UTT Throwback Thursday: Jihadis, CVE, and Congressman McCaul

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, November 17, 2016:

The Countering Violent Extremism or CVE is a program created in Britain by the Muslim Brotherhood.

cve

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic jihadi organization whose stated goals in their by-laws are to “Fight the tyrants and enemies of Allah” in order to establish an Islamic State under sharia (Islamic Law).  In North America they do this by waging “Civilization Jihad” by OUR hands to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

CVE is a hostile information campaign and a double-agent program brought from Britain to the United States by FBI and DHS leadership approximately 10 years ago.

CVE’s purpose is to ensure Muslim Brotherhood leaders are exclusively used by the U.S. government as the liaison for all matters pertaining to Islam and terrorism so the MB controls the narrative in this war.

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Mike McCaul of Texas, is dutifully fulfilling his obligation to do the Muslim Brotherhood’s bidding and leading the charge to “combat violent extremism.”

Mr. McCaul ensured funding for CVE and pushed to create the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the Department of Homeland Security.

But what is violent extremism?  How often do “terrorists” claim they do what they do in the name of “violent extremism?”

Never.

We face an enemy that exclusively states they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish and Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic Law).

So long as our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies chase “violent extremists” they will chase U.S. military veterans, white supremacists, and all other sorts of people – but not Muslims committing jihad.

cve2

Exactly the intent of our enemy, and exactly the focus of DHS efforts.

As a matter of fact, the former Program Manager for the Department of Defense’s Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section, Richard Higgins, stated on national radio in June 2016:   “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

CVE is one of the major tools our enemy is using to get and keep our national security apparatus in such a state of strategic incoherence and Congressman McCaul is its biggest cheerleader.

It is also instructive that Mike McCaul has demonstrated an inability to determine friend from foe when it comes to basic terrorist groups like Hamas.  Calling the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) a “moderate” Islamic organization even though evidence and facts reveal CAIR is Hamas, is dangerous and unprofessional when you are the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Photo signed by Congressman Mike McCaul for Hamas leader Mustafa Carroll reads:  “To Mustafa at the Council on American Islamic Relations, The Moderate Muslim is our most effective Weapon. Michael McCaul, TX-10”

Photo signed by Congressman Mike McCaul for Hamas leader Mustafa Carroll reads: “To Mustafa at the Council on American Islamic Relations, The Moderate Muslim is our most effective Weapon. Michael McCaul, TX-10”

When a leader like the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee legitimizes a terrorist (Hamas leader) like Mustafa Carroll – leader of Hamas in Texas – that leader (McCaul) demonstrates his utter incompetence in this war.

Thanks Congressman McCaul.  We can add your name to the growing list of U.S. government officials batting for the other team – whether you understand it or not.

Report: Frank Gaffney, 2 Others Replace Mike Rogers on Trump Transition Team

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Update: Gaffney – I just got the Bannon Treatment myself after someone falsely claimed that I had been appointed to the Trump transition team.

NewsmaxBy Todd Beamon, November 15, 2016:

Former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who was dismissed Tuesday from President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, was replaced by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, according to news reports.

Gaffney, 63, who is a Newsmax contributor, established the nonprofit Center for Security Policy in Washington in 1988. His naming to the Trump team was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Under President Ronald Reagan, Gaffney served in the Defense Department as assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy.

He also was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

Rogers, former House Intelligence Committee chairman, was being considered for CIA director, the Journal reported.

He was among several transition team members brought aboard by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was ousted Sunday over the Bridge-gate scandal.

Others replacing Rogers were California Rep. Devin Nunes and former Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, according to the report.

In response to news of Gaffney’s appointment, Brookings Institution fellow Tom Wright posted this on Twitter:

***

And Clare Lopez is being considered for Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor.

Words cannot express how happy I am to see this so I’ll just leave this here:

The next great battle for conservatives: Keeping RINO insiders out of the administration

trump-with-christy-flags

Conservative Review, by Daniel  Horowitz, November 13, 2016″

It’s no secret that Donald Trump is as much of a blank slate on policy as anyone who’s ever been elected president. Both supporters and opponents of the president-elect agree that Trump is still very malleable on many issues and has a lot to learn about both foreign and domestic policy. This is why it is critical for conservatives to win the ‘battle of personnel’ in the coming days. Failure to land conservative outsiders in key cabinet and advisory roles would be akin to failing to establish control of the beach head during the Normandy invasion. We can dream of our policy battles once we get a footing on land, but if the same RINO insiders who broke the system are allowed to control the administration, we will immediately fall back in the sea, rendering the entire election moot.

While many conservatives were and remain apprehensive about Trump’s commitment to conservative values on some issues, the appeal most saw in him was a figure who would bulldoze the failed elites and rid the system of its barnacles. This sentiment was perhaps epitomized during the debates when Hillary Clinton would proudly tout her decades of experience. Trump simply retorted, “Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience.” It gets back to Bill Buckley’s old adage – “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” Nowhere is this more evident than with foreign policy, national security, and immigration. Almost everyone with experience in these fields within government has been on the wrong side of these issues and harbor views so divorced from reality that even random names in a telephone book would make better decisions. Yet, these same failed insiders are now gravitating to the transition team like a fly on stink and are looking for jobs.

The first challenge is to appoint a chief of staff who is not only resolute and organized but who shares the vision of the movement Trump has led. A good first start is to reject calls from establishment figures to name RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to this top advisory role.

Additionally, failure to keep the following people out of the administration would tarnish the entire appeal of a Trump presidency:

Chris Christie – potential pick for Attorney General

Just take a look at CR’s issue profile of Chris Christie and it will become clear that this man has been pushing liberal views on fiscal, social, and foreign policies for years. He was rabidly pro-amnesty before he latched himself onto Trump. The notion that someone with his principles and mindset would clean out the Justice Department is a fantasy. The notion that a man who appointed liberal judges as governor would fight legal battles against the rainbow jihad is an exercise in pink unicorns. Christie would be better suited at the Department of Transportation where he can manage traffic on the bridges.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) – potential pick for DHS Secretary

There is no doubt that the issues of immigration and Islamic terror are the two biggest factors in Trump’s win. This is why it’s so important to keep McCaul away from DHS. As we’ve chronicled in this column, McCaul has done nothing to fight the open borders crowd, and in fact, proposed terrible immigration bills as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the exact sort of “bad experience” the voters want Trump to reject.

More importantly, McCaul has been a leader in the promotion of “Countering Violent Extremism,” which is subversion agenda advanced by North American Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to obfuscate any mention of Islamic terrorism. This is the very willful blindness that Americans so desperately wanted to change with the outcome of this election. Appointing McCaul to head Homeland Security would continue to empower groups like CAIR at a time when they must be banned from government. McCaul famously wrote a note to a top CAIR official suggesting that his organization is moderate and an effective weapon against terrorists.

Ambassador to Saudi Arabia would probably be a more appropriate position for Mr. McCaul.

Bob Corker – Secretary of State

There is no better example of elevating the arsonist to firefighter than the prospect of appointing Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) to head the State Department. Even in past Republican administrations, the State Department has served as a fifth column promoting the ‘America last’ agenda. This is why it is even more critical to place someone with an outsider’s mindset in the office of Secretary of State more than any other position. Bob Corker is the worst possible choice.

Corker is every bit as responsible for the Iran deal as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. His views on foreign policy in general reflect the very inside-the-beltway mentality that must change with a new administration.

As I chronicled in my dossier on Corker back when he was being considered for Vice President, the Tennessee senator has sandbagged us on amnesty, taxes, Dodd-Frank, and the START treaty – just to name a few issues. Appointing Corker to any position of prominence, much less Secretary of State, would undermine Trump’s entire movement and reflect an exercise in making the establishment elites great again.

But maybe if Trump appoints him to a cushy ambassadorship, it could free up his Senate seat for conservatives …

Mike Rogers – National Security

Former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) is heading up the part of the transition team responsible for national security. He is rumored to be in the running for CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence. If there was ever a politician who emblematized the disease of “Washington insiderism” and represents the failure of Republicans to hold Obama accountable for his perfidious foreign policy, it’s Mike Rogers.

As Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rogers put out such a weak report on the Benghazi scandal that it was tantamount to a cover-up. As Trey Gowdy said at the time, Rogers didn’t even interview eye witnesses before he issued his report. In May 2014, ace national security report, Eli Lake, reported that Rogers downright opposed the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee and seemed to be defending the Obama administration.

Why was he siding with Obama?

While we might never get the full story, the details that are out in public should automatically disqualify Rogers to serve in the administration. In June 2014, Judicial Watch reported that Rogers’ wife, Kristi, who was a top executive at the British-based security contractor Aegis Defense Services, helped win major security contracts for her group. “Libya also was an area of activity for Aegis, Ms. Rogers’ company. As Rep. Rogers assumed control of the Intelligence Committee, an Aegis subsidiary, Aegis Advisory, began setting up shop in Libya,” wrote Micha Morrison of Judicial Watch.

Read the full report from Judicial Watch, which raises serious questions about a conflict of interest in Libya.

Rogers bizarrely announced his retirement and said he planned to pursue a career in radio, a move that shocked a lot of people in Washington. Yet, now he is groveling for a position in the new administration. What happened to his radio career?

If people around Trump plan to elevate a man like Mike Rogers to a top national security or intel post, they as may as well replace him with Huma Abedin.

In summary …

The key for Trump is to avoid the mistakes of the past and to NOT automatically rely on insiders. Everyone expects Trump to look outside the box for Cabinet positions. That is in fact his mandate. There are plenty of smart, qualified conservatives who have not been infected by the elitist Kool Aide and the corruption of Washington. And if he is ever short on staffing options, he should remember Bill Buckley’s advice and pull out a telephone book before he taps the very people that have endangered our national security.

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

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, November 9, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Unsolicited Advice for the Trump Transition Team on National Security Intelligence

1a7402498eea3c754ba7b3d8c2909c34-sized-770x415xbPJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 10, 2016:

It was encouraging Wednesday to hear that President Obama intends to emulate President Bush, who generously provided Obama with a highly informative and smooth transition process.

Running the executive branch is a daunting task, so there is no aspect of the transition to a new administration that is unimportant. But obviously, the most crucial focus for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is heading up President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, must be national security.

That transition is going to be more complicated than it should be, but there are things Gov. Christie can do – better to say, people he ought to consult — to make sure his team is getting accurate information.

The Bush National Security Council was very good about putting together briefing books so their successors could hit the ground running. The problem now, however, is the trustworthiness of what is in those books.

As PJ Media has reported, a highly disturbing report by a congressional task force this summer found that the Obama administration had politicized its intelligence product.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), who has been stellar on national security issues and was among the leaders of the task force (comprised of the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees), put it this way when the report was issued:

After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States Central Command’s most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command’s intelligence products to downplay the threat from ISIS in Iraq.The result: consumers of those intelligence products were provided a consistently “rosy” view of U.S. operational success against ISIS. That may well have resulted in putting American troops at risk as policymakers relied on this intelligence when formulating policy and allocating resources for the fight.

The intelligence manipulation became a controversy in 2015, when 50 intelligence-community whistleblowers complained that their reports on the Islamic State and al-Qaeda terror networks were being altered.

The manipulation, driven by Obama’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and carried out in the Defense Department by senior Central Command (CENTCOM) officers, aimed to downplay the jihadist threat.

This is a reckless practice I have written about several times over the last eight years (see, e.g., here). The Obama administration has made a concerted effort to miniaturize the terrorist threat in order to project a mirage of policy success.

Intelligence has routinely been distorted — portraying the networks as atomized, largely detached cells that are not unified by any overarching ideology — in an attempt to make them appear smaller and less threatening. Basically, a nuisance to be managed rather than an enemy to be defeated.

Even when the terrorists are on the march, the administration claims they are in retreat. Indeed, less than 24 hours after four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists in the 2012 siege of Benghazi, President Obama stated this in a political fundraising speech:

A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.

Intel manipulation ran rampant after Obama fired Marine General James Mattis, CENTCOM’s commander, in 2013. General Mattis had the irksome habits of demanding clear-eyed assessments of America’s enemies and forcing administration policymakers to confront the potential consequences of their ludicrously optimistic assumptions, particularly regarding Iran’s behavior. Obama officials replaced him with Army General Lloyd Austin.

Meanwhile, it was made clear to the Pentagon that because the president made campaign commitments to end the U.S. mission in Iraq, he did not want to hear information contradictory to his narrative that withdrawing our forces was the right thing to do. After retiring, Army General Anthony Tata confirmed that an ODNI official instructed the Defense Department not to put in writing assessments that portrayed al-Qaeda and ISIS as fortified and threatening.

The result, of course, was that the president was told what wanted to hear.

This eventually led to Obama’s infamous assertion that ISIS was merely a “JV” terrorist team. Naturally, when the JV team rampaging through Iraq and Syria rendered that judgment embarrassing, the White House shifted the blame to General Austin, pushing him out the CENTCOM door.

The administration has done more to sculpt the narrative than quell the enemy. So Gov. Christie and his team will need to regard with skepticism any briefing books Obama’s transition coordinators supply.

Of course, Team Trump already has a tremendous resource to rely on: retired Army General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (and the author, along with PJ Media columnist Michael Ledeen, of The Field of Fight, which pleads for a desperately needed strategy for fighting the global war against jihadists and their allies). Like General Mattis, General Flynn (in 2014) was pushed out of his job because he rejected the politicization of our intelligence product for purposes of low-balling the terrorist threat. He knows his stuff, knows what we are up against, and will be a major asset not only to the transition, but to the Trump administration.

I would also respectfully suggest that Gov. Christie consult with General Mattisand General Jack Keane: smart, experienced former commanders who have given a great deal of thought to, and sound advice to Congress regarding, the current administration’s strategic and intelligence voids.

In understanding global jihadist networks — who the players are, how the organizations collude and compete — Tom Joscelyn, editor of The Long War Journal, is the best expert in the United States, bar none. While his value would be limitless, Tom is especially knowledgeable about the jihadists released from Guantanamo Bay, many of whom have gone back to the jihad.

Yet again, this is a context in which briefings from the Obama administration would be suspect. The president adheres to another narrative driven by foolish campaign promises, namely: the cost of Gitmo as a “recruiting tool” for the enemy outweighs the benefit of detaining committed, capable, anti-American jihadists. To justify both this absurd premise and the release of the terrorists, the administration watered down intelligence that supported holding the terrorists as enemy combatants who posed continuing danger to the United States.

The new administration needs accurate information for purposes of grasping the threat and formulating sound detention policy.

Finally, it is vital to understand “Countering Violent Extremism,” the Obama administration’s strategic guidance — their playbook for military, intelligence, and law-enforcement officials on how to approach and respond to terrorism. CVE is where the dereliction that I have labeled “willful blindness” has devolved into compulsory blindness.

Under CVE guidelines, the fact that Islamic-supremacist ideology spurs the jihadist threat and knits together terrorists and their sponsors is no longer just consciously avoided; taking notice of it is verboten.

The most thoroughgoing critique of this lunacy is Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its author is Stephen Coughlin, a trained military intelligence officer and an attorney who has made a point of learning how Islamic law principles inform the goals and tactics of our enemies. Steve is extraordinarily informed about the administration’s wayward assumptions. If the Trump transition team wants to check the premises on which their work is based, he’s the guy.

Let’s welcome President Obama’s assurances of a seamless transition to the Trump administration. But my best unsolicited advice to Gov. Christie: When it comes to briefing books, don’t believe everything you read.

The Question for Tuesday

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

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

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

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

THE THREATS TO AMERICA

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

But ISIS is not the only problem. 

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

THE CANDIDATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sebastian Gorka, PhD

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

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

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

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

Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

Gorka on Clinton Foundation and Pay for Play: Let the Peasants Obey the Rules!

screen-shot-2016-10-27-at-3-07-49-pm-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 27, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined Trish Regan on Fox News’ The Intelligence Report to discuss the latest WikiLeaks revelations about the Clinton Foundation.

Asked why Hillary Clinton didn’t shut the controversial Foundation down when she began running for President, Gorka replied, “It’s simply a case of ‘the rules don’t apply to us. Let the peasants obey the rules that apply to everybody else. But if you work in the Clinton State Department, if you work for the Clinton Foundation, you’re above all of that.’”

“The government email is clunky!” he imagined Clinton complaining about the system she was supposed to be using. “So who cares if we’re talking about sensitive issues? This isn’t about the national security of America. It’s not about the State Department. It’s about the Clinton corporation. What we have here is, in effect, political corruption at an institutional level.”

Regan asked how Hillary Clinton’s apparent inability to recognize that her email server was a problem reflected on her “ability to lead our country.”

“Look, you’re always going to have – powerful people to a certain extent always have a certain bubble around them, a lot of yes men, a lot of yes women. But this is beyond that,” Gorka replied.

“Let’s just look at one issue. Clinton Cash has given us scores of issues. Let’s look at one issue: Uranium is a strategic national asset. Why? Because you make nuclear bombs out of it. When she was Secretary of State, we now know she had sign off on the sale of twenty percent of our uranium as a nation, to Russian companies that were linked directly to the Kremlin. She signs off on that. That’s her husband, through the Foundation, is getting $140 million from the same companies. This is money laundering in the political world. This is pay-for-play at the hundreds of millions of dollars level,” he said.

As for why the mainstream media’s coverage of such a remarkable scandal has been so limited, Gorka humorously suggested that “every time they dump 30,000 emails, you have to work. There are some journalists that don’t want to work too hard.”

“I think it’s a bit more than lazy journalists,” he added more seriously. “It is about the Establishment. Except for places like Fox and Breitbart, these people are rooting – look at the donations from media to Hillary. Ninety percent of journalists donating to a political campaign donate to the DNC.”

BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

huma-abedin-hillarys-other-daughter-clinton-02

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 clintonemail.com 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 (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was huma@clintonemail.com, 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 state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com 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.

John Guandolo: Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Speech’ Prosecutions in Europe Portend the ‘Destruction of Liberty in the West’

Matt Cardy/Getty

Matt Cardy/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 26, 2016:

Former FBI agent and counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo, founder of UnderstandingTheThreat.com, joined Breitbart News Dailyon SiriusXM Wednesday to talk about the cultural impact of mass immigration from Middle Eastern conflict zones into Europe.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow began the discussion with a story from Austria about an Iraqi asylum-seeker who confessed to raping a ten-year-old boy, but saw his rape conviction overturned because he said he was dealing with a “sexual emergency.”

LISTEN:

“What you described, and what the individual describes in this story, what the Muslim describes, that is actually lawful under sharia,” Guandolo said, referring to the Islamic legal code.

He continued:

It’s the reason that, according to sharia, a Muslim male can have sexual relations with an animal, with a woman, with a boy, is because of exactly what he said – from the Islamic perspective legally, sexual urges are things that can be released as the Muslim man needs to. It’s literally that simple. And it’s just a part of Islam that’s not talked about because of it’s crudity, how crass and crude this discussion can turn, but the reality is, that’s something that needs to be understood by your listeners.

Marlow mentioned another headline from Austria about the editor of the country’s largest paper being charged with hate speech for an article on the assaults and property damage caused by Syrian migrants.

Guandolo said this concept of “hate speech” has already reached the United States:

You have got Hamas doing business as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. My organization, Understanding the Threat, UTT, everywhere we go, you have Hamas doing business as CAIR, literally putting a massive amount of pressure on whoever is hosting our programs – whether it’s a three-day law enforcement program, or any other program.

I mean, right now, they teach classes on, literally when I come to town, how to shut my programs down. I put out an article a couple of weeks ago, we have them on video saying when John Guandolo comes to town, this guy’s gotta be shut down, here’s what you do.

“What is that all about? It is about shutting down the free exchange of ideas, that in this particular case is, because of my FBI background, a factual presentation based in evidence on the fact that CAIR is a Hamas organization,” Guandolo maintained.

He offered a timely story drawn from his own recent experience to illustrate how hate-speech accusations can obscure certain messages, even if they cannot (yet) be censored outright in the United States.

“I’m in Oklahoma right now. Yesterday Chris Gaubatz and I testified before the Oklahoma State Judiciary Committee about the Islamic movement in the nation and specifically in Oklahoma, and the two organizations we focused on that are Muslim Brotherhood were — I mean, we focused on a lot that I laid out — but they have a mosque here called the Grand Mosque in Oklahoma City, and the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, both Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters. The Islamic Society here is a subsidiary of ISNA, which as you all know, because you’re reported it before, is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo recalled.

“But I laid out the evidence, I laid out the property records showing that it’s owned by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, laid out all kinds of stuff, their financial reportings, all that,” he continued.

“Well, the imam for that organization, who I identified as being Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood was sitting seven feet away from me, as was the director of CAIR Oklahoma, which is Hamas, and I identified them as Hamas. We laid it out. This was a three-hour interim study at the state level. We went into the next room after it was over and had a press conference, and the state legislator that invited us in brought me to the podium, and we said, ‘Are there any questions?’ There were at least fifteen people in the media. Nobody had a question,” he said.

“Soon as we were done, they flocked around the Hamas guys, and it was like ducks eating bread from a park bench. It was amazing to watch right in front of us. I literally interjected into what CAIR was saying when they were talking to me, I said, ‘This is exactly what I just testified to in there.’ They were like, ‘Hey, don’t interrupt!’ I said, ‘These men are Hamas terrorists that you’re talking to, and you just heard the evidence in the other room.’ And yet, what did they report all over Oklahoma, was that it was just ‘hateful,’ just hateful speech,” Guandolo reported.

“As we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, the media is so in the bag. What you’re describing as going on in Europe is happening right here in America, and it is the complete shutting down of the free exchange of ideas, and free speech,” he warned.

“We already have people in the West, as you just noted, in Europe who have had handcuffs put on them because of Facebook posts, and free speech on the street corner. It is the destruction of liberty in the West, and I don’t see people in Europe fighting it. I am seeing some in America fight it, but we’re in a really bad way,” he said.

Marlow asked Guandolo for his estimate of how many mosques have been radicalized in the U.S., and how many are susceptible to radicalization.

“Well, we have over three thousand now, is the best number that exist. It looks like over three thousand. The number is increasing pretty rapidly, and has over the last couple of years,” Guandolo replied.

“Of those, the percentage that UTT usually looks at is a number between 75 and 85 percent, and that’s based on three things,” he explained. “It’s based on property records, it’s based on leadership of the mosque, and it’s based on the mosque’s study – which Chris Gaubatz, who’s a part of UTT, went undercover at CAIR, and the book Muslim Mafia is written about that experience, at least in part.”

“He also took part in a mosque survey where he went around the country, he and a few others, and went into a hundred random mosques, and they looked at what was being taught, and the sharia adherence there,” Guandolo continued. “We saw that sharia adherence, strict sharia adherence and extreme sharia adherence, is in about 81 percent of mosques in the United States. And where you have a high level of sharia adherence, you have violent jihad being taught and encouraged in these places.”

He explained:

So that number 80 percent that people throw around is not just kind of something that somebody pulled out of the air. There’s been testimony on Capitol Hill. There’s evidence of the studies that we’ve done, and we know that this is a number that puts it very close to the mark. So 80 percent of 3,000 is a big number. And of course we see, across the United States, that number is very close when we look at the number of organizations that are Muslim Brotherhood that are these mosques.

So you not only have kind of an independent look at it, when you look at the Muslim Brotherhood mosques and Islamic centers in this country, that number is right about 80 percent. That’s a massive number. And so we know that if they’re Muslim Brotherhood, they’re the kind of mosques, like the one we spoke about yesterday in front of the Oklahoma Judiciary Committee, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. These are Muslim Brotherhood mosques, and they teach jihad.

In the case of that one, that’s the mosque where Alton Nolen attended, and he ended up being on top of a woman in the office space in Oklahoma, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and sawing her head off. These are the kinds of things that come out of places like that. We can tie jihadi attacks, whether it’s the Boston bombing, the San Bernardino, Orlando, the shootings in Chattanooga, the killing of Private Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas – all these attacks that we’ve seen in the United States, we can almost always tie to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic center or Islamic society.

Hillary Clinton Tops Middle East Forum’s ‘Islamist Money List’

FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images

FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari, October 21, 2016:

The Middle East Forum has released its 2015-16 “Islamist Money In Politics” list, charting the top ten recipients of contributions from Islamic organizations — and Hillary Clinton is at the top of the list.

According to the Middle East Forum, their list tracks political donations from “from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS.”

Clinton has received a total of $41,165 from individuals that the Middle East Forum describes as “prominent Islamists,” including $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates on November 15, 2014.

Republican Party candidate Donald Trump and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson took no money from Islamists, according to the report.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reportedly accepted $250, while defeated Democratic Party candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285

Other top recent recipients of money from the enemy include Rep. Keith Ellison ($17,370) and Rep. Andre Carson ($13,225). The top-ten list includes nine Democrats, one independent (Sanders), and no Republicans.

Hillary Clinton has been a fierce critic of Donald Trump’s proposal for a freeze on Muslim immigration to the United States. “We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what [Trump] has advocated without causing great distress within our country?” Clinton said earlier this month. “Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country?”

Beyond political donations, the Clinton Foundation has received millions from Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia, dominated by radical Sunni fundamentalists and ruled by Sharia law, donated up to $50 million to the Clinton Foundation, while the Emirate of Qatar has donated between $1 million and $5 million.

According to Clinton’s own State Department, Qatar’s human rights violations include “trafficking in persons … legal, institutional, and cultural discrimination against women limited their participation in society.”

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

WHY HILLARY’S NOT REALLY SORRY: FBI Files Reveal ‘Blatant Disregard’ For Classified Information

hillary-benghazi

FBI Files Show She Isn’t Really Sorry About Mishandling Classified Info — And Would Do It Again (Only Worse)

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 18, 2016:

At the last presidential debate, Hillary Clinton again apologized for setting up an unauthorized private email server in her basement, while assuring voters she has the utmost respect for classified information: “I take classified material very seriously, and always have.”

But FBI investigators who interviewed her and those assigned to protect her and the classified material that came into her orbit tell another story. They say she exhibited a blatant disregard for the classification process and security procedures in general.

Newly released FBI notes quote a member of the former secretary of state’s protective detail who complained that Clinton “frequently and blatantly disregarded” security protocols, including refusing to follow a standard rule to leave her unsecured cell phone outside secure facilities known as SCIFs. Such electronic devices pose a threat to security, because foreign intelligence agencies can take remote control of them and use them to conduct surveillance inside the SCIF.

“Clinton’s treatment of agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment,” the FBI document said.

When FBI investigators interviewed Clinton, she insisted she “never” brought her phone into the SCIF and always kept it outside.

In that July interview, agents showed her a dozen examples of classified information that turned up on her unclassified email system, which she accessed through her phone. Asked about the security breaches, Clinton in each case shrugged that she “had no concerns” about them.

For instance, agents said, “Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”

She even stated she “did not pay attention to the level of classified information.”

When her email scandal first broke last year, her campaign argued that much of the information the government deems secret is actually “overclassified.” But FBI agents interviewed career diplomats who upon seeing the classified emails she sent and received agreed they were not overclassified, but were in fact highly sensitive, particularly those concerning the US drone program and other secret military programs.

According to a recently released FBI 302 interview summary, one diplomat “stated that after seeing the above referenced documents, he now understood why people were concerned about this matter.”

The Clintons have a long history of showing reckless disregard for classified information.

As soon as the Clintons stepped into the White House in 1993, President Clinton ordered the mass declassification of America’s secret nuclear archive from 1945 to 1994 over the strenuous objections of career Pentagon officials, who protested that divulging the information would help foreign bad actors construct, steal or sabotage nuclear weapons or glean details about the capabilities of the US nuclear arsenal.

Former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney likened it to a Pearl Harbor attack on the US national security structure.

“This policy actually had the effect of turning shelves of restricted data into unclassified documents,” Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, told Investor’s Business Daily in 1999.

Staffers at the Energy Department, which controls the nation’s nuclear weapons program, were ordered to declassify materials “at such an extraordinary speed that they weren’t even able to review the boxes, let alone the files — to say nothing of the individual papers,” he added.

Clinton even had Energy’s Office of Classification renamed the Office of De-classification.

Gaffney noted that the information the Clinton administration declassified “got down to data that bear on nuclear weapons design, where nuclear materials are held and where nuclear weapons are stockpiled.”

For Chinese communist spies trying to collect such information, it “did make it easier for them,” a nuclear weapons security expert told IBD at the time. “There’s no question about it.”

Several years after the unprecedented declassification effort, the Chinese suddenly made great strides in sharpening their nuclear capability and threatening the US with ICBMs fitted with multiple warheads.

Hillary Clinton, who would carry her dangerously cavalier attitude toward classified information and U.S. security into the White House with her, would likely readopt such a declassification program. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, has already indicated that she would declassify certain military files as president and commander in chief.

Podesta served as President Clinton’s chief of staff. In 1995, he was among the White House aides who urged Clinton to sign an executive order automatically declassifying all government documents containing historical information 25 years or older.

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations

hillary-clinton-wikileaks-getty-1-640x480On ‘Special Report,’ Ed Henry takes an in-depth look into the website’s prominent role in the 2016 race

***

WikiLeaks roundup: Most damning Clinton revelations so far

***

Clinton Campaign Tried to Limit Damage From Classified Info on Email Server

 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, October 18, 2016:

Documents from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign show researchers justified leaks of top secret data on drone strikes and North Korea’s nuclear program found on her private email server by highlighting similar disclosures.

The detailed reports on the classified information found on Clinton’s private email system were produced by campaign researchers and sent to senior officials, including campaign chairman John Podesta, by opposition research director Tony Carrk on January 29.

The documents were among thousands of hacked emails obtained from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted last week on Wikileaks. The U.S. intelligence community has accused Russia of orchestrating the hack in order to influence the U.S. presidential election.

The documents were part of what Carrk, the campaign’s research director, called “pushback on classification” after news reports days earlier had revealed that information classified above top secret was found on the unsecure private email server Clinton used while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The campaign used six different lines of political counterattack in an attempt to exonerate Clinton of charges she had leaked highly classified information.

The methods ranged from asserting “congressional hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information to listing how other senior government officials discussed similar information about drone strikes and satellite secrets about North Korea’s nuclear program.

The research appears to have been compiled in response to a January 14 letter to Congress from I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the nation’s intelligence agencies, who stated that some of the secrets found in Clinton’s emails were classified at the “Top Secret/SAP [special access program]” level. The classification marking SAP is reserved for the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.

The FBI launched its criminal investigation into the secrets found on Clinton’s email server on July 10, 2015 based on McCullough’s request, according to FBI documents made public on Monday.

“The FBI’s investigation focused on determining whether classified information was transmitted or stored on unclassified systems in violation of federal criminal statutes and whether classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means,” the FBI report states.

The report said seven email chains and 22 emails contained SAP secrets. These emails included discussions between Clinton and Jake Sullivan, at the time her deputy chief of staff for policy and currently a campaign policy adviser.

When questioned by the FBI, Sullivan told investigators that the SAP information was discussed due to “the operational tempo at the time.” He also asserted that some of the secrets might have appeared in news reports.

Three other email chains contained sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, a classification of data more restricted than top secret.

Among those who trafficked in the classified information were Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, and five people not in the State Department, including Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal.

FBI Director James Comey, in a controversial decision, announced July 5 that while Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in mishandling highly secret information, he did not recommend that the Justice Department prosecute her on charges of mishandling classified information.

The FBI had, however, found signs that “foreign hostile actors” had gained access to some of Clinton’s private emails after hacking an associate’s email account.

The hacked documents show a concerted effort by campaign staff to deflect criticism from Clinton.

One report, labeled “Drone Email,” states that the emails under scrutiny by investigators “did not involve information obtained through a classified product but is classified because it pertains to drones.” The report claims that the highly classified information on drones was contained in news articles discussed in the emails.

The report linked to a 2012 report in Politico that quoted President Obama in a Google Plus video chat acknowledging drone attacks on al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The report quoted published reports from “U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence” as identifying the classified information in the emails about drones as “discussion of a drone strike.” The report stated that the discussion centered on “a covert program that is widely known as discussed.”

A second email improperly referred to highly classified material that could have reflected information gathered independently of U.S. intelligence.

The report stated that the State Department had published several email chains “that appear to discuss CIA drone strikes in Pakistan,” including an email to Clinton aides from CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash referring to an Associated Press report on a dispute between the State Department and CIA about drone strikes in Pakistan as “a stinker.”

Another campaign report stated that “leading Democrats and administration officials” have frequently mentioned U.S. drone strikes, including Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Sen. Diane Feinstein (Calif.), Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Republican senators and congressmen also were quoted as mentioning drone strikes.

A 16-page campaign report labeled “North Korea Email” attempted to refute a September 1, 2015Washington Times report that stated the inspector general had identified a Clinton email that revealed the secret movement of North Korean nuclear assets derived from spy satellites.

The report said the information appeared to have been transmitted by a Clinton aide who summarized it from secret intelligence reports labeled “Talent Keyhole,” the code name for intelligence derived from imagery satellites.

“The Washington Times is reporting that ‘multiple intelligence sources’ are happy to discuss allegedly ‘top secret’ information as long as they are provided anonymity to criticize Hillary Clinton,” the report said, noting that the Associated Press and the New York Times had reported on similar secrets.

A 31-page campaign report labeled “Overclassification” stated that classified information found in the emails was the result of an “arbitrary and inconsistent” policy toward classified information.

“The federal government requires employees to treat drone program as highly classified despite wide public knowledge,” the report states, adding that the classified information system is outdated and no longer works with modern diplomacy.

The report quotes McCullough, the intelligence community IG, as disputing claims of information overclassification but noted he had been criticized for saying so.

A separate report argued that Clinton was being unfairly criticized over the email server because of “bad retroactive classification,” or information that was declared secret after it was sent in emails.

Another report criticized Sens. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) for “hypocrisy” on leaks of classified information.

Grassley was criticized by campaign researchers for pressuring the State Department to classify Clinton’s emails over concerns that they contained intelligence information.