a leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood starting in the 1960s, was best known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to shelter his entire operation in Sudan from 1991-1996 and according to Human Rights Watch, imposed brutal sharia law as head of the National Islamic Front (the Muslim Brotherhood party) and in high office as Minister of Justice starting in 1979.

Brim relates many disturbing activities conducted by the organizations on Robert Crane’s resume, but the central question would be how much any of it reflects on his son John Crane. Brim’s antennae went up when the authors of the Bravehearts book about Snowden devoted a paragraph to Robert Crane, without naming him, or saying a single word about what he did after his spell with the Nixon Administration. Crane told Brim the authors did not ask about his father’s conversion to Islam or ties to extremist groups, and he did not volunteer the information – which seems to be a fair summary of his relationship with U.S. intelligence as well.

“If Crane undergoes a new background investigation, what answer will he give regarding his father’s affiliations to a foreign movement? Will it be the factual one, or the whitewashed one he provided for Bravehearts: Whistleblowing in the Age of Snowden?Would a factual answer bar a return to his old position – or facilitate it, in a future administration that may actively support the Muslim Brotherhood?” Brim asks.

Similar questions could be asked about Huma Abedin, whose family journal, where she is listed as an assistant editor, has advocated some disturbing interpretations of Islamic law, as well as accusing the United States of inviting the 9/11 attack by heaping “various kinds of injustices and sanctions” upon the Muslim world.

Her mother is an official in a group chaired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Her father founded an institute supported by a major Muslim Brotherhood splinter group.

Questions about Abedin are never answered. They are deflected by furious allegations of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim bigotry. Hillary Clinton and her top aides are clearly above the law, and above all reasonable national security scrutiny.

Crane does not have the magical Clinton immunity, but as Brim pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly has not been shunned by the Obama Administration, and it is poised to do even better in Washington if Hillary Clinton becomes President. The current climate of political correctness treats very few Islamic organizations as security risks, unless they’ve been directly classified as terrorist organizations under American law.

The web of connections between hardcore Islamists and more “mainstream” groups is complicated, making it easy to caricature discussion of those links as “conspiracy-mongering.” The groups cluttering these complex flowcharts tend to have the word “Muslim” in their benevolent-sounding names, and that’s all the dominant political culture in Washington needs to see before averting its eyes.

It’s fair to ask whether someone like John Crane has been unduly influenced by his father, or might compromise sensitive information by talking to him. The answer to that question could be “no.” It is terrifying beyond belief to consider that no one at the Defense Department had the desire, or maybe the courage, to ask.

EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin Email Attacked Jewish Group Photo of Richard Pollock RICHA

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin (Reuters photo)

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin (Reuters photo)

Daily Caller, by Richard Pollack, October, 5, 2016:

Huma Abedin, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, urged former President Bill Clinton in 2009 to reject a speaking invitation before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), asking his assistant in an email, do “u really want to consider sending him into that crowd?”

Abedin’s comment about “that crowd” has sparked anger and consternation among Jewish and non-Jewish leaders who consider it hostile to Jews and to the State of Israel. Her comments are raising uncomfortable questions about Abedin’s past and her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Appalling” is how Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, described the email, adding that it, “shows hostility toward Jews and Israel in light of the fact that ‘that crowd’ gives huge ovations to White House speakers.”

Klein pointed to the Abedin family’s ties to a radical Islamic group, saying, “it makes me think about the allegations about her parents and other family members who were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes called Abedin’s comment “disdainful” of AIPAC. He also noted her past association with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Abedin’s disdainful comment about AIPAC as ‘that crowd’ could derive from her Muslim or her leftist identity – or both,” Pipes told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Andrew McCarthy, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and others for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, told TheDCNF Abedin’s background raised security concerns.

“During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, some of us pointed out that Abedin’s background raised concerns about Islamist sympathies and unfitness for a security clearance that gave her access to top-secret intelligence,” McCarthy said.

Abedin was raised in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, by fundamentalist Muslim parents who ran the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was published by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was founded by her father Syed Abedin. Abedin remained on the masthead as an editor of the journal for 12 years until she entered the Department of State with Clinton in 2009.

Critics noted her father’s main benefactor was Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL). The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Rabita Trust, a subsidiary of the MWL, as a terrorist entity. Osama bin Laden credited MWL as a funding source after the 9/11 attacks.

Abedin has kept her personal political views to herself. Accusations of anti-Semitism were blunted by her marriage to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who is Jewish. That marriage is ending after Weiner was caught multiple times sexting online, most recently while sitting next to his son.

The issue of AIPAC’s interest in Bill Clinton’s attendance was raised in two sets of emails, all dated Sept. 10, 2009.

The State Department released them Sept. 21, 2016, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the conservative advocacy group Citizens United.

The AIPAC issue was raised by Doug Band, who was Bill Clinton’s White House “body man.” Band now boasts on his corporate web site that he was “the key architect of Clinton’s post-Presidency” and created and built the Clinton Global Initiative that critics link to corrupt “pay to play” deals with overseas corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign governments.

Band also was recently credited with securing access of Clinton Foundation donors to Hillary Clinton. Band is now the chairman of Teneo, a company that has been dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” Abedin was senior adviser to Teneo while she was serving as deputy chief of staff for Hillary Clinton.

Abedin’s special status allowing her to draw paychecks from the government and Teneo is being investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

In a Sept. 10, 2009, email, Band told Cheryl Mills and Abedin that Bill Clinton was reluctant to attend the AIPAC Jewish forum, stating, “Aipac begging for wjc to come speak at conference.  He doesn’t think he should unless you all do.”

Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff, told Band the final decision was up to Hillary Clinton and she would touch base with her. As Mills sought that answer, Abedin comments, “U really want to consider sending him into that crowd?”

An apparently impatient Band pointedly asked, “Go or not go?”

Abedin finally responds: “No go to aipac.”

It’s unclear from the email exchange why they wanted to skip the AIPAC meeting. Bill Clinton twice addressed AIPAC in the 1990s as president. Hillary Clinton spoke before AIPAC in 2010 after her husband was asked to address the group.

Bill Clinton attended the funeral for Israeli leader Shimon Peres last week, but in years past, Bill Clinton has expressed more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis.

“I will never forget what it taught me about your suffering, your history of dispossession and dispersal, but also about your resilience and courage,” he said in an open letter to the Palestinian people on Jan. 19, 2001, the day he left the White House.

He also released a statement to the Israelis. Here, however, he counseled “compromise” rather than empathy: “Compromise is often difficult and always painful. But the people and leaders of the region must understand that to seek a peace without compromise is not to seek peace at all.”

A spokesman for AIPAC declined to address the email. The Clinton campaign did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

Frank Gaffney: Hillary Clinton’s Iran Policy Is ‘Obama Bomb Fraud, Now Under New Management’

AP/Brendan Smialowski

AP/Brendan Smialowski

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 5 2016:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney reviewed the national security segments of Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate on Wednesday morning’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Marlow kicked off the discussion with “this insane notion that Iran has abandoned its nuclear armaments, the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and Hillary Clinton did that single-handedly, without firing a shot.”

“Well, it’s fraud, is what it is,” Gaffney said. “This is Obama bomb fraud, now under new management.”

He picked apart the dual falsehoods in Tim Kaine’s statement, arguing that Hillary Clinton was not the architect of the Iran nuclear deal, and the deal does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, by the admission of those who were its architects:

I think the American people have awakened, Alex, to the reality that not only was she not responsible for the deplorable outcome here – I mean, she started it off, and I guess in that sense is implicated – but this is Barack Obama and John Kerry’s doing. But anybody who has a lick of sense knows that what John Kerry and Barack Obama wrought is a fraud, in the sense that it does not put Iran out of the nuclear weapons business, with or without firing a shot.

And in fact, I’d go beyond what Mike Pence said in rebuttal, which is, you know, they’re ten years away from having whatever they want because the thing allows them to, at the end of its duration, go for it full-bore.

The real problem, Alex, as you know – and Breitbart’s done a wonderful job of reporting on this – is they’re allowed to have everything they need for a nuclear weapon now, and essentially at will, they can pop out of that agreement. They keep threatening to do it, and we keep making concessions, including ransoming hostages and sending planeloads of cash in the dark of night, and so on, to try to prevent them from exercising that very real option.

This is a case where, I think this is actually an indictment of the people who are saying, “Hey, this is going splendidly, and let’s just have four more years of it,” far from being a credit to those folks.

Gaffney described Pence’s comments on the destabilization of the world under Obama-Clinton foreign policy, from Russia’s adventurism in Ukraine to Iran’s ascendancy, as “one of the high points of the evening”:

It was as succinct and as devastating a takedown of the myth of Hillary Clinton’s fabulous success as secretary of state, and her principal bona fide, as she claims it to be, that she’ll be a great commander-in-chief.

She has made a hash-up of everything she’s touched. And whether it’s Russia, a “reset” that, in fact, has set the stage for infinitely worse behavior from the Russians – let me give you one example: A colleague of mine, Roger Robinson, and I had a conversation earlier this week on our show, Secure Freedom Radio, about the fact that what the Russians have put themselves in a position to do by seizing Crimea, Alex – and most people don’t have a clue about this – is, they’ve got their hands now on perhaps as much as $1 trillion of oil and gas reserves off the coast of Crimea. They’re using Ukrainian rigs that they’ve stolen to go begin tapping into that oil revenue that should otherwise have gone to Ukraine.

And, by the way, it looks as though they’re setting up to go after the oil that Romania has in a neighboring area of the Black Sea.

These are the sorts of things that are a direct legacy of the misbegotten notions about how they could deal with Vladimir Putin, that was all part of Hillary and Barack Obama’s “reset” policy.

And we talked a little bit about Iran; this is an unmitigated disaster. Just one data point: I’m afraid we’re beginning to see the Iranians translating the enormous wealth that we’ve given them not only into further action on their so-called “capped” nuclear weapons program, but on all of the other horrible things they do, from subversion in their own region and beyond, to threatening our forces, to supporting terrorism, and much more.

This is a disaster. It should be disqualifying, not a credential for higher office. And I thought Mike Pence nailed it in this quote and others.

Gaffney found Tim Kaine’s insistence that “we killed bin Laden” – something for which Hillary Clinton is now apparently responsible, although President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign portrayed it as a “gutsy call” he alone had the unique courage to make – both outrageous and dangerous:

Two quick points: In addition to al-Qaeda still being very much a force to reckon with, and of course, the Islamic State, there’s Boko Haram, there’s al-Shabaab, the Nusra Front, on and on.

But most especially, there’s the Muslim Brotherhood. This didn’t come up last night. Neither did Huma Abedin, who I consider to really be a Muslim Brotherhood influence operator at the very least, if not actually one of their own, who’s been working for Hillary Clinton all these years. And that didn’t get the attention it needs to, it has to, in the remaining days of this debate because the Brotherhood and enabling them to pursue jihad in our own country, as well as elsewhere, is one of Hillary’s worst legacies.

The other thing is, yesterday the Justice Department dropped its prosecution of a man that shouldn’t have been indicted in the first place, for running guns to Libya. That’s something Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were doing, and they decided they didn’t want Marc Turi’s discovery to expose Hillary Clinton’s terrible record on Libya, so they dropped the case just in time to prevent that from coming to light, in the course of the remaining days of this election.

These are the sorts of things that I hope we’ll get into, in the next two debates with the presidential candidates.

Gaffney said it was “a mistake, a strategic mistake of the first order, to remove Qaddafi, because he was helping to fight all of these jihadists – both the violent kind and the more stealthy kind of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“We now have them at our throats, Alex, in part because Libya has gone literally to the jihadis,” he argued, adding:

I think it’s a blight on Hillary’s record. It’s, I think, evidence of Huma Abedin’s insidious influence. It’s a mistake, of course, Barack Obama’s ultimately responsible for, but Hillary must be held accountable for it because I fear there’s going to be a lot more of that kind of mistake – that kind of belief, as you say, that the Muslim Brotherhood, if there is a good guy/bad guy division, they’re on the side of the good guys.”

“They’re anything but. They practice the same totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion,” Gaffney stressed. Elaborating, he said:

They call it sharia. They seek to impose it, just like al-Qaeda, just like the Islamic State and others, although with techniques that are more insidious, more dangerous for democratic countries like ours, namely by stealth. But the goal is the same: the domination worldwide of sharia. Hillary doesn’t get that – or worse, she has actually been an enabler of it, in important ways. That’s gotta come out, in the final days of this campaign.


Also see:

Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views?

Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)

Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Meira Svirsky, October 2, 2016

Concerns about Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, both when she was secretary of state and now, as the Democratic presidential nominee, began surfacing in 2012. According to leaked emails, Abedin is slated to become secretary of state if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.

Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.

Clarion Project covered that request extensively, as the Congressional members who made it were pilloried by their colleagues. We also covered the extremism of Abedin’s mother, father and other family members.

Now more information has been uncovered regarding the Islamist beliefs of Abedin’s parents. While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.

Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:

As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”

In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”

The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“

In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.

The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

However, an exception does exist: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”

The New York Post reports that Saleha is on the payroll of the Saudi government and part of her job is to advocate for sharia law in non-Muslim countries like the United States.

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

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

We hope that Abedin does not hold the same opinions as her parents or the journal of which she was the assistant editor. And it would certainly be nice to have to tell us that.


Jamie Glazov outlines the concerns about Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood influences and the need for answers on her beliefs. I would point out that neither Hillary or Huma would pass a proper background check.

Huma Abedin’s Father: “Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law”

abedin-1Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Sept. 28, 2016:

Syed Abedin, the father of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma, outlined his view of Sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile” during a wide-ranging video interview that shines newfound light on the reclusive thinker’s world views, according to footage exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Abedin, a Muslim scholar who was tied to the Saudi Arabian government until his death in 1993, has remained somewhat of a mystery as the media turns its eye to his daughter Huma, a top Clinton campaign aide who recently announced her separation from husband Anthony Weiner following his multiple sex scandals.

Syed Abedin explained his views on the Muslim world and spread of Islam during a 1971 interview titled The World of Islam, which was first broadcast on Western Michigan University television.


Abedin said that Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law, and explained why the majority of Muslims view Israel and the Western world in primarily “hostile” terms.

The video provides a window into the Abedin family’s ideology, which has been marred by accusations it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin, who was then a professor in the university’s college of general studies, said that Western intervention in the Arab world has sparked a backlash among many faithful Muslims.

“The response to the West has been of two kinds,” Abedin said. “By and large the response has taken more of a hostile form.”

“The first impulse of the average Muslim in the Islamic world is that this kind of borrowing [culturally] would be somehow an alien factor into our social fabric and thereby destroying the integrity of our ethos … the integrity of our culture,” he added.

In a separate discussion on the state’s role in a person’s life, Abedin said it is necessary to police the application of Sharia law.

“The state has to take over” as Muslim countries evolve, he argued. “The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the Sharia.”

“Suspicion” runs rampant in the Muslim world, Abedin said, citing it as a reason why Western governing values have not been quickly adopted in the region.

“In the contemporary Islamic world, religious leadership is of very crucial significance because any change that will be abiding, that will make any positive contribution to the development of Muslim life, must come from that source, and that is one reason why ideologies like socialism or communism that have been introduced into the Muslim world have never really taken root,” Abedin said. “They have always been considered as foreign importations. … It’s a kind of suspicion.”

Abedin also discussed the clash between modernity and the Islamic world.

“When you talk of an Islamic state … does it have to have a caliph?” he asked. “What does it mean? What is the Islamic concept of good in the present day world?”

Any cultural change, Abedin concluded, will have to be validated by the tenets of Islam.

“The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam,” he said. “Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s views on religion have become a central topic among those who have questioned Clinton’s choice to elevate Human Abedin into such a prominent role.

The Abedins helped create the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a publication accused of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and of promoting a hardline Islamic ideology.

Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor of the journal for 12 years and also played a role in its offshoot, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think-tank established in Saudi Arabia by an accused financier of the al Qaeda terror group, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Muslim Brotherhood’s ties to the Obama Administration

obama-egypt-450x338-1Family Security Matters, by Slater Bakhtavar, Sept. 23, 2016:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

The above is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, and organization founded in Egypt in 1928 for the express purpose of rebuilding human civilization in a form consistent with the customs of Shariah (Islamic) law and instituting a global Muslim paradise. The group’s own original bylaws leave little for interpretation, declaring: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.” As can be expected, then, the Brotherhood has been an enemy of the free world since its inception, engaging in such malignant acts as aligning itself with the National Socialist (Nazi) party in Germany during World War II, openly committing terrorist acts on its own, and more recently, supporting other terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

By any reasonable measure, the Muslim Brotherhood should be an unambiguous enemy of any American, regardless of political stripe. That is why it’s profoundly disturbing to consider that the group has steadily risen in influence within the United States, most particularly within the Democratic party. We see this broadly in the findings of a 2014 analysis that shows Islamist campaign donations overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since 9/11, but a specific and disturbing example can be found in the person of Huma Abedin, Vice Chairwoman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and reportedly longtime personal friend of Mrs. Clinton. Through her family, Abedin has a number of troubling ties to extremist Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Her father is known to have founded the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an academic publication that has been called a “sharia newspaper” by some. Her mother currently runs it, and Huma herself has worked as an editor on it.

Her brother introduces further suspicions of extremist loyalties. Abedin’s shady connections to the Muslim Brotherhood – which the Democratic party never fails to frantically deny or simply ignore – run so deep that five members of Congress wrote a letter in 2012 to the State Department Inspector General, listing her suspicious associations and contending that her family affinity with Islamic extremism disqualifies her from the sort of high level security clearance that would grant her access to someone like Hillary Clinton – an important and powerful person, and possible future President of the United States.

Huma Abedin’s role in American politics first rose to prominence when she served as a top adviser to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (again, their friendship stretches back considerably). Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has vastly strengthened its position within the US. Within that time period, the US government has reversed a standing policy against formal contact with the Brotherhood, went on channeling funds into Egypt despite the Brotherhood’s victory in post-Mubarak elections there, and hosted official Brotherhood delegations in the United States. Abedin’s level of involvement in these actions can be debated, but whether she is personally responsible or not, what is beyond question is that the Democratic party should not be coddling a known terrorist organization like this.

One would think the Democrats had learned their lesson when it comes to backing Muslim extremists. After all, that was their strategy in and immediately leading up to 1979, when they forsook the United States’ “stalwart ally” (as Ronald Reagan put it) in the Shah of Iran, effectively allowing the Islamic Revolution and the brutal, theocratic dictatorship that has followed ever since. Today Iran, once a generally friendly nation toward the United States and potential ally in the crucial Middle East, is a bitter enemy, its people strongly sympathetic to American ideals while its fundamentalist government denounces the US, and its absolute religious “Supreme Leader” works feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons.

In case it was not obvious, all of the above obviates the fact that it is in the best interests of the United States (and, ultimately, the people of the Middle East) to support secular leaders and causes. Especially in countries such as Iran and the northern part of the African continent, there are many younger and well educated people who are far less indoctrinated in the uncompromising religious dogma of the past than their elders. These are the people whom the West should be supporting, both abroad and at home – while being exquisitely careful to avoid allowing individuals like Huma Abedin to reach powerful positions within the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an unambiguously dangerous organization with a shady and bloody past. It is imperative that the United States awake to the reality that this organization must be combated and avoided, not embraced, and that secular segments should be encouraged to flourish around the world – especially at home, and in the Middle East.

Slater Bakhtavar is an attorney, journalist, author and political commentator. He is author of “Iran: The Green Movement”. He has appeared on hundreds of network radio shows, including G Gordon Liddy, Crosstalk America, Les in the Morning, NPR,  Jim Bohannon Show and VOA.

An Ongoing Affront to Freedom: UN Resolution 16/18 and the Assault on Free Speech

1618webThat Hillary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.

CounterJihad, Sept. 17, 2016:

Often the worst attacks on liberty are camouflaged with shining names.  United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, among international governments’ worst assaults on the freedom of speech, was formally titled “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”

Who could be against that?  Certainly not Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, who hosted the conference to help the UNHRC implement this resolution.  She said that the United States was hosting this conference because the resolution captured “our highest values… enshrined in our Constitution.”  In fact, what the Constitution protects is the freedom to criticize any idea – religious or otherwise.  In fact, the Constitution forbids laws that establish any religion as beyond criticism, or as being especially protected by law.

Of course it will be no surprise that the real authors of 16/18 were members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  Hillary Clinton was the Obama administration’s point-person in working with the OIC.  Of course it will come as no surprise that the real thrust of 16/18 is preventing criticism of Islam or Muhammad.  Obama himself said that the future must not belong to those “who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

In fact, 16/18’s original text simply said that it forbade “Defamation of Islam,” and made no mention of defending any other faith.  Following the adoption of the resolution by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, who expanded it to other faiths as well, there was an intense push by the OIC nations to include “Islamophobia” as especially forbidden.  The focus on Islam expanded throughout the period of the resolution’s negotiation.

The UN’s Secretary General went so far as to say that the freedom of speech and expression did not extend to “insulting others.”  He said this in 2012, after the high profile murders of cartoonists critical of Muhammed.   He later claimed that 16/18 limited freedom of speech, which he called a “twisted negative logic,” a logic belonging only to the West and hostile to Islam.

It is an open question whether UN Resolution 16/18 endorses anti-blasphemy laws, but the OIC nations clearly believe that it does.  The fact that Secretary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.


Mark Christian Moment: Hillary’s Islamization of America. Mark discussed Hillary’s Islamization of America, focusing on Huma Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood and other threatening connections.

Also see:

Erik Prince: Clinton’s ‘Foreign Policy Record Is a Disaster,’ Trump Is ‘Willing to Take a Different Direction’

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 8, 2016:

Retired Navy SEAL and former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince thought it was “shocking indeed that Matt Lauer asked any question that wasn’t pre-scripted from the Clinton team” during Wednesday night’s national security forum.

“I think perhaps the lies, the distortions have reached a tipping point, that the rest of the media is saying, we can’t be this dishonest all the time on these matters, we have to do something right,” Prince told Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM.

He thought Trump was stronger on content during the forum, because “Hillary doesn’t have anything to be strong on, content-wise.”

“Her foreign policy record is a disaster, whether it’s being part of pulling out of Iraq, basically when the war had been won and the country had been stabilized, all that blood and treasure and effort, literally thrown down the drain by the Obama Administration,” Prince said.

“And then her leading a cavalry charge into Libya, to cause what was a cooperating state on counter-terrorism, they’d given up their nuclear weapons, and she turned it into an Islamic fascist kinda hell-hole that is still melting down – a transit point for millions of refugees a year, thousands of which drowned, people being beheaded, Coptic Christians being murdered, the list of terribles. So she has no record to go on,” he pronounced.

Prince agreed with a caller that Trump could do more with Hillary Clinton’s sale of American uranium reserves to Russia, calling the story “an under-explored question, certainly by the mainstream media.”

Clinton Cash does an excellent job of covering it. Unfortunately, enough of America hasn’t seen it yet,” he said. “To elaborate, due to a significant donation into the Clinton Foundation, the State Department ended up approving the sale of a company that owns 20% of the uranium in the United States, certainly a strategic fuel stock for us here, for nuclear energy production, and of course for nuclear weapons, if necessary. It’s now in the hands of a Russian state enterprise.”

Marlow asked for Prince’s take on Donald Trump’s often-repeated call for “taking the oil” after an operation such as the Iraq War. During the Wednesday night forum, Trump more specifically called for seizing oil production before the Islamic State could take it.

“The caliphate, ISIS, operates with legitimacy in their minds because they control land,” Prince noted. “That land they control holds oil. They sell that oil, they sell it off – oddly enough, by truck, to Erdogan’s son, the ruler of Turkey, so that even the Erdogan family is in on the criminal enterprise of it all. But when he says ‘take the oil,’ if friendly forces occupy that territory, that oil is no longer available to the enemy for sale.”

He said that holding land even allows ISIS to run its own science programs, since they have “taken over the University of Mosul, their science department, and they are using it as a weapons lab for doing research on weapons that will evade detection in the West.”

“You have to take away any legitimacy that the caliphate has by owning or controlling land. They cannot have a state,” he urged. “Doing so will cut off a major part of their money supply. They would still get money, like al-Qaeda does, via some high-net-worth radical Islamist donors, and there’s other ways to deal with that, but you have to take away the legitimacy of the caliphate, by denying them sanctuary anywhere. That’s going to take them from conventional-sized units that can go from battalions, up to even brigade size, thousands of people, down to at least operating at no more than two- to four-man terror cells.”

“It was interesting in the forum last night, Hillary saying ‘I will never use U.S. ground troops,’ and she’s going to try to phone it in from the air – clearly a strategy that hasn’t been working for the last two and a half years, because ISIS is still very active, and still ever as deadly,” Prince said.

“Whether you use U.S. ground forces, whether you use local Arab forces, or whether you use contracted forces, it’s not that difficult to assemble a force – a few thousand people, we’re not talking tens of thousands. If you give it to the conventional military, they will insist on tens of thousands, just because they move with a much, much larger logistics footprint,” he said. “If you think about, what was the most effective response the U.S. has had to terrorism, I would say it was the first 12 months after 9/11, where you had a few case officers, a handful of special operations officers, supported by capable air and agency air, and it literally turned the Taliban back in a matter of weeks.”

“The U.S. military’s war plan, going back to 9/11, was basically bombs, missile raid, and a ranger raid for the first six months. They didn’t want to put any significant boots on the ground until the following April, of 2002, and this is while their headquarters, the Pentagon, was still smoking under attack,” Prince recalled. “A light, unconventional, again contracted or indigenous force, ought to roll up and destroy any conventional pockets of ISIS, in the entire Iraq/Syria theater.”

“You have to negotiate a deal with what Syria looks like, post-ISIS, with Putin,” he continued. “You know, the Alawites, the Assad family are from the Alawite tribe, that’s a Shia minority. He can’t leave, because if he does, the Alawites will be slaughtered. A Shia minority being in charge in Syria is almost like the untouchables running India – it just doesn’t happen. So it’s been that way for 40 years, and you have to separate them, because those two are in a blood feud, and unless they have a very clear boundary, they’re going to continue to fight.”

“You have to basically have the Russians and Assad be willing to shrink the footprint of what Assad’s going to run, and I would take eastern Syria, western Iraq, and put it into a greater Sunni country, call it Sunnistan,” he proposed. “Give the Kurds, who have been our most steadfast allies, fighting against Daesh and radicalism there, give them their own homeland. With that, you could actually have a homeland for Christians, because Christianity’s been in the Middle East for longer than Islam, for the past 2,000 years. And they have largely been run out of Dodge by continued attacks and violence.”

On the matter of giving Christians a homeland, Prince said there will be a conference called “In Defense of Christians” in Washington this very weekend.

He talked about how the maps of modern Iraq and Syria were drawn by the Sykes-Picot treaty in 1916, and that old world has “gone away.” He advised drawing a new map along “tribal and religious lines,” and then allowing good borders to make good neighbors.

Prince said the persecution of Christians draws relatively little media coverage in the United States because “when you have very few people who believe anymore here, who are in those positions of writing, it’s easy for them to ignore.”

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Christians find themselves in a “war of tribal extinction, where you have ISIS rolling into a village, lining everyone up, and asking them what they believe. You’ve even seen other cases of that in Somalia, or Nigeria, or wherever, where radical Islamist terrorists are lining up people and murdering them, if they can’t recite lines from the Koran.”

Prince predicted Trump would “have his hands full” if he became Commander-in-Chief.

“He’s gonna have a military bureaucracy that needs massive reform,” he said. “When you throw hundreds of billions of dollars onto an organization, year after year after year, it creates a lot of bad habits, it creates a lot of fat. It makes for a very heavy triathlete that’s going to have a hard time bobbing, and moving, and flexing, and moving quickly to fight non-state actors.”

Prince said of Hillary Clinton’s position, “There’s no there there.”

“To announce that you’re never going to use ground troops is wrong. It means basically to ISIS saying, yes, we can sit back and tear away at these Americans, because they’re afraid to commit their people to come and get us,” he said. “Her position is untenable. It’s just saying well, we’re going to get our Arab allies to do more.”

“There’s no there there,” he repeated. “You’re not going to trust the Turks. The Turks’ main interest is in destroying the Kurds. Remember, Turkey was a major transit point – and still is – for ISIS fighters and weapons, et cetera. It’s a mess that someone’s going to have to go clean out.”

“You’re not going to get Saudi Arabia to send troops,” he continued. “They’re being destroyed left, right, and center along their southern border in Yemen. Jordan is pretty much tapped out. And so there’s not a lot of other real military capability in the Middle East.”

He recalled the CIA’s use of indigenous forces after 9/11, “led by CIA officers, supported by American air power,” and suggested Trump tap the same kind of intelligence teams to conduct a similar strategy against the Islamic State on the ground, combining “cash, authority, and a real will to fight.”

“DOD can support that, but it must be an Agency-led effort,” Prince specified. “If I were in the Trump Administration, I would say that the Pentagon does not have a leading role to play, battling non-state actors. It should be an intelligence function. The Pentagon, as Mr. Trump laid out, needs to beef up its conventional military capabilities, which have been eroded and chewed up, trying to fight basically guys with pickup trucks, with our first-rate, very expensive military equipment.”

Instead, he advised using “other guys in pickup trucks” to combat these non-state irregular forces, adding “a few elements of technology to give your side the advantage.”

“You focus on going cheap,” Prince said. “This is the Long War. This is not an invasion of Grenada that’s going to be done in five days. This is a long, drawn-out, long and slow-burning fight, and you have to provision and plan to fight the enemy, to be able to outlastthem. When the Pentagon gets involved, and you start rolling blocks of 10,000 people in, it comes at an enormous cost. That’s why we’re still spending $44 billion a year in Afghanistan, and right now the Taliban controls more land in Afghanistan then they did on 9/11, 15 years ago.”

“To go at this the same way it’s been done is the definition of insanity, because we keep going around and around in circles,” he said of Hillary Clinton’s counter-terrorist agenda. “Again, the most effective time the U.S. had against terrorism was about the first year, post-9/11, and the more the Pentagon got involved, and the more battalions of lawyers and bureaucrats got involved, everything slowed down, and all progress stopped.”

In response to a caller who had military experience in Iraq, Prince talked about the restrictive rules of engagement and burdensome force-protection policies imposed on U.S. troops, pronouncing them too cumbersome for dealing with a vicious irregular enemy.

He cited legendary military theorist Carl von Clausewitz’s idea that military courage comes in two forms: the individual courage of the soldier, which the U.S. has a “surplus” of, thanks to our “fantastic soldiers, NCOs, and junior officers.”

“The other kind of courage it takes are senior leaders that are willing to commit their people to action, with an uncertain outcome,” he said. “I think that’s what we’ve suffered from. We’ve built up this massive barrier mentality when we’re trying to engage with the enemy, and it prevents effective action.”

For example, he said that “if you’re fighting in Afghanistan, you have to call a U.S. lawyer sitting in an air-conditioned office in Qatar, at some U.S. Air Force base, to get permission to drop a bomb.”

“That’s wrong. That is a non-serious way to fight a war,” he declared.

“To me, that’s disqualifying for Hillary, because that’s what she would default to,” Prince said. “I think Mr. Trump is willing to take a different direction. He’s listening to some different voices on this, and who knows what that would look like, but I have way more confidence in Mr. Trump doing the right thing than Hillary.”



Also see:

Serving Muslim Interests With American Foreign Policy


Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Sept. 2, 2016:

A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely continue along the pro-Islamist foreign policy arc that both her husband’s administration and the Obama administration have developed.

President Bill Clinton committed U.S. military resources to help Muslims during the so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Bosnia. However, he chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide that swamped Rwanda during his administration. As G. Murphy Donovan wrote in his American Thinker article “How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt,” “Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.” Noting that “it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia,” Donovan added, “Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.” Nevertheless, with no strategic U.S. national interest at stake, Bill Clinton tilted American foreign policy in favor of the Muslim side in the Bosnia conflict. We are now reaping the lethal consequences of that tilt. Donovan points out in his article that, on a per capita basis, Bosnia Herzegovina is the leading source of ISIS volunteers in all of Europe.

President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took the side of Islamist “rebels” against the secular authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria that had managed to keep the lid on jihadist terrorism for many years. These Islamists included members of al Qaeda as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Libya, Hillary Clinton was the leading voice pressing for military intervention against Col. Muammar el- Qaddafi’s regime. She did so, even though, according to sources cited in a State Department memo passed on to Hillary by her deputy at the time, Jake Sullivan, in an e-mail dated April 1, 2011, “we just don’t know enough about the make-up or leadership of the rebel forces.”  In fact, as subsequently reported by the New York Times, the only organized opposition to the Qaddafi regime that had developed underground during Qaddafi’s rule were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist group, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The author of the State Department memo had acknowledged the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s terrorist past but said they “express a newfound keenness for peaceful politics.” Was Hillary Clinton relying on such assurances of a reformed “peaceful” Islamic group fighting against Qaddafi, even though it had been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 2004 and one of its leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi,  praised al Qaeda members as “good Muslims” in a March 2011 interview?  If so, that is just another indication of her bad judgment.

As for Egypt, Hillary was informed by her outside adviser and confidante Sid Blumenthal, in an e-mail dated December 16, 2011, that the Muslim Brotherhood’s intention was to create an Islamic state. Moreover, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other radical groups was “complicated,” Blumenthal quoted a source “with access to the highest levels of the MB” as saying. Blumenthal also reported, based on a confidential source, that Mohamed Morsi, who was then leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, believed that “it will be difficult for this new, Islamic government to control the rise of al Qa’ida and other radical/terrorist groups.”

Nevertheless, the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood in its bid to seek power in Egypt through a shaky electoral process. After Morsi’s election to the presidency, Hillary visited Egypt where Morsi warmly welcomed her and she expressed strong support for Egypt’s “democratic transition.” However, the only real transition Morsi had in mind was to impose sharia law on the Egyptian people, the very antithesis of true democratic pluralism. Yet the Obama–Clinton gravy train of military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist regime continued without any preconditions. Hillary Clinton herself and her State Department referred to the importance of the U.S.’s “partnership” with the Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.

When Morsi was removed from power, after millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets to protest the increasingly theocratic regime, the Obama administration decided to suspend aid to the more secular successor military regime. The “partnership” was no more once the Islamists were swept out of office.

While Morsi was still president, the Clinton Foundation, which has taken millions of dollars in donations from Muslim majority governments and affiliated groups and individuals, invited Morsi to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative. This invitation was extended just a month after an individual named Gehad el-Haddad, who was working simultaneously for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clinton Foundation in Cairo, left his Clinton Foundation job to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood full time. Fortunes changed for this individual, however, when, after Morsi was overthrown, Haddad was arrested for inciting violence and given a life sentence.

The Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, also cooperated with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to pass and implement a United Nations resolution that was intended to curb speech considered Islamophobic. Clinton, in full spin mode, insisted that the new UN resolution was totally consistent with the free speech protections of the First Amendment, as opposed to the “defamation of religions” resolutions that the OIC had sponsored in the past but was willing to have replaced. The truth, however, is that all we were seeing was old wine in new bottles. To make sure that the OIC was comfortable regarding the Obama administration’s intentions, Clinton assured the OIC that she was perfectly on board with using “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.” She was trying to publicly assure American citizens that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were safe, while working behind the scenes with her OIC partners to find acceptable ways to stifle speech offensive to Muslims.

The signs of Hillary Clinton’s Islamist tilt as she runs for president include the sweepingly general and demonstrably false assertion in her tweet last November that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  She has obviously learned nothing from her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. Neither is she willing to acknowledge that the terrorists whom she has called a “determined enemy” are jihadists animated by an ideology rooted in core Muslim teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and actions).  Is there something about the word “Muslim” in the Muslim Brotherhood and “Islamic” in the Islamic State that she is having problems understanding?

Perhaps, it is Hillary’s close association with Huma Abedin, her top campaign aide and confidante, who has had questionable links to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, which explains Hillary’s denial of the truth. If someone as close to Hillary as Huma Abedin, whom she apparently trusts with her life, is a Muslim, then how could any Muslim possibly have anything to do with terrorism?

Then again, perhaps Hillary’s willingness to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt is all the money that the Clintons have received over the years from foreign donors in Muslim majority countries, including the Saudi government and affiliated groups and individuals. Hillary Clinton has also reached out for campaign donations from a pro-Iranian lobby group, the National Iranian American Council. Whatever human rights abuses are inflicted on people in these countries, it would be counterproductive to bite the hand that feeds you, in the Clintons’ way of thinking.

Finally, the Democratic Party itself has moved much further to the Left since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, which has led to the broadening out of the pro-Islamist bias that began to take shape with Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia. As David Horowitz wrote in a January 8, 2016 article published by National Review:

“Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamist propaganda campaign to represent Muslims — whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion — as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamist terror and proponents of security measures as ‘Islamophobes’ and bigots. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamist assault on free speech, which is a central component of the Islamist campaign to create a worldwide religious theocracy.”

For a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton as president can be expected to move the United States towards an even more accommodative stance than her predecessors with Islamists who mean to do us harm.

Hillary First Broached Saudi Visa Deal During Visit to Huma Abedin’s Mom’s Saudi Madrassa


The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudis soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure, hitting a record 108,578 per year in 2013.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 31, 2016:

Earlier this month, broke the story that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in cutting a special deal with the Saudi government to reverse post-9/11 restrictions on Saudi visas, triggering an unprecedented explosion in Saudi students entering the US. CJ has since learned that the seeds of this major change in immigration policy — one with serious national security implications — were planted during a 2010 visit by Clinton to a Saudi college founded by her top aide’s radical Muslim mother — a college that turns out to have direct ties to terrorists.

Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin arranged the trip to the radical Saudi school, overruling concerns by diplomatic security, in what was yet another example of Abedin, a self-described “devout Muslim” whose family has direct ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, playing an outsize role in influencing US policy when it comes to the Middle East and Muslim empowerment.

The policy reversal appears to have had its roots in a speech Clinton gave at the Dar al-Hekma girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Abedin, whose mother, Saleha Abedin, helped found the school and currently serves as its dean. Abedin also runs the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which seeks to boost Muslim immigration rates in the the U.S. and other Western countries, while also propagating Sharia law in those nations.

“You know that after 9/11, the United States closed its borders to students from around the world, and the number of Saudi students studying in our country fell dramatically,” Clinton lamented in her talk before the elder Abedin and her students. “Well, I am very pleased that we are now back to the levels that we had before 9/11.”

“But I am not satisfied,” Clinton quickly added. “I would like to see more exchanges, and more of them being two-way exchanges, where American students and American faculty come here, to Saudi Arabia, as well as going from here to there.”

Clinton delivered on her promise, big-time.

Despite evidence Saudi terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping broker a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

All told, the Obama administration has opened the floodgates to more than 709,000 Saudi nationals, most of whom applied for student or business visas, records show.

It’s as if 9/11 never happened and 15 Saudi terrorists never infiltrated the country on rubber-stamped visas. The surge represents a major shift from changes in immigration policy made in the wake of 9/11, when the number of visas issued to Saudi Arabians plummeted 69.7%. In fiscal 2002, Saudi visas slowed to a relative trickle of just 14,126.

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances, Saudi Arabia, FY1997-2014

Saudi immigration was tightened after it was revealed that the State Department’s Visa Express program benefited some of the Saudi hijackers on 9/11. Less known is that two other al-Qaida-tied Saudi nationals visiting America on student visas also took advantage of the lax policy. It turns out that, according to the recently released 29 pages detailing Saudi involvement in 9/11, these other young Saudi men made a “dry run” to test airline security ahead of the 9/11 hijackings.

Dar al-Hekma, which is Arabic for House of Infinite Islamic Wisdom, was co-founded and funded by a federal designated terrorist — Yaseen Kadi — and by key Saudi bankers named as defendants in the 9/11 lawsuit, as well as members of the bin Laden family, according to a list of “establishers” and “trustees” the school published on its website after it first opened in 1999.

It turns out that the burka-clad girls who gathered at the Saudi women’s college to hear Clinton speak heckled her in Arabic, as Huma and her mother stood by, according to accounts reported at the time in the Arabic press.

Also see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s not all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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