Hillary’s health: Emails show Clinton obsessed with sleep, “exotic drugs”

clinton-health-thumbnailThe Rebel Media, by Ezra Levant, August 26, 2016

Four years ago, she had a concussion, and a blood clot in her brain sent her to the hospital. Later, her head was still so injured that she was seeing double. That’s why she wore those Fresnel prism glasses: to counter double-vision.

Have you seen that video of her apparently having a seizure while being asked a question? The Clinton spin doctors say that’s just a joke. Really?

And then there’s the guy who is always with her, but he’s not Secret Service. He’s a paramedic — you can see by the badge he sometimes wears. He carries an injection device, maybe it’s anti-seizure medication. He’s been seen talking her through a stressful situation.

Why does Hillary Clinton always wear the strangest pant suits that look like they’re specifically made to order. Are they tailored to conceal things underneath? A medical device?

Here’s an e-mail that Clinton originally hid from the public, that was released only after a court ordered it. In it, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide, says her boss is “often confused” and needs to take naps.

That topic comes up a lot.

I typed the word “sleep” into a searchable archive of Clinton e-mails, the ones a court ordered the State Department to disclose.

WATCH to see what I found.

There were a lot of troubling results:

Clinton herself says she’s “chronically exhausted”. Her staff calls her a “champion napper”.

And then there’s her email about the symptoms of “decision fatigue.” Another about Provigil, a drug “often prescribed to treat excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and multiple sclerosis.”

That’s just the beginning…

Being president is the most stressful job in the world. You need energy — both physical and mental.

What exactly is wrong with Hillary Clinton? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed before the election.

Why isn’t the mainstream media interested in covering it?

Also see:

CAIR Attacks Ryan Mauro over ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Police Training

Jessica Gresko/Associated-Press

Jessica Gresko/Associated-Press

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, Aug. 20, 2016:

The San Diego chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has taken aim at the Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro, whom they refer to as an “anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist” and “Islamophobe.”

CAIR, which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-funding operation, is calling on the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) and other law enforcement agencies in California to prevent officers who attend the “Symposium on Islamic Terrorism” taking place in San Diego between August 24-25 from receiving credit.

In a letter to San Diego Police Department Chief Shelley Zimmerman, CAIR-San Diego Executive Director Hanif Mohebi wrote: “We urge you to ensure that SDPD personnel are warned of the conspiracy theories promoted by the featured speaker, that no taxpayer dollars go to pay for attendance and that any officer who attends in his or her private capacity does not receive continuing education credit.”

Both Mauro and Mohebi spoke exclusively with Breitbart News on Friday.

Mohebi told Breitbart News, “I don’t think that thy should be given credit for attending. It is exactly like if KKK is proving training and then officers go there and get credit for professional development.

“I’m kind of surprised that people who are putting this together are actually OK with this. For me, it is like bringing the head of the KKK to speak about blacks and then claiming that it’s OK. You cannot have a head of KKK come and train the police on blacks. It just doesn’t work,” Mohebi said.

“CAIR is working overtime in trying to influence anyone they can to stop me from speaking and punish anyone who comes to this event at all,” Mauro told Breitbart News. “If police officers attend this event, they will try to get the officer’s education credits taken away.”

He added, “the press release attacks me for talking about the ‘No Go Zones’ on Fox. But what they’re referring to — and this is telling — is the Jamaat ul-Fuqra villages within America. So they are attacking me because they are defending ul-Fuqra which is a ferociously antisemitic cult with a history of terrorism.”

Jamaat ul-Fuqra, which is described as a Pakistani militant group, is known in the United States as “Muslims of America.” It was reportedly founded by a Pakistani named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani; a Sufi cleric.

In its press release, CAIR writes that “Muslim no-go-zones” are a “debunked myth.”

This is not the first time CAIR has targeted Mauro personally. Mauro said he was similarly targeted by CAIR several months ago when he was giving training to police officers in Upstate New York. “They did this in conjunction with the War Resisters League (WRL) — a purely anti-police league.” He said the WRL “even have a ‘No SWAT’ zone” and that both groups’ “statements are filled with deliberate misrepresentations.”

Mohebi told Breitbart News, that Mauro “has proven himself to be an Islamophobe. There have been many agencies that have taken that step to say, ‘Hey we recognize that, and it has been on the release that he simply does not qualify as someone who is not biased.’ I don’t mind if there’s an expert that believes I am wrong. But this is someone who is discredited by Southern Poverty Law Center and keeps saying these things that are not true.”

Mohebi added, “I am afraid, that when professionals from security, whether it’s from SFPD or other law enforcement hear that Muslims are a threat, then the more they see someone like me or others immediately they are thinking this is a threat.”

However, Mauro told Breitbart News, “I include a section about violence directed towards Muslims and the importance of Muslim allies.”

Mohebi told Breitbart News that he had requested the ability to monitor the police training. “I requested the entity that is bringing him to allow us to take part in this to see if there is anything that he says that is not factual. And if we do find something that is not factual, to give us time to clarify. And they did not allow us.”

However, Mauro said, “CAIR is not qualified to be in that session. It’s a law enforcement session and CAIR is not qualified to be there.” The symposium’s website states that the training “is open ONLY to full-time law enforcement. You must present valid law enforcement ID for entry.”

Mauro added: “There is genuine anti-Muslim sentiment out there and I know because I’ve been given info about it by authorities in the past. But groups like CAIR exploit this genuine anti-Muslim sentiment to use it as a political weapon against myself and even other Muslims. If you do not follow groups like CAIR completely, even if you are a a Muslim, they will call you an Islamophobe, and they have done that repeatedly.”

Addressing Mohebi’s analogy of the KKK and religion, Mauro said “The KKK was Christian. But their interpretation sucks. If you want to call the KKK Christian extremists, go ahead, because you need to defeat their ideology just like you need to defeat the ideology of Islamist extremism.”

Also see:

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

immigration-ideological-test-islamists-can-be-denied-admission-b

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 20, 2016:

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:

U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.”

“Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life.

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo).

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America.

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality.

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

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

Also see:

Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 17, 2016:

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.”

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”

His comments about cooperating with Egypt, Israel and Jordan were highlighted in the Arab world’s media, with headlines reading “Donald Trump Announces Plan to Cooperate with Egypt, Jordan, Israel to Combat Radical Islam” and “Trump vows to work with Egypt’s Sisi to ‘stop radical Islam’ if elected.”

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration, and Clinton’s State Department, again undermined President Mubarak in 2011 when they urged him to step down and pressured Egypt to hold elections“ immediately” after the 2011 revolution. This policy favored the Muslim Brotherhood to win elections since they were the most organized at the time.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi in Cairo offering “strong support” for the Islamist President, saying, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition… We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”

The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but when millions of Egyptians took to the streets one year later, calling for early elections against the Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did all they could to undermine their efforts.

Over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 calling for the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. After one year of being in power, the Brotherhood was taking Egypt towards an Iranian theocracy and the Egyptian people stood against political Islam. The 2011 Egyptian Constitution had no impeachment mechanism included, so the only democratic way to remove the Brotherhood was signing a petition and taking to the streets in the masses. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets again in July, supporting then Defense Minister General el-Sisi and the Egyptian military in their efforts to fight terrorism.

The Obama Administration condemned the Egyptian military and police after the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood and punished Egypt by freezing military and economic aid to Egypt. This was done while the Egyptian military had launched a major offensive to “crush terrorist activity” in the Sinai that had built up during the Muslim Brotherhood government. Egypt had to fight terrorism alone – not only without support from the US – but with pressure to succumb to the requests from the US Administration to release the Muslim Brotherhood members from prison and reconcile.

The pressure from the Obama Administration against the removal of the Morsi regime emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood and they waged an Islamist insurgency, not only in the Sinai but on the streets of Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically targeted the Christian community and burned down over 65 Christian Churches and hundreds of Christian shops.

The Obama Administration sent U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt for “U.S. mediation efforts” and met with Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was in jail at the time and sentenced for life in prison. Our State Department, under John Kerry, sent a representative to Egypt pressuring the Egyptian government to release terrorists from jail.

The Obama Administration also sent Senators McCain and Graham to Egypt to ask the Egyptian government and military to find an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. They asked the Egyptian government to “sit down and talk” to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had waged war on the Egyptian people.

Since being democratically elected in 2014, winning with 97% of the vote, Egyptian President al-Sisi has made history speaking out for equality between Muslims and Christians. He was the first President in Egyptian history to visit the Coptic Christian Christmas mass service in January 2015. During his speech at the Christmas mass, he emphasized the need to look at each other as “Egyptians” and not as Muslim or Christian. He said, “We will love each other for real, so that people may see.” President Sisi again visited the Coptic Christmas mass in January 2016 where he vowed to rebuild the Christian churches that were destroyed by Islamists in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood were removed from power.

President Sisi has called for “Islamic reform” within Islam numerous times. During a speech to Islamic scholars in 2015, marking the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth, President Sisi urged reform of Islamic discourse and called on Islamic scholars to send Christmas greetings to Christians. In the televised speech to Islamic scholars, President Sisi stated, “We talk a lot about the importance of religious discourse… In our schools, institutes and universities, do we teach and practice respect for the others? We neither teach or practice it.”

The Egyptian government has also addressed the ideology by banning thousands of radical clerics from preaching in the mosques that are not licensed.

Recently, the government of President al-Sisi introduced a textbook for Egyptian public schools that requires Egyptian pupils to memorize the provisions of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and delineate the “advantages of peace for Egypt and the Arab states”. This is a major reform taken from the Egyptian government in normalizing and strengthening relations between Israel and Egypt.

President Sisi should be considered a key ally of America as he is leading Egypt towards democracy and also is leading the fight against global jihad, both militarily and politically, in countering radical Islamic ideology. Instead, he has yet to be invited to the United States from President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has been critical of Trump’s position towards Russia, but policies implemented under the Obama Administration have pushed Egypt towards Russia and have alienated our strongest Arab ally for over 40 years. Egypt and Russia signed a $2billion arms deal after the United States abandoned them during their fight against terrorism. Russia also is providing Egypt with $25 billion to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant.

Donald Trump in his speech recognized the need to support our Muslim allies in the global war on terrorism. This is critical in defeating global jihad. We cannot afford another four years of a policy of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies as we have seen under the Obama Administration.

Tera Dahl is Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Failures: A Recent History

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 15, 2016:

On Monday, fifty Republican national security veteransreleased a letter saying that none of them will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. They said in their letter that Trump would be a “dangerous President” on foreign policy and national security.

Monday also marked the 2-year anniversary of the war launched by the U.S. against Islamic State. NBC recently released a map showing the global expansion of Islamic State, showing how the U.S. policy to defeat them clearly has failed.

According to NBC:

U.S. State Department documents indicated that in 2014, when the U.S. military began its campaign to destroy the extremists, there were only seven nations in which the fledgling state was operating. A map from the National Counterterrorism Center shows the worldwide expansion of ISIS as of August 2016. By 2015, according to the State Department’s own numbers, there were nearly double that — 13 countries. The current briefing map shows 18 countries where  ISIS is fully operational. The map also displays a new category — “aspiring branches” — and lists six countries where  they’re taking root: Egypt, Indonesia, Mali, the Philippines, Somalia and Bangladesh.

We are currently facing a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East not seen since WWII. In 1945, Democratic President Harry Truman used the atomic bomb against the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending WWII, killing over 150,000 people. Truman stated that he did it to save lives and end the war. He argued that it wasn’t an option to prolong the war resulting in more bloodshed. President Obama has done nothing in the Syrian conflict and little in the global war on Islamic State, which has resulted in over400,000 deaths in Syria alone and displacing millions under his Presidency. Prolonging the war costs lives and money.

A do-nothing foreign policy as we have seen under President Obama and Hillary’s State Department is dangerous, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump would win and end the war against Islamic State, ultimately saving lives.

It is Hillary Clinton that has a proven record of a dangerous foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she has a consistent track record of supporting our enemies and alienating our allies.

A short list of Hillary’s policies that have jeopardized American national security include: undermining the service and sacrifice of thousands of men and women in uniform by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops; supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of Islamic State; supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt,UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined America’s Muslim allies; refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria; undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009; and supporting the Iran Nuclear deal.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram in Nigeria, which was named the deadliest terrorist organization in 2015, a terrorist group. She not only refused, but she hindered the efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation.

The FBI, CIA and Justice Department wanted Boko Haram designated but, ultimately, the State Department opposed the designation despite hard evidence from our Intelligence services.

Clinton’s refusal to designate them a FTO could be because of conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and a Nigerian businessman. Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian businessman with Lebanese dual citizenship and land developer, gave $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation throughout the years and pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009 through the Chagoury Group. He hosted former President Bill Clinton in Nigeria as head of the Clinton Foundation.

Chagoury would have a financial interest in the impact on Nigeria that would have followed a FTO designation. The FTO designation would affect his developments in Nigeria.

Boko Haram is responsible for kidnapping over 260 young female students in 2014. If the designation for Boko Haram occurred sooner, the search for the girls could have started sooner. Boko Haram gained significant footing and expanded during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Boko Haram has killed more than 20,000 people and displaced 2 million.

Hillary calls herself a “champion of women’s rights,” but did not designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization despite being responsible for killing and kidnapping thousands of people, including women and children, using them as sex slaves and suicide bombers.

One of the most strategic consequential failures of the Hillary State Department was in 2009 when the U.S. undermined the Iranian Green Revolution. Not only did the U.S. do nothing to help the opposition against the terrorist Iranian regime, but US funding was cut for democratic organizations/programs in Iran under Clinton’s State Department. Democracy funding under the State Department continued in countries like Egypt, where the US supported “democratic” opposition groups which led to the removal of US ally Mubarak, but were cut for opposition groups that were pro-western against a terrorist regime.

According to a Wall Street Journal article published in October 2009, democratic organizations that were funded under the Bush Administration were cut under Hillary’s State Department. The article states

Less widely known is that Freedom House, the nonpartisan watchdog group founded in 1941, also lost State Department funding. It applied in April for significant funds to support initiatives including Gozaar, its Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights, and was turned down in July. Since 2006, Freedom House had received over $2 million from the U.S. and European governments for Iran-related efforts. “We might have to close Gozaar if we run out of money,” deputy executive director Thomas O. Melia told us this week…then there’s the International Republican Institute (IRI), which for several years received State Department support to train Iranian reformers and connect them to like-minded activists in Europe and elsewhere. IRI’s recent application for funds was denied, an IRI official told us last week.

The article continued saying, “In a recent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Iran policy, seven congressmen including Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Bob Inglis (R., S.C.), and James Moran (D., Va.), wrote: ‘We are particularly concerned by reports that the State Department and USAID are being ‘extremely cautious’ in their funding decisions, have stopped funding projects, and have approved no new strategy for promoting civil society and the rule of law.’ Mrs. Clinton has not responded.”

The war in Libya is another one of Hillary’s greatest foreign policy mistakes, leading to thousands killed and millions displaced. Gaddafi was not a good man, but he had a stake in the global war on terrorism after he allegedly dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. In 2007, the United States removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism andresumed normal diplomatic relations.

Under Gaddafi, Islamists were consistently trying to overthrow his regime, so he had an interest in standing up against Islamist terrorists, using state force against them. Libyan intelligence worked with the CIA and the US intelligence during the Iraq war to arrest members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

The LIFG has been a U.S. designated terrorist organization since 2004. According to aWest Point study conducted in 2007, Libya contributed far more foreign fighters in Iraq to fight American troops per capita than any other country.

It was Hillary Clinton’s State Department that gave a contract to the February 17th Martyrs Brigade in Libya to protect America’s Consulate, who were known sympathizers to Al Qaeda and are main suspects in the Benghazi attack on the U.S. consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

In Afghanistan, Hillary undermined American and Afghan troops by leading and spearheading the negotiations with the Taliban, pushing for an office in Qatar while the Taliban refused. She led negotiations with the Taliban while they were killing American troops.

As Secretary of State, the US failed to secure the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIS – undermining the sacrifice that thousands of Americans gave in securing victory in the war.

In Yemen, Hillary Clinton met with one of the leading members of the opposition, Tawakkol Karman, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen and was a leader in the overthrow of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime. Hillary Clinton stated, “”the United States supports a democratic transition in Yemen and the rights of the people of Yemen – men and women – to choose their own leaders and futures.”  The White House issued a statement supporting the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution that called for a peaceful transition in Yemen, stating, “a united and unambiguous signal to President Saleh that he must respond to the aspirations of the Yemeni people by transferring power immediately.” Today, Yemen is a failed state and fighting a proxy war, another disaster of Hillary’s Arab Spring.

The Middle East is on fire because of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration’s policies of fighting against the rule of law and supporting those that break the law – creating anarchy and safe havens for terrorists. Hillary will bring anarchy and lawlessness, which she has already done as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous for America’s national security, not Donald Trump.

Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka Talks ‘Defeating Jihad’ on Glazov Gang

gorka3
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the author of Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War and Professor of Strategy and Irregular Warfare at the Institute of World Politics.

Dr. Gorka unveils the winning strategy against Jihad, unmasks the Radical-in-Chief, describes the horrific scenario of a Hillary victory, and much, much more.

***

Dr. Sebastian Gorka said  on his  facebook  that he will be appearing at this special FOX townhall event in Milwaukee Tuesday with Sean Hannity and Donald Trump:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hannity-exclusive-one-hour-event-with-trump-in-milwaukee-tickets-24793306447

Ten Most Troubling Finds Inside House Probe of Pentagon’s ‘Distorted’ Intel on Islamic State

islamic-state-executions-640x480Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Aug. 13, 2016:

TEL AVIV – A damning investigation by House Republicans released on Wednesday has found that the intelligence arm of the U.S. Military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) routinely produced intelligence that “distorted, suppressed, or substantially altered” the results of the campaign against the Islamic State.

Breitbart Jerusalem reviewed the House report and herein presents the ten most troubling finds, in no particular order.

1 – Top CENTCOM leaders modified intelligence assessments to present an “unduly positive” assessment of combating the Islamic State and training the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).

The complaint alleges that senior leaders within the CENTCOM Intelligence Directorate and JIC, including the Director of Intelligence and other senior intelligence staff, violated regulations, tradecraft standards, and professional ethics by modifying intelligence assessments to present an unduly positive outlook on CENTCOM efforts to train the ISF and combat ISIL.

Media outlets have also raised allegations of possible reprisals against individuals within the CENTCOM Intelligence Directorate. …

According to multiple interviewees, operational reporting was used as a justification to alter or “soften” an analytic product so it would cast U.S. efforts in a more positive light. No interview provided any instances where operational reporting was used as a justification to come to a more pessimistic conclusion. Additionally, numerous interviewees indicated that analytical products which conflicted with operational reporting were routinely subject to more stringent scrutiny than those that did not.

2 – Intelligence analysts declined to be interviewed, possibly out of fear of reprisals from CENTCOM leadership, while the interviews that did take place were under the watchful eyes of DOD officials.

Additionally, the Joint Task Force requested interviews with four more analysts whose positions provided them with visibility into the allegations. These analysts declined to be interviewed. Although they did not express their reasons for declining, the Joint Task Force is concerned that some of the analysts may have done so out of fear of potential reprisals for their testimony.

For example, as the Joint Task Force’s interviews were commencing, the Director of the DIA publicly characterized reports of the whistleblower’s allegations as exaggerations.

It must also be noted that, pursuant to longstanding arrangements between DOD and the Armed Services Committee, DOD insisted on having department officials present during Joint Task Force interviews.

3 – CENTCOM intel agents operated within a ‘toxic’ leadership environment.

The Republican lawmakers fingered CENTCOM leaders, and noted the intelligence process was cleaner under previous officials and Lloyd Austin III, who served as commander from 2013 to 2016. Dozens of analysts viewed the “subsequent leadership environment as toxic”:

Survey results provided to the Joint Task Force demonstrated that dozens of analysts viewed the subsequent leadership environment as toxic, with 40% of analysts responding that they had experienced an attempt to distort or suppress intelligence in the past year.

4 – General Austin’s claim to Congress that IS was in a “defensive crouch” did not reflect the data possessed at the time by CENTCOM senior leaders.

Although no interviewee remembered the process of preparing the specific press releases and congressional testimony highlighted here, interviewees described a process in which congressional testimony and public affairs statements did not necessarily reflect contemporaneous intelligence assessments. In particular, the Joint Task Force was dismayed to learn that Intelligence Directorate senior leaders seemed unfamiliar with General Austin’s statements to Congress that ISIL was in a “defensive crouch” and indicated this characterization did not reflect their best assessments at the time.

5 – CENTCOM established an intelligence “fusion center” for IS-related intel, but kept out analysts whose views conflicted with senior intelligence leaders.

In June 2014, with the ISIL threat apparent, CENTCOM established an intelligence “fusion center,” a specially equipped JIC facility staffed around-the-clock, to serve as a “focal point” for ISIL-related intelligence. Interviewees recalled only informal communications noting the center’s establishment, and some were also uncertain about the center’s organizational structure, responsibilities, and how it was determined which JIC analysts would participate. The establishment of the Intelligence Fusion Center also removed some analysts who had the most experience with respect to ISIL and Iraq, including those whose analytic views often conflicted with those of CENTCOM’s senior intelligence leaders, from the production of daily intelligence products. This impact was especially significant given the critical analytic tasks of the Intelligence Fusion Center at this time of paramount importance in the theater.

6 – Restrictions were implemented for analysts whose views dissented from the mainstream inside CENTCOM.

Public statements by CENTCOM representatives emphasized close collaboration with other elements of the IC, but many interviewees indicated that in late 2014, senior CENTCOM Intelligence Directorate leaders instructed analysts to cease all external coordination with other IC analysts. The authority to coordinate was restricted to senior officials only, including to leaders of the Fusion Center. Other special arrangements were also put into place to notify the Director of Intelligence in the event that analysts sought to formally “dissent” from analysis produced elsewhere. The restrictions on collaboration have since been partially rescinded.

7 – Analysis was minimized in favor of details from coalition forces while intelligence was skewed to be ‘optimistic.’

Furthermore, senior leaders also relied on details reported from coalition forces rather than more objective and better documented intelligence reporting. The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction. By supplanting analytic tradecraft with unpublished and ad hoc operational reporting, Joint Intelligence Center (JIC) leadership circumvented important processes that are intended to protect the integrity of intelligence analysis.

8 – Shocking survey results showed analysts believed data was “distorted, suppressed, or substantially altered” by their supervisors.

The annual Analytic Objectivity and Process Survey, directed by the ODNI, was conducted from August through October 2015, and included responses from 125 analysts and managers within CENTCOM. The survey results were significantly worse than those of other IC agencies or COCOMs, and showed that a substantial number of CENTCOM respondents felt their supervisors distorted, suppressed, or substantially altered analytic products.

Over 50% of analysts responded that CENTCOM procedures, practices, processes, and organizational structures hampered objective analysis, and 40% responded that they had experienced an attempt to distort or suppress intelligence in the past year. Yet despite receiving these results in December 2015, CENTCOM and IC leaders did not take corrective actions to address many of the issues identified in the survey results.

9 – Even after whistleblower complaints and the “alarming” internal survey last year, the Pentagon took no steps to correct its allegedly distorted intelligence process.

The Joint Task Force is troubled that despite receiving the whistleblower complaint in May 2015 and receiving alarming survey results in December 2015, neither CENTCOM, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) took any demonstrable steps to improve the analytic climate within CENTCOM. The survey results alone should have prompted CENTCOM and IC leaders to take corrective action without other inducements.

10 – Mirroring the Benghazi House Committee’s complaints against the State Department, the Joint Task Force here writes it “did not receive access to all the materials it requested” and details a process of denying information and records.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein.

Canadian Jihadi Created ‘Martyrdom Video,’ Pledged Allegiance to Islamic State

National Post/screenshot

National Post/screenshot

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 122, 2016:

At a news conference on Friday, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said that Canadian jihadi Aaron Driver, shot by the police after detonating a bomb in a taxicab, filmed a “martyrdom video,” pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and was planning a “dreadful” attack.

In the martyrdom video, Driver dresses in a black balaclava, like the garb favored by ISIS militants, “cites a phrase from the Koran, refers to crimes against Muslims and pledges an imminent attack on a Canadian city,” as Reuters describes it.

“Oh Canada, you received many warnings, you were told many times what would become of those who fight against the Islamic State,” begins the aspiring jihadi, who went by the name “Harun Abdulrahman” on social media.

The National Post provided an edited copy of the video, plus a full transcript of Driver’s tirade, which ends with the formal vow of allegiance to ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that the Islamic State demands from “lone wolf” recruits:

Oh Canada, you received many warnings. You were told many times what will become of those who fight against the Islamic State. You watched as your allies in Europe and America had their bullets and bombs returned back to them. You saw bodies of the filthy French laying in their own streets.

You saw explosions in Paris and Brussels, similar to the explosions they were dropping on citizens of the Islamic State. You saw brave men and women respond to the call of jihad. You saw that each member of the coalition of crusaders was being punished for their aggression against the Muslims. Then, perhaps, you found yourself safe from retaliation because you ran away from the battlefield. No, no by Allah you still have much to pay for.

You still have a heavy debt which has to be paid. You still have Muslim blood on your hands, and for this we are thirsty for your blood. There’s a fire burning in the chest of every Muslim, and this fire can be cooled only by the spilling of your blood. Your war on Islam is not the kind of crime we allow ourselves to dismiss, to forgive or to forget, insha’Allah.

You will pay for everything you ever brought against us. Whether you drop a bomb or fire a single bullet, we will hold you accountable for this, insha’Allah. Whether you spend millions in the war against Islam or you spend a single cent, we will hold you accountable, insha’Allah.

When you creep an inch towards the lands of Islam or you set foot over its boundaries, we will hold you accountable, insha’Allah.

You call yourselves peacekeepers on this Earth, but (Allah) has already warned us against you. You’re nothing but mischief-makers, and all you do is spread oppression and corruption. So today is the day you experience what it’s like to be targeted for your belief, insha’Allah.

I give my pledge of allegiance to (ISIL leader) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi … who’s called for jihad in the lands of crusaders, and I respond to this call.

Inshallah means “as Allah wills.” Driver’s taunt that Canadians could not find safety by “running away from the battlefield” refers to new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pledge to withdraw Canadian forces from combat missions against the Islamic State.

According to Reuters, the martyrdom video was the crucial “actionable threat intelligence” provided by the American FBI to Canadian authorities. The video also reportedly helped the RCMP identify Driver and locate his residence. The police confronted him as he was attempting to use a taxicab to leave the home, and shot him after he detonated an explosive device, causing minor injuries to the cab driver.

“It was a race against time,” said RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana. He said Driver was planning a “significantly more dreadful” attack if he had not been stopped in time.

The UK Guardian quotes Cabana addressing the issue of Driver being a known terrorist threat, who was theoretically under police supervision at the time he came dangerously close to pulling off a mass-casualty attack:

“Mr Driver was one individual among others that had potentially criminal intentions. And our ability to monitor people 24 hours a day and 7 days a week simply does not exist, we can’t do that. When individuals have intentions, such as Mr Driver had, there are no conditions that can be put in place that will prevent them from taking action.”

Newsweek reports that the ISIS news agency, Amaq, has described Driver as a “soldier of the Islamic State,” conceding that he made a mistake by “releasing his video… before carrying out the attack.”

***

 

Fact Check: Were Obama and Hillary Founders of ISIS? You Bet

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 12, 2016:

Even the left-stream media is now acknowledging that Donald Trump “has a point” when he blasts Hilary and Obama for creating ISIS.

“Hillary Clinton is vulnerable. ISIS did gain strength during her time as Secretary of State,” said ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt tried to give Mr. Trump an out. “I know what you meant,” he suggested. “You meant that he [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

“No,” Trump replied. “I meant, he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Trump is correct – and quite literally, so.

First, a document. Then some history.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now have an August 2012 defense intelligence report on the civil war in Syria and the situation in Iraq that openly states that the policy of the United States and its allies was to support the Salafist opposition to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

That opposition, at the time spearheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), soon morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS.

The report appears to have originated from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq, well before their intelligence product was tarnished by political interference from top commanders in 2014 aimed at diminishing the threat from ISIS.

Here’s what the report, originally stamped SECRET, actually says:

 AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al- Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime…

Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… [emphasis mine]

There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want…

It is no secret that the United States was supporting the Syrian opposition in 2012 and even until very recently. In December 2012, thanks in large measure to the active lobbying of Mrs. Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, Obama declared that the United States considered the opposition as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

What was secret until the release of this August 2012 defense intelligence report is that the United States knew that the Syrian opposition was dominated by al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, groups that merged and morphed into what today we call ISIS.

So Donald Trump is literally correct. Obama and Hillary created ISIS. They figure among the founding fathers of the world’s most brutal terrorist organization. They deserve ISIS Most Valuable Player awards for their efforts.

Some of America’s enemies, such as Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, have also accused the United States of creating ISIS – but as a tool for encroaching on Iran’s efforts to dominate the Muslim world. In fact, Obama and Hillary’s policies have simultaneously favored Iran and its rise to regional dominance, standing aside as Iran filled the vacuum in Iraq with its own militias and allowing Iranian troops and weapons to flow onto battlefields in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and beyond.

Other documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the United States was also complicit with arms shipments from Benghazi to the jihadi rebel groups in Syria.

These particular shipments were distinct from the more publicized case of al Entisar, a Libyan fishing vessel that arrived in Iskanderiyah, Turkey, crammed with weapons in late August 2012.

The shipments described in this recently declassified document were sent directly to small Syrian ports under rebel control and included RPG grenade-launchers, sniper rifles, and ammunition for 125mm and 155mm howitzers.

As I revealed two years ago, the U.S. backed arms shipments to ISIS and its allies in Syria appear to have been run out of the White House by then-counterterrorism advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan. Running the clandestine arms shipments outside official channels allowed Obama and his allies – including Mrs. Clinton, who supported the arms shipments – to withhold that information from Congress.

Deflecting attention from these arms shipments is precisely why Obama and Hillary hatched their “blame-it-on-a-YouTube-video” narrative as the cause of the Benghazi attacks. It was a deliberate deception to trick the American people and cover-up their misdeeds.

Obama’s disastrous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in December 2011 clearly enhanced the ability of AQI and ISI to seize control of large portions of Iraqi territory and certainly contributed to the birth of ISIS. It also opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.

But as the August 2012 defense intelligence report states, that was the plan all along. Obama and Hillary wanted to create an ISIS-controlled enclave in Syria, “in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

Donald Trump was right. Again.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Deception: the Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi, released on July 19 and is now in its 4thprinting.

Also see:

National Security Experts for Destroying America

unnamed

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 12, 2016:

The media widely covered General Allen’s attack on Trump at the DNC and treated him as an apolitical national security expert. It neglected to mention that he works at Brookings or that the president of the Brookings Institution is Strobe Talbott.

Talbott is an old friend of the Clintons. He got into government through them and worked for them as Deputy Secretary of State. He owes his current prominence largely to his Clinton connections.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Talbott was one of the few to have close access to her. He is not only a political ally, but also a personal friend. And Brookings and the Clinton Foundation are entangled in a number of ways. One of those ways was Brookings’ extremely controversial sponsorship by Qatar which included a sizable payment to Bill Clinton to appear at the US Islamic World Forum.

General Allen was also in attendance at the US Islamic World Forum.

The media did not see fit to inform its viewers, listeners and readers that General Allen wasn’t an apolitical national security expert, but was in the vest pocket of the Clintons.

When former CIA boss Mike Morell offered a splashy endorsement of Hillary Clinton combined with an attack on Trump, it made headlines. It made fewer headlines when the New York Times’ Public Editor mentioned several days later that the paper really ought to have noted that Morell was working at Beacon Global Strategies whose co-founders include two key Hillary people, Philippe Reines and Leon Panetta. It inevitably made no mention of Morell’s role in editing the Benghazi talking points.

Instead the media pretended that a story about a Hillary loyalist endorsing her was some sort of major development when it was really as predictable and meaningless as rain in Seattle.

Or lack of rain in Los Angeles.

Despite the finger wagging from its own public editor, the New York Times still refuses to mention that Morell had any economic or political ties to Hillary’s people. The only reason for this obstinacy is that it would expose a lie that the newspaper of false record insists on telling as often as it can.

This unethical behavior is typical of the media’s onslaught of endorsements by national security professionals and former Republicans for Hillary and/or condemnations of Trump. These items run as editorials in major papers while lacking significant biographical information that would provide context.

Instead the media has manufactured a narrative in which national security experts have decided that Trump is too dangerous to be trusted near nuclear weapons while one of the architects of the Arab Spring and its wave of Jihadist terror is the perfect choice to oversee our national security.

The notion that Hillary Clinton is a trusted national security choice is absurd on the face of it. Not only is she inexperienced, but her experience consisted of fostering the ISIS takeover of entire countries.

In reality, the Clinton campaign has recruited a number of people with impressive sounding titles and is rolling out endorsements and attacks by them in short order using major media outlets. Instead of reporting on the fact that this is a campaign tactic, the media not only provides a forum and free advertising for the Clinton campaign in its op-ed sections, but also maintains the illusion that this is an independent phenomenon rather than a fake viral campaign by their favored candidate.

The missing information is ubiquitous. For example, the media coverage of the joint statement by William Reilly and William Ruckelshaus identifies them as Republican EPA heads. It neglects to mention or even outright buries the fact that Reilly is a repeat Obama appointee. It chooses not to acknowledge the fact that he is a director at the Packard Foundation which has donated to the Clinton Foundation.

And the missing information isn’t just limited to outright Hillary Clinton endorsements.

One of the latest high profile attacks on Trump is a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “I was a Minuteman III nuclear launch officer. Take it from me: We can’t let Trump become president.” It’s quite a title. It also makes the ahistorical claim that the “very point of nuclear weapons is that they are never used.”

That would have come as news to Harry Truman and the city of Hiroshima.

Its author, John Noonan, is identified only as “a Republican national security expert and former Minuteman III nuclear launch officer”. It neglects to mention his more current role as “a principal defense writer for The Weekly Standard” or his time with the Foreign Policy Institute. Both are closely linked to Bill Kristol who has actively sought to recruit a third party challenger to Trump.

It should be a matter of elementary media ethics for the Los Angeles Times to have disclosed that their splashy op-ed is coming from the employee of a man who is focused on defeating Trump.

But as with Hillary’s people, the media instead offers up what it claims are apolitical national security experts while refusing to mention their political alliances and allegiances.

The viral headlines touting Republicans who have switched to Hillary are equally likely to leave out pertinent details. Former Bush staffer Lezlee Westine is not “the latest Republican to cross party lines to back Clinton over Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump”. She did that back when she donated to Obama during his original campaign. Likewise Meg Whitman was left-wing on core issues and had served on Friends of Boxer.

There is real journalism to be done here. A close look at the Chertoff Group and the Scowcroft Group might be far more illuminating when it comes to the motives of Hillary Clinton’s national security backers. But the media is not interested in shining a light on the issue, but throwing a dark curtain across it. Instead of engaging in anything even faintly resembling journalism, it has become a press release outlet for the Clinton campaign.

This should come as a surprise to no one who remembers the pervasive media bias of the last two elections and yet the public does deserve to know the truth. By carefully censoring the biographical information that their readers receive, major newspapers are making their bad faith overt and clear.

There is nothing natural or grass roots about the rush of attacks on Trump and the endorsements of Hillary. None of them have anything to do with some supposedly shocking thing that Trump said.

The Clintons have spent decades building a vast network of political interests using the non-profit sector as a seed for their influence project. This has enabled the Clinton campaign to put on the kind of show we’ve been seeing this week. This show has been combined with media speculation about Trump’s implosion to construct a false narrative about national security experts fleeing to Hillary Clinton.

Once again the media has become the communications arm of a Democratic political campaign.

Also see:

HuffPo Columnist Lies, Downplays Sharia Law to Make It Acceptable

GettyImages-72166261-640x418Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Aug. 9, 2016:

Maryam Khan Ansari, who is identified as an “attorney and writer,” published a ridiculous piece in the Huffington Post Saturday: “What Is Sharia Law And Should You Be Scared? Why is Sharia such a scary word?”

Sharia is a scary word because sharia is scary.

The supremacist tenets of sharia law inform the creed apartheid, gender apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred, codified bigotry, misogyny, free speech prohibitions and homophobia inherent in Islamic law. Sharia is scary because it is punitive, supremacist, racist and misogynist.

But Ansari says it’s scary because “for starters, it’s short and easy to pronounce. When you add the word ‘creeping’ in front of it, it starts to look even creepier. Especially since American people know very little, or nothing, about Islam, according to a Pew Research Poll.” She adds: “The word ‘Sharia Law’ has Americans conjure up images of guys with turbans.”

No, sharia law conjures up the images of girls murdered in honor killings, beheadings, slaughters of gays, non-Muslims, apostates, and secular Muslims, whippings, floggings, amputations, and public hangings commanded in Islamic law. “Guys with turbans”? Hardly.

It further erodes Ansari’s argument that she evokes the Sikhs. Sikhs have been brutally persecuted under the boot of Islam. Her article includes a picture of the actor and fashion designer Waris Ahluwalia, who is not a Muslim and follows a different religion called Sikhism. Waris is Sikh. I repeat, Waris is not Muslim, he is Sikh. But he wears a turban, so for Ansari’s purposes he must be Muslim, and he probably follows Sharia Law. Except that again, he is Sikh, not Muslim.

It gets worse. Ansari goes on: “But wait a minute― does anyone actually know what Sharia Law even is? I’m a lawyer and I’m Muslim, so people think I’m supposed to know Sharia Law. I bet many people probably think I follow it, simply because I’m a Muslim.

So, I thought I’d take the opportunity to set the record straight on Sharia Law. After all, who better to explain it than a Muslim lawyer?”

After that build-up, you would expect her to do what she promised to do: “set the record straight on Sharia Law.” Instead, she says: “I don’t know squat about Sharia Law. I don’t think many Muslims do. Yeah, you heard me. I’m a lawyer, I’m Muslim… And I still couldn’t tell you what Sharia law is all about.”

A Muslim who doesn’t “know squat about Sharia Law” is hardly fit to write about it, let alone attack those who oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. Muslims who don’t practice or “know squat” about sharia law are not the problem. Muslims who seek to impose it are the problem. Muslim countries that enforce are the problem.

Maryam Khan Ansari defending Khzir Khan puts her foot in her mouth, because Khan is a longtime proponent of sharia law and knows a lot about it. Journalist Paul Sperry reports:

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

Ansari keeps piling it on: “Sharia Law is a very complicated body of law (imagine, like, a very difficult to understand Tax Code) and it isn’t something that the average Muslim can understand in depth. And like American law, it doesn’t come from just one book. It comes from many different sources. So like American law, only (some) properly trained legal people can make sense of it.”

Nonsense. Everywhere sharia law is practiced, the penalties are the same: stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, amputation of the hand for theft, death for criticism of Islam. Everywhere sharia is implemented. It really isn’t complicated.

Ansari’s second “myth” is: “All Muslims believe in Sharia Law.”

No one believes all Muslims believe in sharia law. If that were the case, no Muslim who sought to impose it should be admitted into the USA. But we do see sharia being imposed here in America – with speech restrictions (under the guise of restrictions on “hate speech”), the Islamization of the public square, the Islamization of the public school, the Islamization of the workplace, and the Islamization/mosqueing of the neighborhood.

Islamic scholars know what sharia is. Islamic theologians know. And when they don’t, they consult Al Azhar scholars – Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institution. One principal English-language source for the content of Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls it a “carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari’a) according to the Shafi’i mad’hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991.”

Ansari also insists that Muslims don’t want to impose sharia in the U.S.:

Now, I’m sure there are some crazies out there who want to impose Sharia Law on everyone. There are a lot of crazy people of all races and religions. But just because they’re nuts, it doesn’t mean that they can actually make it happen. In fact, anyone who thinks that Sharia Law will ever take over the U.S. Constitution is a different kind of crazy. And crazy people, while scary, really can’t make the leadership of a country change.

More lies. Muslims fiercely work to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia. The Muhammad cartoons are the most obvious example. All over the Muslim world, secular thinkers, poets, writers, journalists, bloggers, and cartoonists have been targeted for death because they were critical of Islam. How many Muslims stood with us in Garland, Texas? Zero.

As a modern Muslim woman, Maryam Khan Ansari should work to oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and free the millions oppressed, subjugated and slaughtered under the boot of sharia. Instead, she is a slave to it, advancing gruesome, unforgivable lies in order to disarm the American people in the face of the gravest threat to our freedom that we have ever faced.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Pamela has more here

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Intel Professionals Say ‘Reality Doesn’t Matter’ When White House Spins War Against ISIS

Screen-Shot-2016-08-06-at-9.40.42-PM-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 6, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined guest host Mike Huckabee on Fox News’ “Hannity” to address President Obama’s mixed messages on the war against the Islamic State.

“The President’s kind of all over the board on this. He tells us that this is an ISIS that’s getting defeated, but we still have a threat. So which is it?” Huckabee asked.

“That is the question, Governor,” Dr. Gorka replied, with a rueful laugh. “You just have to listen to the professionals. Let’s take politics out of the equation. Let’s take spin out of the equation.”

“We have the most senior intelligence officer in federal government – that’s DNI Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence – who, in his last testimony, his last unclassified testimony on the Hill, just a matter of maybe three weeks ago, said the following: he said that the capacity of the Islamic State, of ISIS, to execute global attacks has not been diminished at all by our actions in theater,” Gorka recalled.

“That’s Number One. Their capacity to do terrorism in San Bernardino, in Orlando, in France, has not changed,” he stressed. “And on top of that, the one sentence that the media really missed – it came later on in his testimony – is the following: he said, in my 30+ [year] career as an intelligence professional, I have never seen the world as unstable as it is today. That’s after seven and a half years of Obama and Clinton foreign policy.”

“Let’s leave the answer to the professionals,” Gorka urged. “The most senior intelligence officer said the world is on fire.”

“How does the President, and this Administration, get away with diminishing the description, and the threat that ISIS poses to the world?” Huckabee asked.

“Because it’s not about reality. It’s not about protecting America,” Gorka answered. “It’s about spin. It’s about legacy.”

“Think about the fact that last year, we had 60 CENTCOM analysts, Central Command analysts – the people who are looking at ISIS, at Syria, at Iraq – publicly complain and protest that their analysis reports on ISIS were being either doctored, changed, or thrown away when they didn’t comport with the White House narrative that we’re winning,” he said. “If it didn’t meet the preconceived political message, it was distorted, or it was lost.”

“We didn’t even have that, Governor, during Vietnam,” Gorka reminded Huckabee. “We never had 60 intel analysts say reality doesn’t matter, and the White House simply wants to spin. It’s outrageous.”

Huckabee wondered why there hasn’t been a definitive effort to shut ISIS out of social media platforms, which they have aggressively used for jihad recruiting and strategic communications.

“There’s a couple of reasons for that. The first one is a technical one: the Internet was invented by DARPA, by the defense research hub for the DOD, and it was invented deliberately to have built-in redundancy,” Gorka explained. “So you can shut down one server, shut down one IPA address provider, and it will rejuvenate, and another place will take over. So the technology is really on the side of the terrorists.”

“Secondly, what is Internet provision about? It’s about the bottom line. It’s about making a buck. It’s about the service provider having the shares report positively in the next quarterly stock meeting,” he continued.

“Look what happened after San Bernardino. Apple doesn’t want to allow the FBI to open the county government’s iPhone that was issued to Mr. Farook,” said Gorka, referring to jihadi Syed Farook, a county employee whose encrypted telephone became the focus of a national controversy. “Why is that? Because they’re scared over whether they’re going to make profit on the next iPhone 7.”

“This is the challenge. We really have a lack of cooperation between the national security establishment, the private sector, and the nature of the Internet itself,” Dr. Gorka said.

***

***

***

***

Also see:

Did Clinton Emails Get Iranian Scientist Killed?

Visit-Iran-Poster1-high-731x10241

CounterJihad, Aug. 8, 2016:

Senator Tom Cotton fielded an explosive charge this weekend:  that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exposed one of America’s spies and got him killed.  Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri was hanged by the Iranian regime after a secret trial.  His original sentence was reported to be ten years, although it was not officially proclaimed as the Iranian regime often issues secret sentences.  Secretary Clinton’s emails discussed, in an unclassified and unsecure format, the fact that he had provided “useful information” to the United States.

Speaking in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, the Arkansas Senator said, “I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisers about this gentleman,” Cotton said on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

“That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server and I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe,” he added….  Clinton has come under fire for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state in US President Barack Obama’s first term.

FBI Director James Comey said last month that the FBI had found evidence that “the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that’s found elsewhere in the US government.”

It appears that Iran used his young son to lure Shahram back into the country.  Threats against the child seem to have persuaded him to cooperate with Iranian security services in returning to their jurisdiction.  According to the New York Times, they compelled him to claim that he had been abducted by the CIA on a videotape, and then used that to create a cover story for his return.  Once in Iran, he received a hero’s welcome — at first.  Later, there came the knock at the door.

Iran’s government in exile, the National Council of Resistance — Iran, proclaimed that his execution was intended to intimidate others in the country who might feel inclined to reach out to the United States.  They also claim to have received his final message before his execution, in which he alleged tortures including electric shocks.

It is a dangerous moment for anyone in Iran with ties to the United States.  Ever since the so-called nuclear deal of last summer, Iran’s hardliners have been on a “witch-hunt” for American spies.  The fear is that the deal might send a signal to the Iranian people that the regime was intending to become more open and connected to the rest of the world.  Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been at pains to send the opposite message through repression.  He has warned of American subversion, especially through sex and money.  He has also resorted to increased rates of kidnapping Iranian-Americans, partially because the Obama administration has proven willing to pay large ransoms for their return.  Former Federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy says that these payments were a felony committed by President Obama, although no one expects the law to apply to any member of this administration.

Clinton’s success in dodging her own felony charges has had numerous negative effects on America’s national security, but this is the first time we can confirm a body count from her reckless handling of secrets.  It will likely not be the last, given the probability of her emails having been hacked by enemy regimes.

MORE ABOUT THE IRAN THREAT

***

Executed Iranian scientist discussed in Clinton server emails, fueling GOP accusations

Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated ‘Inevitably’

GettyImages-585966410

Meanwhile, in case you are having trouble keeping track of ISIS related arrests here in the United States, here is the list at Threat Knowledge Group. CURRENT COUNT: 109

Breitbart, by Charlie Spiering, Aug. 5, 2016:

President Barack Obama tried to talk down Islamic State terrorism during his press conference at the Pentagon, insisting that it would be defeated “inevitably.”

“ISIL turns out not to be invincible,” he said. “They’re, in fact, inevitably going to be defeated.”

Obama met with his national security advisers at the Pentagon to discuss his ongoing war against ISIS, citing the importance of freeing Mosul and Raqqah from their control.

But he failed to outline any significant changes to his strategy, citing an ongoing commitment to supporting partners on the ground.

“What we’ve learned from our efforts to defeat al Qaeda is that if we stay on it, our intelligence gets better and we adapt as well,” he said. “And eventually, we will dismantle these networks also.”

Obama pointed out that two years ago, ISIS was making gains and threatening Baghdad, but argued that as a result of his efforts, they had lost territory.

“Even ISIL’s leaders know they’re going to keep losing,” he said. “In their message to followers, they’re increasingly acknowledging that they may lose Mosul and Raqqah. And ISIL is right. They will lose them.”

Obama urged Americans to “keep our eye on the ball and not panic” in spite of a series of ISIS attacks on civilians around the world.

“We have to understand that as painful and as tragic as these attacks are that we are going to keep on grinding away, preventing them wherever we can, using a whole government effort to knock down their propaganda, to disrupt their networks, to take their key operatives off the battlefield, and that eventually we will win,” he explained.

***

***

***

***

Jim Hanson: Obama Is a ‘Dismal Failure’ in Fighting Global Jihad

***