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



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


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.

Seven Clinton Policy Priorities That Would Devastate America


Staring at years 9 to 12 of the Obama administration.

Front Page Magazine, by John Perazzo, October 18, 2016:

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will seek to move the country in the same hard-left direction as Barack Obama. This article focuses on seven Clinton policy priorities that will have the most devastating impact on the American people.

1. Importing 65,000 Syrian “Refugees”

In order to address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Mrs. Clinton has explicitly called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

Clinton is committed to this reckless policy even though ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own bloodthirsty operatives; even though more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015 alone; and even though high-ranking officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all made it clear that it isimpossible to reliably screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees.

2. Amnesty & Open Borders

Mrs. Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office, and pledges to “go even further” than the two unconstitutional executive orders (DACA and DAPA) by which President Obama has already protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation. It is all part of the Democrats’ long-term master plan to transform the American electorate into a permanent Democrat voting bloc by importing massive numbers of people who can be counted upon to support the political party that offers them the largest number of welfare-state benefits. Clinton also supports what she terms “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” And she smears those people who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American.”

3. Sanctuary Cities

Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clintonexplains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

4. Gutting the Second Amendment

Lamenting that “too many families in America have suffered — and continue to suffer — from gun violence,” Mrs. Clinton has stated that crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers and retailers who lawfully produced or sold a gun that was used in a crime. Such a policy would inevitably cause the firearms industry to disappear, and thus would eliminate the Second Amendment virtually overnight.

In a similar spirit, Clinton has denounced the Supreme Court’s “terrible” ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that people have a right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

When Clinton was asked at a New Hampshire town hall meeting whether she would support a gun-buyback measure similar to the one where Australia had “managed to … take away …  millions of handguns” in a single year, she replied: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

5. Expanding Obamacare and Pursuing a Single-Payer System

Clinton states unequivocally that she plans to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), which has caused insurance premiums and policy deductibles nationwide to skyrocket, while almost every Obamacare state exchange in the country has already gone bankrupt.

To address the monumental failure and financial implosion of Obamacare, Mrs. Clinton proposes to implement a “public option” — i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would “compete” with private insurers. Pacific Research Institute President Sally Pipes explains what would happen in that case: “By drawing on taxpayer dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers would be ‘crowded out,’ leaving Americans with just one choice: a government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health sector under government control.”

But that’s just fine with Hillary Clinton, because her ultimate, long-range goal is to have a “single-payer,” “universal” healthcare system that is run entirely by the federal government. Indeed, her presidential campaign website candidly states that she “has never given up on the fight for universal coverage.”

And what does the empirical evidence show, regarding the effectiveness of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world? It’s actually quite clear. As the Cato Institute puts it: “In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.”

6. Stacking the Supreme Court with Leftist Ideologues

When Mrs. Clinton was asked, in the second presidential debate, to articulate what would be her chief considerations for selecting nominees to the Supreme Court, she never once mentioned fidelity to the Constitution. Instead, she stated that Justices should try to tip the proverbial scales of power, in favor of people who lack wealth and influence: “I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the way the world really works … [and] actually understand what people are up against.”  In other words, Mrs. Clinton prefers Justices who seek to enforce her particular vision of “social justice,” rather than blind, unbiased justice. Anyone whom she nominates will be an activist judge — in the mold of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer — whose foremost allegiance will be to left-wing ideology, not the Constitution.

7. Fighting Voter ID Laws As “Racist” Schemes to Disenfranchise Minorities

At an August 2013 meeting of the American Bar Association, Mrs. Clinton lamented that “more than 80 bills restricting voting rights” had been “introduced in 31 states” during the first eight months of that year. These were generally bills calling for Voter ID requirements at polling places, the shortening of early-voting periods, and the elimination of same-day voter registration. All of these proposed measures were designed to reduce the likelihood of voter fraud, but Mrs. Clinton depicted them as “voter suppression” efforts that were part of a racist scheme to “disproportionately [disenfranchise] African-Americans, Latino[s] and young voters.” On another occasion, Clintonsaid that Voter ID laws are a form of “fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud.”

Is Mrs. Clinton correct? Is it a “phantom epidemic”? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself: A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that 24 million voter registrations — one-eighth of all registrations nationwide — were either invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million dead people who were still registered.273 A 2014 study found that 35,570 people who had actually voted in North Carolina, had first names, last names, and birth dates that matched those of voters who had cast ballots in other states.275 A 2006 study found that 77,000 dead people were listed on New York’s statewide database of registered voters, and that as many as 2,600 of them had somehow managed to cast ballots from the grave.277 In 2011, a Coloradostudy found that of the nearly 12,000 non-citizens who were illegally registered to vote in that state, about 5,000 had taken part in the 2010 general election.281


These are just seven of the more significant policy priorities that Hillary Clinton, if elected President, will seek to implement as a means of continuing to advance the “fundamental transformation” of the United States that Barack Obama has pursued for the past eight years. These particular agenda items would serve to: compromise America’s national security and the personal safety of its citizens; dissolve the country’s borders and turn the very notion of citizenship into a quaint, pathetic joke; make it nearly impossible for American citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property from violent assailants; create precisely the type of healthcare system that has consistently resulted in long waiting lists, substandard care, and unnecessary loss of life wherever it has previously been implemented; transform the Supreme Court into nothing more than a rubber-stamp institution whose only purpose will be to give a veneer of legitimacy to a tyranny that answers to no one; and turn political elections into obvious farces, with no more legitimacy than their counterparts in whatever banana republic, Communist dictatorship, or Middle Eastern hell hole you can name.

Five Major Foreign Policy Reveals from the Wikileaks Clinton Email Dump

Kobi Gideon/GPO via Getty

Kobi Gideon/GPO via Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 17, 2016:

As emails hacked from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta continue to trickle into the public eye, major revelations regarding Hillary Clinton’s policy preferences on handling foreign policy, particularly rogue states, have come to the fore.

Below, five of the biggest reveals from the Wikileaks email dumps so far:

5. Clinton on Israeli-Palestinian talks says “A Potemkin process is better than nothing”: As with almost every major Democratic figure, Clinton thinks the “solution” to the Palestinian problem involves manipulating and pressuring Israel. However, emails produced by WikiLeaks suggest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feels Clinton is “more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House,” and the worst moment in his relationship with her came when she was “heavily scripted and reading from points prepared by the White House.” That’s funny, because President Obama and his defenders have been loudly insisting they were the best friends Israel ever had.

4. Clinton hearts Cuba: It is clear that Clinton will be useful to special interests that want to make money in Cuba, and enrich the dictatorship in return. Clinton’s team was also very happy to use Cuba as a political prop, in part because, as one special interest contact put it, “it would drive Rubio, Cruz, and others nuts.” The brutality and repression of the Castro regime mean absolutely nothing to these people, and yet they portray themselves as morally superior proponents of human rights. To read anything from the WikiLeaks dump referencing Cuba, you’d think the horrors of totalitarian communist repression were carried out by distant ancestors of the Castros, and it’s faintly amusing that anyone would still be hung up on it.

3. The project for “progressive Islam”: The most interesting thing about this leaked email is that Clinton’s inner circle and their connections in the Islamic world think “progressive Islam” is necessary, because on the record, Clinton claims Islam is already pretty darn progressive. Everything bad associated with Islam is supposedly the work of people who aren’t true Muslims. The interesting conclusion to be reached from following these discussions is that global Islam is much more complicated, and messy, than the official pronouncements of Democrats would indicate. As long as Democrats are single-mindedly determined to pander to Muslim-Americans, convinced the “anti-Muslim backlash” is a graver threat than terrorism, and above all else clubbing political opponents with accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry, they’ll remain dangerous on both national security, and the more subtle clash of civilizations.

2“Foreign govt donors: all the money is in”: Does anyone really doubt all that foreign money pouring into the Clinton Foundation is going to have a profound impact on American foreign policy, if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House? We’ll be lucky if the new Clinton Administration steering lucrative overseas contracts to Foundation donors is the worst of it.

1. Clinton said Iran could only be contained by bombing their nuclear facilities: Hillary Clinton’s conversation with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in 2013 included her suggestion that Iran should be made to feel more “pain” by “not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities.” Painless aerial bombardment is the Democrats’ favorite foreign policy tool, along with supplying weapons to local fighters who will serve as America’s deniable, easily abandoned boots on the ground. Neither of those strategies works very well, as Blankfein observed to his credit… and Clinton agreed with his assertion that bombing-only campaigns have never “worked in the history of war.” It’s as muddled as everything else Hillary Clinton says on foreign policy, but it’s arguably a more aggressive stance than Obama doctrine.

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Top Wikileaks Podesta Emails (Update 2)


Update by Joe Hoft

Below is a detailed list of noteworthy Podesta emails recently released by WikiLeaks –

Hillary Policies –

Hillary Clinton Dreams of ‘Open Trade and Open Borders’
Hillary Admits Saudi Arabia and Qatar Fund ISIS – But Took Their Money Anyway
Hillary sat on Board that funded ISIS
Hillary’s own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi
Hillary bragged about being invited to Russia’s Putin’s ‘Inner Sanctum’
Clinton Campaign Fudged Climate Change Data – Inflated Emission Numbers
Hillary team picked Tim Kaine as VP in July 2015
Clinton Camp worried as Chelsea hosts “fundraiser” aka Cash payment for Radical Islamic Group that wants to end Israel

Hillary and the Media –

CNBC Crank John Harwood Abused GOP Candidates at Debate – Then Trashed Them in Email to Hillary Camp
DNC Chief Donna Brazile Conspired with Hillary to Defeat Bernie; Media Assisted Hillary
The List of Reporters Were Taking Marching Orders from Hillary
Bill Clinton sex “allegations are hurting both Clintons”
Hillary Campaign thanking Univision’s owner Haim Saban for its moderators handling of Hillary against Sanders.
Hillary reads script during interview
CNN refers to Hillary as ‘Madre’
Hacks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner…
WASH POST bureau chief protected Podesta…
NYT Gave Hillary Veto Power On Quotes…
BRAZILE BUSTED: DNC Chief Shared CNN Town Hall Questions…
TRUMP: Hillary Wants World Government; Unlimited immigration; Rule by corporations…
FOX News Mole Leaked Town Hall Question to Clinton Campaign

(from Conservative Treehouse the emails the media won’t cover)

Corrupt Hillary and Obama –

Hillary team discussed deleting emails knowing it was against the law
Hillary Campaign Was in Touch with Obama DOJ on Email Investigation
Hillary trying to
get in front of email issue
Hillary’s attorney David Kendall did not turn over
thumb drive and server
accepting foreign money
Hillary’s team doesn’t
know what’s in her emails and is nervous about it
gave special attention to ‘Friends of Bill’ after Haiti quake
Hillary’s 2009 Catholic liaison
arrested for prostitution ring
Top Clinton donor
paid $250 million for tax evasion
Clinton Staffers Discussed Which Emails To Release…
And Which to DELETE!
Clinton Campaign Chief Owned 75,000 Shares of Putin-Connected Energy Company
Podesta Documents Suggest
Scalia Assassination
Hillary and Dept of Justice appeared to have colluded
Hillary’s own campaign doesn’t understand why she deleted 33,000 emails
Hillary sends intel to Podesta on unsecured server
Hillary’s Podesta and Soros are working together
Hillary’s people worried Chelsea Clinton sharing information with Bush daughter about Clinton’s corruption
Robby Mook: “it’s a little troubling” that meeting of Clinton Foundation was held at Goldman Sachs HQ
Bill Clinton receives a million dollar birthday check from Qatar
Huma admits Foreign Interests own HRC
Chelsea Clinton (CVC) Busted Stealing from Clinton Foundation!!!

Racist, Elitist, Bernie Fan Hating Hillary –

Hillary Advisors Admit She “HATES EVERYDAY AMERICANS
Racist Hillary Trashes African Americans – Calls Them Losers
Hillary Calls Bernie Fans and Millennials “Bucket of Losers” in Goldman Sachs Speech
Hillary Clinton: “I’m Kind of Far Removed from Struggles of Middle Class
Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does.
Hillary too afraid to ask for Bernie’s medical records. Knowing Hillary’s medical records are much worse
Massive Clinton ‘hits’ file on Bernie
Hillary says ignorant voters are the key to the win
Hillary wants unaware and compliant citizenry
Dems planned to fool Sanders supporters at convention…
‘His people will think they’ve won something’…

‘Bitching’ Bernie Voters…
Biden Aide Sabotaged His Presidential Aspirations?
Hillary didn’t like ‘bitch’ in the interview

Hillary and Catholics

Podesta and Left-Wing Activist Plot ‘Catholic Spring’
Hillary’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri TRASHES CATHOLICS…

WikiLeaks – Podesta emails –


Other –

DC Leaks Website Releases Hacked Clinton State Department Documents

Also see below link where many of these items were identified –https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/56s7ag/new_wikileaks_podesta_emails_part_two_2000_more/


WIKILEAKS: Hillary Staff Discussed Hiding Obama-Hillary Emails from Investigators – Then Deleted Them (VIDEO)



Bolton on WikiLeaks Revelations: Hillary Clinton Thinks the World Must ‘Get Ready for Open Borders’

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 13, 2016:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton discussed the latest WikiLeaks revelations of favors done for “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) in Haiti on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM.

“Just to start with, Haiti, it is a series of violations of AIDs, typical procurement practices,” Bolton pointed out. “Not that I would hold them up as the best in the world, but there arerules about competitive bidding, and rules against the directed award of contracts.” (AID is the United States Agency for International Development, also commonly referred to as USAID.)

“I can speak as an alumnus of AID, having been general counsel, the chief lawyer in the agency in the Reagan Administration, and also later being in charge of policy and budget. Things have changed, obviously, since then, but the main lines of competitive bidding have never changed,” he said.

“I just this morning, in fact, in the wake of all these emails, heard from a friend who was a former senior official at AID, that he was told by a career AID person that they had been told specifically by Cheryl Mills that they should direct contracts to some company that she had never heard of. And I think that’s the sort of favors being indicated in all these emails,” Bolton added.

“It’s just extraordinary that this kind of corruption – and that’s what it is. That’s what competitive bidding is designed to protect against, to get the best value for our tax dollars obviously, but to prevent this kind of political favor,” he explained. “And when the mainstream media finally talk about it, they don’t know we’ve moved toward objective reporting in America. I don’t see much sign of it, I must say.”

 Breitbart’s Washington Political Editor and SiriusXM host Matthew Boyle observed that the mainstream media and political class are “really stopping at nothing to try to keep Donald Trump from winning.”

Bolton responded:

Well, I think within the mainstream media, the Wall Street Journal editorial page some weeks back pointed out very well, they called the media – and really it’s true both with respect to the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign – they called the mainstream media their stenographers. Whatever they put out, they write.

They’ve just abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and so it really comes down to whether the American voter can withstand this barrage of misinformation, and still make a clear choice about who they want for President and Senate and House, in all the various elections we’re going to see in less than a month now.

Bolton thought it was a little too early to draw comparisons between the 2016 presidential race and the Brexit vote, but added:

I think what was uncovered there has been something that’s happened in various American elections over the years as well. When people know what the politically correct answer is to a pollster – whether they’re doing it over the phone, whether they’re doing it automatically on a touch-tone phone, or whether it’s a real person interviewing them – they understand that their answers are gonna be seen by other people, and so they will tend, for their own protection, to give the politically correct answer, whether it’s what they really believe or not.

“So in the case of Brexit, there were undoubtedly people who didn’t want to say that they were going to vote to leave, so they either said Remain or undecided,” he continued. “It turned out to be a substantial number of people, and they prevailed on the referendum day, June 23. Now, whether that’s the case here, we don’t know, but I don’t think there’s any doubt people know what the politically correct answer is.”

Bolton said another WikiLeaks document revealing Hillary Clinton’s support for “open borders” was “not that different really, in fact it’s the same phrase that John Kerry used just a few months ago, to say that the world had to get ready for open borders.”

“It’s going to be very interesting, for example, to see if the new U.N. Secretary-General, who has held essentially that same position, pushes for that when he takes office on January the 1st,” Bolton said.

“And it ties into another statement in one of Podesta’s emails that was leaked, that it’s increasingly necessary for candidates, at least on his side, to have one public position and one private position. So, you know, if you like organized hypocrisy, if you like flat-out deceit, then that’s the campaign that’s taking it to new heights. Seems to me if this is something that matters still to the American people, they ought to reflect that in how they vote on Election Day,” he concluded.


Trump Campaign: ‘Deeply Disturbing’ Hillary Clinton May Have Revealed Classified Information in a Paid Speech


Breitbart, by Alex Swoyer, October 12, 2016:

Donald Trump’s campaign is responding to a report that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about Osama bin Laden during one of her paid speeches.

WikiLeaks revealed the allegation.

“The revelation that Hillary Clinton may have revealed classified information about the Bin Laden raid in a private, paid speech is deeply disturbing,” stated Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller.

He continued: “Coupled with Clinton keeping classified information on an easily hacked secret server with a subsequent cover-up, shows Clinton has such a disregard for classified information that one has to wonder if she would even be able to receive a security clearance should she be elected president.”

Miller was responding to a recent report in The New York Post suggesting that Clinton potentially disclosed classified details relating to bin Laden’s raid.

“I was in the small group that recommended to the president that he go after bin Laden,” Clinton stated in a speech to a Toronto organization in 2013, adding:

The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade . . . and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.

“‘And that is how we found this compound in Abbottabad [Pakistan]’ — where a team of Navy SEALs took out bin Laden in May 2011,” The New York Post’s report notes. “WikiLeaks asked in a tweet if Clinton’s comments revealed too much about the bin Laden hunt by mentioning the phone calls.”

“It’s unclear whether Clinton’s story was classified,” The New York Post clarifies, adding, “But what she said in Toronto varies from other accounts of how the United States determined bin Laden’s whereabouts.”



Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret’



Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 11, 2016:

The WikiLeaks dump of those very expensive speeches Hillary Clinton fought to keep secret from the public for so long include some remarkable comments on Libya and Benghazi.

These comments offer a damning indictment of Clinton’s leadership, because it is clear that she and Barack Obama were completely wrong about what would happen to Libya after they toppled dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

For example, she told the Boston Consulting Group in 2013:

So what happened? Well, Khadafy is gone. They start to organize. They had one of the best elections that any of these new countries had. They did not elect extremists. They had a very good outcome of people representing the various factions, but they didn’t – they don’t have a military. They can’t provide security as we found much to, you know, our terrible experience in Benghazi, but we see it all over the country. So the jury is out but it is not for lack of trying by the people who have inherited the positions of responsibility.

The jury wasn’t “out” then, and it is not out today. Clinton and Obama caused a horrific global crisis with their Libyan adventure, and they were completely unprepared for what happened in Benghazi. It’s clear from Clinton’s remarks that she completely misunderstood the security situation.

In the same speech, she explained that now she understands how thoroughly Libya’s “institutions” were “destroyed” by Qaddafi’s rule, and violent overthrow, but sadly for Ambassador Chris Stevens and those who died with him, Clinton did not listen to anyone who tried to warn her about the danger prior to 9/11/2012:

You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn’t trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.

In a Cisco speech in August 2014, she called the Benghazi attack her “biggest regret,” and repeated her observations about how inadequate the security situation was, as if someone else had been Secretary of State at the time:

Of course it was just devastating that there was this attack on our post and on our CIA annex, which I can talk about now, because it’s all been made public. And that the kind of reliability that governments have to count on from the governments in which they operate, like we’re responsible for the security ultimately of every embassy in Washington.

Well, the Libyan government has no capacity to deliver and the people that we had contracted with were incapable or unwilling to do it.  So that was a deep regret.

And you learn from these events, just as we have over the last 30-plus years, where embassies have been attacked or taken over, or the terrible events in Beirut in 1983-84.  You learn from them, but it always comes down to this very hard choice, should American civilians be in dangerous places?

What’s especially galling about Clinton’s 20/20 hindsight is that Democrats have long made the same argument about Iraq, and Clinton claims to have accepted those arguments after mistakenly voting to authorize the invasion.

In the later years of the Bush presidency, Democrats claimed it was patently obvious, in retrospect, that Iraq wasn’t ready to deal with the savage post-Saddam era, because decades of brutal personality-cult dictatorship had destroyed the institutions upon which democracy depends. Supposedly everyone outside of the Bush Administration could plainly see that nation-building was a doomed enterprise.

But here’s Clinton asking us to pardon her while she learns the same horrible lesson from her own nation-building project. Why should anyone give President Obama and his Secretary of State a total pass for not understanding what would happen after Qaddafi was gone, when so many people outside the Administration were yelling those warnings from the rooftops? Who was responsible for understanding that security situation and taking appropriate precautions, if not the Secretary of State?

Clinton boasted about the wonderful Libyan elections in several of her speeches – “one of the best elections in the whole region after the fall of Qaddafi,” as she put it to Hamilton College in October 2013 – but such arguments cut no ice with Democrats after the liberation of Iraq. It wasn’t long before they were waving off those “purple finger” photos of Iraqi voters as irrelevant.

“You try to help, you try to create relationships, and, you know, the hard guys with the guns have a different idea. So if you don’t have overwhelming force, it’s difficult,” Clinton observed to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in 2014.

How can anyone be surprised that “the hard guys with guns” have undue influence in the Middle East? How can anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Middle East in general, and Libya in particular, reinforced by the grim lessons of Iraq, have imagined anything less than “overwhelming force” would be required?

Clinton told the Global Business Travelers Association in 2013 that it was “just a terrible crime” Ambassador Stevens was killed “doing what was really in the best interests of both the United States and Libya.”

On that, we can all agree, but that’s not how Clinton talked during the crucial days after the Benghazi attack revealed she and Obama had no idea what they had done to Libya, and no contingency plan for coping with a terrorist strike on the anniversary of 9/11.

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

Also see:

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 CounterJihad.com, 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: Muslim Terrorists Infiltrating Law Enforcement


Recent terror cases show security firms, police exposed to insider threat.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 6, 2016:

In an alarming trend, more and more Muslim terrorists are infiltrating the ranks of security firms and police departments, where they have acquired official IDs and uniforms to help gain access to secure areas, as well as firearms and tactical training to help carry out attacks.

Some jihadists posing as law enforcement officers have also gained access to classified federal databases to tip off other terrorist suspects under surveillance.

On Sept. 17, Somali-American Dahi Adan wore a security guard uniform as he stabbed or slashed 10 people at a St. Cloud, Minn., mall with a knife before he was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer. Adan made at least one reference to Allah during the stabbings and asked victims if they were Muslim before attacking. An ISIS affiliate claimed Adan was a “soldier of the Islamic State.”

Stockholm-based Securitas AB, a security firm that provides security services to companies in more than 200 cities worldwide, confirmed that Adan worked through June as a guard for its US division.

On the same day, Afghan-American Ahmad Rahami allegedly detonated a pressure-cooker bomb in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York that left 31 injured. A blood-soaked journal found on Rahami after he was shot by police indicated he was carrying out “jihad” against “nonbelievers” in their “backyard.”

Though Rahami was working for his family restaurant at the time, he aspired to be a police officer, according to friends and neighbors. He majored in criminal justice at Middlesex County College in Edison, N.J. Rahami was enrolled there from 2010-2012 but did not graduate.

Another Afghan-American terrorist, Omar Mateen, was employed as a security guard for a major federal security contractor this June, when he opened fire at an Orlando nightclub, killing 49 people. He had been dismissed from training as a prison guard after making threatening remarks, and ended up as a private security guard for G4S Secure Solutions USA Inc., which maintains a $234 million contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

Mateen was subject to a background check and psychological test when he was recruited by G4S in 2007 and rescreened in 2013 with no adverse findings — even though he threatened to kill a sheriff’s deputy at the St. Lucie County Courthouse where he was stationed as a security guard and had been placed on a terrorist watch list by the FBI.

“Omar became very agitated and made a comment that he could have al-Qaida kill my employee and his family,” St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said. “If that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to say that the Fort Hood shooter was justified in his actions.”

As CounterJihad first reported, the Jupiter, Fla.-based security contractor G4S also provides security guards and other security services for “90 percent of U.S. nuclear facilities.”

In fact, G4S has the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) contract to run simulated Red Team terrorist attacks on US nuclear plants and US nuclear weapons labs, CounterJihad has learned. G4S is managing the exercises, and its armed guards are participating in the force-on-force attacks, including mock terrorist strikes, which are designed to identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities in nuclear security.

CounterJihad has also learned that Senate investigators have been working with NRC’s Nuclear Security and Incident Response division to determine if there are other potential Mateens working as security guards at America’s nuclear facilities. A preliminary review has found that dozens of other Middle Easterners have landed jobs with nuclear reactor licensees as contract security guards — including a possible relative of Mateen.  Only further scrutiny might identify insider threats among them.

It is far from an idle concern.  In a 2011 intelligence report, Homeland Security warned that “violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions” at nuclear facilities.  Security experts fear opening nuclear security jobs to insufficiently vetted Muslims like Mateen risks inviting jihadists to exploit weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the security of US nuclear plants, as well as spent-fuel rod repositories and even the federal nuclear weapons labs.

“ISIS has nuclear facilities on their targeting radar, not only to secure fissile material for dirty bombs, but also to exploit the inherent vulnerability presented by overfilled spent fuel pools,” said Brian F. Sullivan, retired FAA special agent, retired Army lieutenant colonel in the military police corps and senior fellow at the American Leadership and Policy Foundation.

“Europe is well aware of this threat potential and the results could be devastating here in the United States, where our government has totally dropped the ball,” Sullivan added in a recent interview with CounterJihad. He said radioactive fallout from dirty nukes could render major US cities uninhabitable for years, if not decades.

Of increasing concern, meanwhile, are the operatives the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations is planting inside law enforcement agencies. CAIR is no friend of police. The group has published and distributed posters advising Muslims not to cooperate with FBI agents investigating terrorist suspects and to slam the door in their faces.

In Florida, for example, the Broward Sheriff’s Office employs a senior CAIR official, even though CAIR has been identified by the US Justice Department as a co-conspirator in funding terrorism and is so closely tied to the Hamas terrorist group that the FBI has banned CAIR from all its outreach activities nationwide.

Broward deputy sheriff Nezar Hamze doubles as regional director for CAIR in Florida, where he pushes CAIR’s Islamist agenda and defends Islam against criticism it promotes terrorism, most recently in the bloody wake of the Orlando terrorist attack by devout Muslim Omar Mateen, whose radical mosque was defended by a CAIR lawyer.

Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, who calls himself “Florida’s most progressive sheriff,” has ignored calls for Hamze’s removal from the force despite growing local protests.

Another CAIR executive, Khalid Latif, infiltrated the NYPD as its Muslim chaplain. Reportedly, Latif led the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia that Mateen joined in 2012.

The case of Mohammad Weiss Rasool shows why such infiltration is potentially dangerous.

The FBI busted Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, for tipping off an al-Qaida terrorist suspect last decade while working as a police officer for the Fairfax County Police Department outside Washington and moonlighting for CAIR. He worked his way up to sergeant before authorities realized they had an al-Qaida spy in their ranks.

According to a Justice Department complaint filed in 2008, Rasool searched a national criminal database containing names of terrorist suspects and confirmed that FBI agents were tailing a Muslim friend of his from a local mosque.

When agents went to arrest the target early one morning, they found him and his family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole, and worked back through the system to find Rasool.

That’s when agents discovered the cop had breached their database at least 15 times to look up names of other contacts, including relatives, to see if they showed up on the federal terrorist watch list.

Rasool’s actions “damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal investigation,” prosecutors said in federal court papers. “The defendant’s actions could have placed federal agents in danger.”

Rasool at first claimed he didn’t know the terrorist target. He confessed only after hearing a recording of his message for the suspect, Abdullah Alnoshan — a close associate of al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki, a local imam who had helped some of the 9/11 hijackers obtain housing and ID’s in Fairfax County.

Rasool finally pleaded guilty to illegally searching a federal database.

According to the bestselling book “Muslim Mafia,” Rasool at the time worked closely with CAIR, which lobbied on his behalf during his prosecution.

In fact, Rasool acted as CAIR’s liaison within the police department, and often met with CAIR officials at CAIR’s headquarters located just three blocks from the US Capitol.

A senior Fairfax County Police Department official, who called Rasool “a traitor” who “disgraced the uniform,” said he was “deeply embedded with CAIR.”

“He was the spokesman to the department for CAIR,” the official explained in “Muslim Mafia.”

The FBI has its own problems with Islamist moles.

Consider the case of the Muslim FBI agent in Los Angeles who allegedly compromised a multi-agency terrorism investigation by tipping off the ringleader of a Pakistani-based terror cell that the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) had under surveillance for more than two years.

The “dirty” agent — an Egyptian-American married to an Afghan woman — allegedly sabotaged several investigations across the country, including ones in New York and Boston, that tie back to the Taliban in Pakistan. According to “Muslim Mafia,” he not only tipped the terror cell leader off to a so-called “trash cover” that investigators tried to execute outside his home in Los Angeles, but also identified surveillance vehicles for the terrorist suspect.

After an internal FBI investigation, the Muslim agent was reprimanded but not fired.

“The dirty FBI agent, my JTTF counterpart, compromised by investigation as well as several other agency investigations across the country,” said a detective who works counterterrorism intelligence for the LAPD. “The agent is embedded with the bad guys and gave them critical information detailing the investigations.”

The LAPD source added: “The FBI is covering it all up.”

Bureau tolerance for such betrayal by Muslim agents is not new.

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an Egyptian-American and the first Muslim FBI agent, twice refused on religious grounds to tape-record Muslim terrorist suspects under investigation, including his friend Sami al-Arian, who was later convicted in spite of Abdel-Hafiz gumming up the investigation.

In early 2001, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh picked Abdel-Hafiz to become the FBI’s deputy legal attache at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — a key post in the battle against al-Qaida, which had hit American military barracks inside Saudi and a warship in neighboring Yemen.

After 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers turned out to be Saudi nationals, Abdel-Hafiz was in a prime position to run down leads in the Saudi capital. Only, that didn’t happen, at least not as often as headquarters had hoped. Agents back in Washington complained about his performance there, saying they were not getting answers to the hundreds of leads they were sending him in Riyadh. Abdel-Hafiz says he was one of only two people manning the office there and was further hobbled by an antiquated computer system.

But he and his FBI boss Wilfred Rattigan, a black convert to Islam, had still found time to travel to Mecca for the annual pilgrimage, where they surrendered their FBI cell phones to Saudi nationals and were out of contact with officials back in the U.S. who were trying to ring them up about investigations into al-Qaida and 9/11. Both Rattigan and Abdel-Hafiz wore traditional Muslim headgear and robes while on the job in Saudi Arabia, further outraging fellow agents.

When a senior supervisor was sent to the Riyadh office nearly a year after 9/11, she found secret documents strewn all over the office, some even wedged between cabinets. She also found a huge backlog of boxes each filled with three feet of paper containing secret, time-sensitive leads. Much of the materials, including information on Saudi airline pilots, had not been translated or reviewed.

It’s anyone’s guess how many terror cases were compromised in the FBI’s Saudi office.

The FBI tried to fire Abdel-Hafiz in 2003 for insurance fraud and making false statements on his FBI application. But his termination was overruled by a special panel convened to hear the case, and he was reinstated. Reassigned to Dallas, Abdel-Hafiz recruited other Muslims to join the FBI at Islamic conferences held by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

He finally retired last year, after being placed in the bureau’s post-adjudication risk management program, or PARM, which stripped him of access to certain classified material. He now works as a Homeland Security contractor advising on “countering violent extremism,” or CVE, the program the Obama administration started to pretend Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Among other things, Abdel-Hafiz argues against arresting young Muslim men who are being radicalized in order to build “trust” in the Muslim community.

Hundreds of other Muslim FBI agents, analysts, linguists and contractors have been subjected to additional security screening under the PARM program. The investigations have been prompted by concerns these FBI employees maintain family and other ties in the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and could be coerced by foreign spies or terrorist organizations to leak classified national security information.

FBI Director: ‘Terrorist Diaspora’ Like ‘Never Before’ May Follow Islamic State Defeat

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Sept. 28, 2016:

Defeating the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) could lead to an increase in terrorist attacks in Western countries rather than a reduction, declared FBI Director James Comey.

“At some point there is going to be a terrorist diaspora out of Syria like we’ve never seen before. Not all of the Islamic State killers are going to die on the battlefield,” he said during a cybersecurity conference at Fordham University Wednesday.

The FBI chief predicted that the U.S.-led coalition would eventually decimate ISIS but added that “through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of really dangerous people and they are going to flow primarily to Western Europe.”

However, he also said that some of those potential terrorists could end up in the United States.

The New York Times (NYT) reports:

He drew a parallel between this scenario and the formation of Al Qaeda more than a quarter-century ago, which drew from fighters who had been radicalized fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s and early 1990s.

“This is 10 times that or more. This is an order of magnitude greater than anything we’ve seen before,” said Comey, later adding, “We saw the future of this threat in Brussels and in Paris [terrorist attacks earlier this year].”

CNN points out, “And just not in the West. There have recently been stepped up ISIS attacks worldwide, including in countries near its home base territory that has been shrinking due to military losses in Iraq and Syria.”

In May, the FBI director told reporters that the number of Americans traveling overseas to engage in jihad on behalf of ISIS has dropped dramatically to an average of one person per month.

Nevertheless, he noted that there are “north of 1,000” cases in which FBI agents are in the process of evaluating a subject’s level of radicalization and potential for violence, of which an estimated 80 percent are linked to ISIS.

He said:

There’s still a presence online, and troubled people are still turning to this and at least being interested in it. But they’ve lost their ability to attract people to their caliphate from the United States in a material way…

There’s no doubt that something has happened that is lasting, in terms of the attractiveness of the nightmare which is the Islamic State to people from the United States.

Various Obama administration officials have predicted that ISIS is on the road to defeat in Iraq and Syria. Some American and Iraqi officials argue that the increase in attacks by the jihadist group are a sign of desperation.

“The FBI director’s warning that the collapse of the caliphate will mean increased attacks in Western Europe and the United States mirrors a consensus among intelligence officials,” reports CNN.

Emmanuel Khoshaba Youkhana, commander of the Christian Assyrian Army known as Dwekh Nawsha, recently told Breitbart News that ISIS “is losing” in Iraq and will “soon be vanquished.”

Nonetheless, he added that their ideology will remain alive and kicking, noting that there is no strategy to defeat the ideals that motivate members of the terrorist group.

The commander’s Christian forces have managed to hold territory in northern Iraq’s Nineveh plains, despite repeated attacks by ISIS.

CNN notes that Abu Mohammed al Adnani, the terrorist group’s chief spokesman and ideologue, tried to reframe how ISIS defines victory in an audio message released at the end of May.

Defeat would not result from losing control of territory but from “losing the will and the desire to fight,” he declared.

One Western counterterrorism official predicted “a metastasis of terror as it becomes increasingly difficult for ISIL to hold on to core territories,” reports the news network.


Gorka: Director Comey correct about ‘terrorist diaspora’

Also see:

Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 29, 2016:

President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce.

In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.

Here’s a look at some of the regimes that will begin shaping the future of the Internet in just a few days, if President Obama gets his way.


China wrote the book on authoritarian control of online speech. The legendary “Great Firewall of China” prevents citizens of the communist state from accessing global content the Politburo disapproves of. Chinese technology companies are required by law to provide the regime with backdoor access to just about everything.

The Chinese government outright banned online news reporting in July, granting the government even tighter control over the spread of information. Websites are only permitted to post news from official government sources. Chinese online news wasn’t exactly a bastion of freedom before that, of course, but at least the government censors had to track down news stories they disliked and demand the site administrators take them down.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Communists aren’t big fans of independent news analysis or blogging, either. Bloggers who criticize the government are liable to be charged with “inciting subversion,” even when the writer in question is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Chinese citizens know better than to get cheeky on social media accounts, as well. Before online news websites were totally banned, they were forbidden from reporting news gathered from social media, without government approval. Spreading anything the government decides is “fake news” is a crime.

In a report labeling China one of the worst countries for Internet freedom in the world, Freedom House noted they’ve already been playing games with Internet registration and security verification:

The China Internet Network Information Center was found to be issuing false digital security certificates for a number of websites, including Google, exposing the sites’ users to “man in the middle” attacks.

The government strengthened its real-name registration laws for blogs, instant-messaging services, discussion forums, and comment sections of websites.

A key feature of China’s online censorship is that frightened citizens are not entirely certain what the rules are. Huge ministries work tirelessly to pump out content regulations and punish infractions. Not all of the rules are actually written down. As Foreign Policy explained:

Before posting, a Chinese web user is likely to consider basic questions about how likely a post is to travel, whether it runs counter to government priorities, and whether it calls for action or is likely to engender it. Those answers help determine whether a post can be published without incident — as it is somewhere around 84 percent or 87 percent of the time — or is instead likely to lead to a spectrum of negative consequences varying from censorship, to the deletion of a user’s account, to his or her detention, even arrest and conviction.

This was accompanied by a flowchart demonstrating “what gets you censored on the Chinese Internet.” It is not a simple flowchart.

Beijing is not even slightly self-conscious about its authoritarian control of the Internet. On the contrary, their censorship policies are trumpeted as “Internet sovereignty,” and they aggressively believe the entire world should follow their model, as the Washington Post reported in a May 2016 article entitled “China’s Scary Lesson to the World: Censoring the Internet Works.”

China already has a quarter of the planet’s Internet users locked up behind the Great Firewall. How can anyone doubt they won’t use the opportunity Obama is giving them, to pursue their openly stated desire to lock down the rest of the world?


Russia and China are already working together for a more heavily-censored Internet.Foreign Policy reported one of Russia’s main goals at an April forum was to “harness Chinese expertise in Internet management to gain further control over Russia’s internet, including foreign sites accessible there.”

Russia’s “top cop,” Alexander Bastrykin, explicitly stated Russia needs to stop “playing false democracy” and abandon “pseudo-liberal values” by following China’s lead on Internet censorship, instead of emulating the U.S. example. Like China’s censors, Russian authoritarians think “Internet freedom” is just coded language for the West imposing “cultural hegemony” on the rest of the world.

Just think what Russia and China will be able to do about troublesome foreign websites, once Obama surrenders American control of Internet domains!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has “chipped away at Internet freedom in Russia since he returned to the Kremlin in 2012,” as International Business Times put it in a 2014 article.

One of Putin’s new laws requires bloggers with over 3,000 readers to register with the government, providing their names and home addresses. As with China, Russia punishes online writers for “spreading false information,” and once the charge is leveled, it’s basically guilty-until-proven-innocent. For example, one of the “crimes” that can get a blogger prosecuted in Russia is alleging the corruption of a public official, without ironclad proof.

Human-rights group Agora estimates that Russian Internet censorship grew by 900% in 2015 alone, including both court orders and edicts from government agencies that don’t require court approval. Censorship was expected to intensify even further throughout 2016. Penalties include prison time, even for the crime of liking or sharing banned content on social media.

Putin, incidentally, has described the entire Internet as a CIA plot designed to subvert regimes like his. There will be quite a few people involved in the new multi-national Internet control agency who think purging the Web of American influence is a top priority.

The Russian government has prevailed upon Internet Service Providers to block opposition websites during times of political unrest, in addition to thousands of bans ostensibly issued for security, crime-fighting, and anti-pornography purposes.

Many governments follow the lead of Russia and China in asserting the right to shut down “extremist” or “subversive” websites. In the United States, we worry about law enforcement abusing its authority while battling outright terrorism online, arguing that privacy and freedom of speech must always be measured against security, no matter how dire the threat. In Russia, a rough majority of the population has no problem with the notion of censoring the Internet in the name of political stability, and will countenance absolutely draconian controls against perceived national security threats. This is a distressingly common view in other nations as well: stability justifies censorship and monitoring, not just physical security.


Turkey’s crackdown on the Internet was alarming even before the aborted July coup attempt against authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey has banned social media sites, including temporary bans against even giants like Facebook and YouTube, for political reasons. Turkish dissidents are accustomed to such bans coming down on the eve of elections. The Turkish telecom authority can impose such bans without a court order, or a warning to offending websites.

Turkey is often seen as the world leader in blocking Twitter accounts, in addition to occasionally shutting the social media service down completely, and has over a 100,000 websites blacklisted. Criticizing the government online can result in anything from lost employment to criminal charges. And if you think social-media harassment from loyal supporters of the government in power can get pretty bad in the U.S., Turks sometimes discover that hassles from pro-regime trolls online are followed by visits from the police.

Turkish law infamously makes it a crime to insult the president, a law Erdogan has already attempted to impose beyond Turkey’s borders. One offender found himself hauled into court for creating a viral meme – the sort of thing manufactured by the thousands every hour in America – that noted Erdogan bore a certain resemblance to Gollum from Lord of the Rings. The judge in his case ordered expert testimony on whether Gollum was evil to conclusively determine whether the meme was an illegal insult to the president.

The Turkish example introduces another idea common to far too many of the countries Obama wants to give equal say over the future of the Internet: intimidation is a valid purpose for law enforcement. Many of Turkey’s censorship laws are understood to be mechanisms for intimidating dissidents, raising the cost of free speech enough to make people watch their words very carefully. “Think twice before you Tweet” might be good advice for some users, but regimes like Erdogan’s seek to impose that philosophy on everyone. This runs strongly contrary to the American understanding of the Internet as a powerful instrument that lowers the cost of speech to near-zero, the biggest quantum leap for free expression in human history. Zero-cost speech is seen as a big problem by many of the governments that will now place strong hands upon the global Internet rudder.

Turkey is very worried about “back doors” that allow citizens to circumvent official censorship, a concern they will likely bring to Internet control, along with like-minded authoritarian regimes. These governments will make the case that a free and open Internet is a direct threat to their “sovereign right” to control what their citizens read. As long as any part of the Internet remains completely free, no sector can be completely controlled.

Saudi Arabia

The Saudis aren’t too far behind China in the Internet rankings by Freedom House. Dissident online activity can bring jail sentences, plus the occasional public flogging.

This is particularly lamentable because Saudi Arabia is keenly interested in modernization, and sees the Internet as a valuable economic resource, along with a thriving social media presence. Freedom House notes the Internet “remains the least repressive space for expression in the country,” but “it is by no means free.”

“While the state focuses on combatting violent extremism and disrupting terrorist networks, it has clamped down on nonviolent liberal activists and human rights defenders with the same zeal, branding them a threat to the national order and prosecuting them in special terrorism tribunals,” Freedom House notes.

USA Today noted that as of 2014, Saudi Arabia had about 400,000 websites blocked, “including any that discuss political, social or religious topics incompatible with the Islamic beliefs of the monarchy.”

At one point the blacklist included the Huffington Post, which was banned for having the temerity to run an article suggesting the Saudi system might “implode” because of oil dependency and political repression. The best response to criticism that your government is too repressive is a blacklist!

The Saudis have a penchant for blocking messaging apps and voice-over-IP services, like Skype and Facetime. App blocking got so bad that Saudi users have been known to ask, “What’s the point of having the Internet?”

While some Saudis grumble about censorship, many others are active, enthusiastic participants in enforcement, filing hundreds of requests each day to have websites blocked. Religious figures supply many of these requests, and the government defends much of its censorship as the defense of Islamic values.

As with other censorious regimes, the Saudi monarchy worries about citizens using web services beyond its control to evade censorship, a concern that will surely be expressed loudly once America surrenders its command of Internet domains.

For the record, the Saudis’ rivals in Iran are heavy Internet censors too, with Stratfor listing them as one of the countries seeking Chinese assistance for “solutions on how best to monitor the Iranian population.”

North Korea

You can’t make a list of authoritarian nightmares without including the psychotic regime in Pyongyang, the most secretive government in the world.

North Korea is so repressive the BBC justly puts the word “Internet” in scare quotes, to describe the online environment. It doesn’t really interconnect with anything, except government propaganda and surveillance. Computers in the lone Internet cafe in Pyongyang actually boot up to a customized Linux operating system called “Red Star,” instead of Windows or Mac OS. The calendar software in Red Star measures the date from the birth of Communist founder Kim Il-sung, rather than the birth of Christ.

The “Internet” itself is a closed system called Kwangmyong, and citizens can only access it through a single state-run provider, with the exception of a few dozen privileged families that can punch into the real Internet.

Kwangmyong is often compared to the closed “intranet” system in a corporate office, with perhaps 5,000 websites available at most. Unsurprisingly, the content is mostly State-monitored messaging and State-supplied media. Contributors to these online services have reportedly been sent to re-education camps for typos. The North Koreans are so worried about outside contamination of their closed network that they banned wi-fi hotspots at foreign embassies, having noticed information-starved North Korean citizens clustering within range of those beautiful, uncensored wireless networks.

This doesn’t stop South Koreans from attempting cultural penetration of their squalid neighbor’s dismal little online network. Lately they’ve been doing it by loading banned information onto cheap memory sticks, tying them to balloons, and floating them across the border.

Sure, North Korea is the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, and since they have less than two thousand IP addresses registered in the entire country, the outlaw regime won’t be a big influence on Obama’s multi-national Internet authority, right?

Not so fast. As North Korea expert Scott Thomas Bruce told the BBC, authoritarian governments who are “looking at what is happening in the Middle East” see North Korea as a model to be emulated.

“They’re saying rather than let in Facebook, and rather than let in Twitter, what if the government created a Facebook that we could monitor and control?” Bruce explained.

Also, North Korea has expressed some interest in using the Internet as a tool for economic development, which means there would be more penetration of the actual global network into their society. They’ll be very interested in censoring and controlling that access, and they’ll need a lot more registered domains and IP addresses… the very resource Obama wants America to surrender control over.

Bottom line: contrary to left-wing cant, there is such a thing as American exceptionalism – areas in which the United States is demonstrably superior to every other nation, a leader to which the entire world should look for examples. Sadly, our society is losing its fervor for free expression, and growing more comfortable with suppressing “unacceptable” speech, but we’re still far better than anyone else in this regard.

The rest of the world, taken in total, is very interested in suppressing various forms of expression, for reasons ranging from security to political stability and religion. Those governments will never be comfortable, so long as parts of the Internet remain outside of their control. They have censorship demands they consider very reasonable, and absolutely vital. The website you are reading right now violates every single one of them, on a regular basis.

There may come a day we can safely remand control of Internet domains to an international body, but that day is most certainly not October 1, 2016.


Technology CEOs Shamefully Lubricate Internet’s Surrender by Frank Gaffney

Congress has just showed why so many Americans are sick of their politicians and ready to throw the bums out. The Senate and House leadership have agreed to President Obama’s surrender of your Internet to freedom’s enemies.

The deed was done yesterday when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushed through the Senate a funding bill without a prohibition on the Internet give-away.  The House is expected to rubber stamp it today.

Political cover came from something called the Technology CEO Council.  This group of interested parties, whose lobbyists give generously to politicians’ campaigns, blithely assured Congress: “Placing stewardship of these technical but important functions beyond the control of any one government or group of governments will best secure the principles of Internet freedom and de-politicization of technology.”

Shame on the CEOs for disseminating such transnational rubbish – and the Congress for swallowing it.


First Debate


The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Sept. 27, 2016:

I discussed last night’s first presidential debate and the candidate’s coverage of national security with the hosts of AM560 Chicago’s Morning Answer.