Mike Pompeo: Attempts to Invalidate Trump’s Presidency Plays into Putin’s Hands

Getty / Joe Raedle

Getty / Joe Raedle

Breitbart, by Warner Todd Huston, January 12, 2016:

During his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) said he would observe the proper laws forbidding enhanced interrogation of terror suspects and affirmed that he believes Russia is a threat to the United States. He also noted, however, that attempts to undermine President-elect Donald Trump plays right into the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate held its first hearing for the confirmation of Rep. Pompeo, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to become CIA chief. While the hearing kicked off with a temporary power outage in the room, the congressman fielded a range of questions from metadata, to CIA-sponsored torture, to privacy concerns. One senator, California’s Kamala Harris, even went off on a tangent asking Pompeo about NASA global warming data and Pompeo’s views on gay marriage.

When it came time to talk about Russia, though, Pompeo had a dual warning.

The Kansan said that Russia is not an ally of the United States, but also insisted that attempts to invalidate Donald Trump’s presidency is serving the anti-American policies of Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Agreeing with the U.S. intelligence community’s latest assessment of Russia, Pompeo also said it is “pretty clear” that the Russians tried to influence the U.S. elections.

“It’s pretty clear about what took place here, about Russian involvement in efforts to hack information and to have impact on American democracy,” Pompeo said during the Senate Intelligence Committee meeting. “I’m very clear-eyed about what that intelligence report says. This was an aggressive action taken by the senior leadership inside of Russia.”

Pompeo also said he would support an extensive investigation into just what forms that “aggressive action” took during the 2016 campaign saying, “I will continue to pursue foreign intelligence with vigor no matter where the facts lead.”

“The internet,” Pompeo said, “is a borderless, global environment, easily and frequently exploited by sophisticated adversaries like China and Russia, as well as by less sophisticated adversaries like Iran and North Korea, non-state actors, terrorist groups, criminal organizations, and hackers.”

He also warned though that constant speculation that the election was hacked plays into Putin’s hands. During his response on the matter he said he has “no doubt that the discourse that’s been taking place is something Putin would look at and say, ‘That was among the objectives that I have.’”

As for another topic, many liberals have worried about Pompeo’s thoughts on the CIA using enhanced interrogation. The question seemed fairly answered when Senators Feinstein and Heinrich both quizzed him on the topic. Pompeo told Feinstein he would not re-start the enhanced interrogation policy if he were to become head of the CIA and assured Senator Heinrich that he would stick to the Army field manual for interrogation that currently forbids such techniques.

As to Iran, Pompeo said that despite his personal opinions and his past claims that he would work to repeal Obama’s “disastrous deal” with Iran, he would abide by whatever his President told him to do on the issue.

The congressman also fielded questions about his past comments on gathering metadata. While noting that intelligence is the “lifeblood” of national security, he added that such intel “is more in demand than ever.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that metadata is not private personal information, but nonetheless Pompeo said he would certainly toe the line of the law — whatever that may be — on the collection of data.

He was also asked for his thoughts on demanding that tech companies give the U.S. government keys to their encryption of data. Pompeo replied that personal privacy would be an important concern for him and added, “I think we need to acknowledge that encryption is out there, and not all encryption takes place in the United States,” Pompeo replied.

But even as Pompeo said he’d toe the law on these matters, Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn asked Pompeo if he will “play to the edge” of the law as CIA director so as not to play too cautious with national security. The Congressman said he would be sure to be mindful of the needs of his operatives and added, “It’s my role to make sure those lines are clear and bright.”

Pompeo also faced questioning from California Democrat Kamala Harris who seemed to feel his stance against gay marriage would hamper his work to secure the nation. She also quizzed him on global warming, asking if he would accept climate change claims made by NASA.

Seemingly bemused by the quixotic line of questioning, Pompeo assured Harris that as a small businessman he’s never let anyone’s sexuality interfere in what he expected of them as an employee and that, as an engineer by training, facts and data drive his life – so if he found believable data on climate change it would certainly be an important consideration in his thought process.

The hearing was not without humor, either, as Arizona Republican John McCain, a graduate of the Naval Academy, joked that Pompeo’s education was “very poor” because he was a graduate of West Point.

GORKA: Obama’s Farewell Speech Puts Narrative and Spin Before Safety of the American People

screen-shot-2017-01-12-at-2-04-08-pm-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, January 12, 2017:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, appeared on Fox Business Network to offer his take on departing President Obama’s statement that “no foreign terrorist organization has been able to conduct a terrorist attack on U.S. soil” during his administration.

“My take is, I live in reality, Maria,” Gorka told host Maria Bartiromo. “Yesterday was Alice in Wonderland. It was a wilderness of mirrors. It was spin and narrative over truth.”

“This is outrageous,” he continued. “This the moment when President Obama could have shown great graciousness. He could have handed over the baton with style, admitted some of his mistakes, and just welcomed the new administration. Instead, the lies continue.”

“We’ve had more than 13 attacks linked directly to outside jihadi organizations,” Gorka noted. “The Fort Hood shooter – let me just concentrate on one of them, Maria. The Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hassan, wasn’t just ‘inspired by’ jihadism. He wasn’t just reading jihadi literature. He was emailing Anwar al-Awlaki. He was emailing al-Qaeda’s leadership in Yemen.”

“And the President has the bald-faced cheek to stand up in front of the American people and say ‘No, no, no, no foreign attacks,’” he exclaimed. “It is parsing. He took a leaf out of the playbook of President Clinton, when he said well, it depends what your definition of ‘is’ is. That’s what yesterday was.”

Bartiromo noted that another achievement Obama claimed during his farewell speech was the closing of Guantanamo Bay… only to see the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee demand a halt to Gitmo transfers the very next day, following the review of new intelligence reports.

“I was told by various individuals inside the national security enterprise that he is adamant, because he’s so embarrassed that on his first day in office he signed that executive order closing Gitmo, eight years ago,” Gorka said. “Simply through personal sheer embarrassment, he says, ‘I have to close it this month.’ This is not about national security. It’s about prestige and ego.”

“These are bad people, Maria,” he said of the remaining detainees. “And Gitmo isn’t a detention facility. Gitmo is an intelligence asset. That’s how we found out where bin Laden was, through interrogations of KSM. This is again narrative more important than reality, spin more important than the safety of the American people.”

Fox News contributor Robert Wolf, a board member of the Obama Foundation, leaped to President Obama’s defense. He claimed Dr. Gorka’s comments were disrespectful to the outgoing President, arguing that Obama justified the false statement Gorka and Bartiromo criticized with a disclaimer that he wasn’t referring to “homegrown terrorists,” and lauding Obama for reducing the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Your guest, I hope he gets a job in the next Democrat administration. What a water carrier,” Gorka responded.

“Removing troops from a theater of combat is not the definition of victory. I recommend you open a history book. The definition of victory is when the enemy stops killing you. Tell your spin to the dead of Orlando,” he said to Wolf.

When Bartiromo interjected that Obama did oversee the killing of Osama bin Laden, Gorka replied, “Oversee it? Yeah. Anybody who was in that chair would be overseeing it, whether they were left or right.”

“Let me talk about the military,” he said. “You talked about them, your guest mentioned the military. Just before the speech, I had a conversation with a three-star general who is in charge of counter-terrorism issues here in America. He said the counter-terrorism effort under President Obama is shambolic, and morale is at its lowest level ever. That’s from inside.”

“Don’t try and take the bravery of our military and wrap yourself in it, when we have ISIS become the largest insurgent jihadi group in modern history, and when we have the SITE Intelligence Group say outside of Iraq and Syria, we have had a jihadi attack every 83 hours. Not 83 days, every 83 hours. 65 million refugees in the world, in most part thanks to jihadi extremism. If that’s a success story, I have a bridge to sell your guest,” Gorka said.

He predicted Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson would have “a little bit of heat put on him” during the remainder of his confirmation hearings, but noted he is “a man who is in charge of one of the largest, most successful companies in the world.”

“I think he’ll do swimmingly,” he predicted. “He’ll skate through. There will be a little bit of rhetoric and posing for the cameras, but I’m confident that these nominees will be confirmed.”

HAYWARD: Time’s ‘Top 10 Risks to the World in 2017’ Starts with America, Excludes Terrorism

AP

AP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, January 4, 2017:

Ian Bremmer of Time magazine declared a “geopolitical recession” due to the election of Donald Trump, and put forth his list of “Top 10 Risks to the World in 2017” with this howler of an opening paragraph:

The triumph of an “America first” foreign policy marks a fundamental break with decades of U.S. exceptionalism and a consensus view in Washington that U.S. international leadership, however flawed and uneven, is indispensable for international stability.

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but “U.S. exceptionalism” and “U.S. international leadership” were traded for a bag of multicultural magic beans by outgoing President Barack Obama, long before anyone thought Trump might run for President.

The Libya disaster, the Syria disaster, the Iran disaster, the ISIS disaster… on and on it goes, in every case reducing America’s international credibility, with such remorseless consistency because Obama intended to sunset American leadership, regardless of the huge cost to Americans and people overseas.

Remember “leading from behind?” Never mind Obama’s hidden agendas and deep-seated, faculty-lounge antipathy to American power, his stated purpose was to make the U.S. less exceptional, to concede its moral stature, and transfer leadership responsibilities to other nations.

As for “international stability,” how is that looking after unlovely but basically pro-American dictatorships were swapped out for Mad Max-style Muslim militias in the “Arab Spring”?

Libya was transformed into a warlords-vs.-terrorists cage match, Europe is bucking under a tidal wave of contemptuous “refugees,” the Syrian bloodbath transformed Russia and Iran into the new Middle Eastern power axis, China began militarizing the South China Sea, and Russia snatched Crimea and tormented Ukraine?

It would be facile to say there’s nowhere to go but up, but President-elect Trump has a fairly low bar to clear when it comes to handling American prestige and global stability better than his predecessor.

The notion that an “America first” stance will automatically make the world less stable is wrongheaded. Nations that look out for their own predictable interests are more predictable than the eight-year globalist dorm-room bull session held by Obama and his friends  Ask the Syrian resistance or the Israelis about that.

Number One on Bremmer’s Top 10 list of threats facing the world is an “Unpredictable America”:

The world’s sole superpower was once the international trump card, imposing order to force compromise and head off conflict. Now it’s a wildcard, because instead of creating policies designed to bolster global stability, President Trump will use U.S. power overwhelmingly to advance U.S. interests, with little concern for the broader impact. Trump is no isolationist. He’s a unilateralist. Expect a more hawkish–and a much less predictable–U.S. foreign policy. Allies, especially in Europe and Asia, will hedge. Rivals like China and even Russia will test. U.S.-led institutions will lose more of their international clout.

For good measure, Number Two on the list of global security risks is… America again, because Bremmer worries about China “overreacting” to Trump’s provocations. He worries that 2017 will be a “dangerous year for China, and all who depend on it for growth and stability.”

Not only is the assertion that more “unilateral” foreign policy is less predictable dubious, but “hawkish” doesn’t seem like the right word for Trump’s foreign policy outlook, just as “dovish” would be an absurd adjective for President Barack “Drone Strike” Obama’s legacy of wars burning around the world.

The Libyan intervention was “unilateralist” with respect to Obama’s disregard for Congress, but impeccably “multilateral” in the way foreign leaders and Hillary Clinton badgered Obama into starting the war, and predictably disastrous.

Obama’s “red line” in Syria was supposed to be the multilateral consensus of the international community – in one of his more scurrilous attempts to escape responsibility for his words, he claimed “The World” had drawn the red line against chemical weapons, not him. Gas-spewing dictator Bashar Assad correctly deduced that a red line drawn by “everyone” would be enforced by no one. The ban against using WMD was supposed to be the most predictable, universal principle on Earth, but it proved extremely unpredictable in practice, judging from the surprised expressions on the faces of the gas victims.

America tops the Time hit parade of global threats… but ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist carnival of horrors are not on the list at all. The word “Islamist” is nowhere mentioned, in any of its permutations. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamist, makes it in at Number Eight because his “tightening grip” on power will “exacerbate the country’s economic problems and his worsening relations with Europe and his neighbors,” but his ideology goes unmentioned. The great danger for the Middle East listed in the article is disruptive technological change.

Entry Number Three on the list is a potential “power vacuum in Europe,” which mentions the French elections, Brexit, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s precarious position, but does not mention why all those European voters are so upset. The risk to global stability and national security that should be ranked high on this list is migration: that is, mass immigration contrary to the best interests of citizens in the host countries.

The arrogance of denouncing the Trump administration and America as the top “risks to the world in 2017” without even mentioning terrorism, just a few days after the latest mass-murder atrocity, is breathtaking.

People from 14 different countries were murdered at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul by a soldier of ISIS. How’s that for a microcosm of “global risk?”

Also see:

20 incredibly popular conservative ideas to tackle national security and immigration in 2017

Burhanuddin | Shutterstock

Burhanuddin | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, January 3, 2017:

It’s 2017, and it’s show time. This is what we’ve been anticipating for years. We have a mandate and now it’s time to use it.

No, we are not going to save every aspect of our national security, economy, and traditional values in just four years. However, there is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact some solid reforms as it relates to immigration, national security, and counterterrorism policies.

After fully repealing Obamacare, Republicans should shift to true immigration reform and homeland security ideas while the party works out its differences on domestic policy and economic issues.

The following 20 ideas are not merely a comprehensive list of the best legislation pertaining to immigration and national security. They are also easy to message to constituents, broadly popular, and very achievable during the next four years.

Immigration

1. Build the wall/no welfare for illegal immigrants

And until Mexico pays for it, fund the $2-6 billion cost of the double-layer security fence by requiring a valid Social Security number to be eligible for the Child Tax Credit (H.R. 2478, sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson). This will prevent illegal aliens from accessing American tax dollars and would be in line with Trump’s basic promise to put Americans first.

2. Visa tracking

Finally implement the biometric entry-exit system at all sea, land, and air ports. Also, with more illegal immigrants coming from visa overstays, it’s important to make such an act a felony instead of a misdemeanor (H.R. 5102, sponsored by Rep. John Culberson).

3. No driver’s licenses for illegals

Have Congress explicitly authorize states to block driver’s licenses for illegals. Unfortunately, the courts have made this step necessary.

4. Interior enforcement

Pass the Davis-Oliver Interior Enforcement Act, which punishes sanctuary cities, deputizes states to enforce immigration laws, and bolsters expedited deportations.

5. End sanctuaries for illegals

A number of public universities and taxpayer-funded organizations are pledging to thwart any enforcement agenda by offering safe harbor to illegal immigrants. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. (B, 80%) has a bill (H.R. 6468), which would cut off funding to any institution or university that disobeyed federal immigration law.

6. Abolish chain migration

It makes no sense that our immigration system is built upon family ties instead of skills. H.R. 604, drafted by Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga. (B, 81%) would abolish the extended-family preference category for legal immigration. This is a clean way of cutting roughly 200,000 visas per year that are chosen solely based on extended family ties. Even Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 74%) have expressed concern about chain migration.

7. End diversity visa lottery

Fifty thousand visas are allocated based on nothing more than a lottery. Most of those visas go to Third World countries, many from volatile Islamic parts of the world. When combined with chain migration, the diversity visa lottery seeds America with many more immigrants who are likely to become a public charge and unlikely to assimilate, while creating an automatic chain for multiplying their numbers in the future. The nation’s best interests are left out of the equation. (H.R. 2278, sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey)

8. End unconditional birthright citizenship for illegals

End birthright citizenship and birth tourism by clarifying the authentic meaning of the 14th Amendment. Harry Reid declared in 1993 that “no sane country” would offer such an enticement and reward for illegal immigration.

9. Zero tolerance for re-entrants

Bar all those who re-enter the U.S. illegally from ever obtaining legal entry for the rest of their lives or require mandatory minimum prison time. With everyone wrongly focused on what to do with those already here illegally, can’t we all agree we should deter future waves of illegal immigration?

10. Fix asylum and parole loophole

Although Trump is not expected to abuse the parole and asylum statutes the way Obama did, it would be worthwhile for Congress to fix the problem permanently and also prevent the courts from misinterpreting statutes.

Congress should explicitly bar the president from categorically bestowing those fleeing poverty from Central America with refugee, asylum, or parole status. (H.R. 1149, H.R. 1153).

11. End the Castro immigration scam

Raul Castro is using our outdated preferential treatment of Cuban asylum seekers against us. Thousands of Cubans are now flooding our shores and becoming eligible for welfare immediately and for citizenship within seven years.

Members of Florida’s Cuban community have been complaining about those coming here just to receive welfare and return to Cuba. Congress should pass H.R. 3818 (introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar), which eliminates the “Wet Foot/Dry Foot” policy and requires that all immigrants from Cuba be treated in the same manner as any other person seeking to immigrate to the U.S.

12. Punish countries that refuse to repatriate their illegal immigrants

Current law, which has been ignored by Obama, requires the State Department to cut off visas to countries that refused to repatriate their illegal aliens. In addition to following existing law, Congress should pass H.R. 5224 (introduced by Rep. Brian Babin), which requires the State Department to suspend any foreign aid to those recalcitrant countries.

Refugees

13. Moratorium on refugees from Middle East

Trump promised to suspend refugees from the Middle East until “we know what the hell is going on.” As we’ve noted before, the president has unilateral authority to suspend immigration from any particular area of the world.

Nonetheless, Rep. Babin has a bill that would ensure any limits on the refugee program are enshrined into statute. H.R. 5816 would place a four-year moratorium on the refugee program for anyone coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen. It would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the national security and fiscal problems plaguing the program.

14. Allow states to veto refugee resettlement

A complete moratorium on refugees would be supported by a majority of the public. But allowing states to veto resettlement in their respective jurisdictions would be even more popular and would reform the program in the long run for when Democrats have control of the White House again.

Rep. Scott Perry has a bill (H.R. 6110) that would require the support of the state legislature and governor in a given state for the federal government to enact a resettlement plan.

Terrorism

15. Defund the U.N.

There has never been more momentum behind an effort to finally pursue “Amexit” from the U.N. and defund this anti-American and anti-Semitic institution that has proven to be an utter failure. Between the operating budget of the U.N. and all of its useless peacekeeping missions, U.S. taxpayers easily spend $4 billion a year on this international disaster. What a better way to begin this presidency, in light of the U.N.’s assault on Israel, than to declare independence from this unpopular institution?

16. Eliminate funding for PLO

Why have we funded this terror organization for 23 years? It’s time to end our $500 million annual contribution to the PLO. Congress should pass The Palestinian Accountability Act (H.R. 1337), which would suspend our $500 million in annual aid to the PLO until they change their culture of terrorism. The PLO Accountability Act (H.R. 4522 and S. 2537) would close all PLO offices in our country until they stop inciting and funding terror.

17. Expel the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood poses a more foundational threat to the homeland than al Qaeda or ISIS. Not only are they allowed to operate freely on our shores, but they also wield influence at the highest levels of our government.

Congress should finally designate it as a terror group (H.R. 3892/S. 2230), which would force the State Department to treat it the same way we treat Hamas, its Palestinian affiliate. Let the Democrats stand before the American people and defend the Muslim Brotherhood.

18. Strip terrorists of citizenship/passports

The Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2015, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa (B, 81%), would revoke the citizenship of those who fight for foreign terrorist organizations, such as ISIS. It applies current law regarding those who fight for foreign armies to those who fight for terror entities. Let Democrats be the party that ignores the homegrown terror threat.

19. Deport immigrants on the no-fly list

Democrats want to strip Americans of inalienable gun rights on account of being listed on the unreliable terrorist “no-fly list.” They call it, “No fly, no buy.” Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. (A, 96%) has the perfect answer. Why then, are immigrants who are on the list allowed to remain in the country? Forget about purchasing a gun; if someone on the list is truly a terrorist and a foreign national, why should he remain in the country? As part of Duncan’s, “No fly, goodbye” initiative, H.R. 6175 would require that anyone on the no-fly list who has not yet obtained citizenship be deported immediately.

20. Prevent terror-supporting countries from funding mosques/schools

Much of the homegrown Islamism stems from foreign influence and funding of mosques and schools, in addition to domestic Muslim Brotherhood groups. Countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding radical mosques, schools, and universities and are injecting their hatful poison into our culture.

While all Americans have a First Amendment right even to hateful speech so long as it is not reach certain thresholds of violence or treason, foreigners have no affirmative right to fund projects on American shores.

Rep. David Brat, R-Va. (A, 100%) has a bill (H.R. 5824) that would prohibit a foreign national of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country from making any expenditure in the U.S. promoting a religion.

Go big or go home

Not all of the these are massive reforms but solid “base hits” that are more than simply “good messaging bills.” Every one of these ideas will strengthen either our sovereignty or security as a nation and will place Democrats on defense. Given the state of geo-political affairs, most of these ideas will always tie seamlessly into the news cycle. They also speak to Trump’s strengthens and represent areas in which conservatives can work with him to pressure leadership to do the right thing.

At its core, the issue of sovereignty — together with national security — got Trump elected. While he has been somewhat unpredictable on many areas of domestic policy, he ran on an unapologetic “Americans first” platform as it relates to immigration, terrorism, and homeland security. While Hillary won a majority of voters who said the economy was their most important issue, Trump won 64 percent of those who listed immigration as their top issue and 57 percent of those most concerned about terrorism.

Hence, there is a clear mandate to change direction on sovereignty and security — even from past Republican presidents — much less from the Obama era.

As it relates to domestic fiscal policy, there are many knotty issues and inveterate dependency that ensure any conservative reform is presented with head winds. That is not the case with sovereignty and national security. These ideas and priorities transcend most ideological lines and should be achievable within the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

The time for excuses is over. If we plan to preserve our civilization, it is now or never. As Reagan once said, “If not us, then who? And if not now, when?” Or to borrow a line from Obama at the beginning of his presidency: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

It’s time to go big or go home.

Wanted Istanbul Terrorist ‘Fought for Islamic State in Syria’

Turkish Police

Turkish Police

Breitbart Jerusalem, January 3, 2017:

Istanbul (AFP) – Turkish authorities on Tuesday intensified efforts to identify and detain a suspected jihadist who killed 39 people at an Istanbul nightclub, and who reportedly fought in Syria alongside Islamic State jihadists.

Police released pictures of the suspect who went on the rampage at the plush Reina nightclub on New Year’s night, spraying some 120 bullets at terrified guests before slipping away into the night.

So far, 16 people are being held over the attack, including two foreigners detained by Turkish police at Istanbul’s main airport. But the killer remains on the run.

Of the 39 dead, 27 were foreigners, mainly from Arab countries, with coffins repatriated overnight to countries including Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

The Islamic State (IS) group on Monday claimed the massacre, the first time it has clearly stated being behind a major attack in Turkey.

The suspect — who has not been named but was reportedly from Central Asia — was staying in a rented flat in Konya before moving to Istanbul to carry out the attack, press reports said.

The Dogan news agency said those detained included a woman suspected of being his wife with whom he had stayed in Konya along with two children.

Reports said police have made progress in the investigation after speaking to the taxi driver who drove the attacker to the club and tracing calls he had made on the driver’s mobile phone.

– ‘Specially selected’ –

The Hurriyet daily said the attacker showed signs of being well trained in the use of arms and had fought in Syria for IS jihadists.

Hurriyet’s well-connected columnist Abdulkadir Selvi he had been trained in street fighting in residential areas in Syria and used these techniques in the attack, shooting from the hip rather than as a sniper.

The attacker had been “specially selected” to carry out the shooting, he said. According to Hurriyet, just 28 bullets failed to hit a target.

“This specially-trained terrorist has still not been detained and is still wandering dangerously amongst us,” he wrote.

He said an IS strike was also planned in Ankara on New Year’s eve but that it had been prevented after eight IS suspects were arrested in the capital. There were no further details.

Near the entrance to the nightclub which lies on the shores of the Bosphorus, an impromptu shrine was set up with pictures of the dead where well-wishers have been piling up flowers.

“The attacker arrived at the door and opened fire towards me,” club manager Ali Unal told AFP.

“My foot slipped and I fell down, the gunshots didn’t stop.”

– ‘Taksim selfie video’ –

Police meanwhile released the first clear images of the attacker, including one taken by security cameras on the night of the attack.

And a chilling video of the suspect taken near Taksim Square in central Istanbul was also released, showing him recording himself with a selfie stick and smiling faintly into the camera.

It was not immediately clear how the footage had been obtained.

Reports said that the attacker could be from Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan. In Bishkek, the national security council said it was checking any possible involvement of a Kyrgyz citizen.

In a statement circulated on social media, IS said one of its “soldiers” had carried out the carnage, accusing Turkey — a majority-Muslim country — of being a servant of Christians and saying the shooting was a response to Ankara’s military action against jihadists in Syria.

Turkish troops are pressing a four-month incursion to oust IS jihadists the border area while Ankara is also pushing a ceasefire plan with Russia as a basis for peace talks to end the civil war.

After a cabinet meeting in Ankara chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the government vowed that the operation in Syria would continue with “determination”.

The shooting took place just 75 minutes into 2017 after a bloody year in Turkey in which hundreds of people were killed in violence blamed on both IS jihadists and Kurdish militants.

The foreigners who died — most of them from Arab countries and including Muslims — had come to the club to celebrate a special night in style.

They included three Lebanese nationals, two Jordanians and three Iraqis, as well as several Saudis.

***

***

Tom Joscelyn with some very interesting information on the Turkey nightclub attack. Unfortunately the video cut off an important part of the interview where he gives new info on Al Qaeda in Turkey. I will post it if I find it.

Also see:

UTT Throwback Thursday: Jihadis, CVE, and Congressman McCaul

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

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

cve

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never.

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

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

cve2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Frank Gaffney (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

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

NewsmaxBy Todd Beamon, November 15, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

trump-with-christy-flags

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Christie – potential pick for Attorney General

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Corker – Secretary of State

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

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

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

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

Mike Rogers – National Security

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

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

Why was he siding with Obama?

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

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

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

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

In summary …

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

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

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, November 9, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Unsolicited Advice for the Trump Transition Team on National Security Intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Question for Tuesday

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

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

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

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

THE THREATS TO AMERICA

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

But ISIS is not the only problem. 

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

THE CANDIDATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sebastian Gorka, PhD

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous installments of the Clinton Chronicles:

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

How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

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

Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

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

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

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 27, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

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

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

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

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

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

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

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