Did the State Department Float a Quid Pro Quo to the FBI over Hillary’s E-mail Scandal?


There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton, Kennedy, and their confederates corruptly obstructed judicial FOIA proceedings and congressional investigations. But there is no bribery case.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 19, 2016:

This is a long column, so let me cut to the chase. Hillary Clinton’s circle, including Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary of state for management, absolutely subordinated national security to politics and broke federal law. But in the “quid pro quo” controversy with the FBI, they are not guilty of bribery. Because the term “quid pro quo” was used — by an FBI agent, in an understandable but overwrought description of a half-baked arrangement proposed by another FBI agent, not Kennedy — commentators are focused on the wrong crime.

The right crime is conspiracy to obstruct justice and congressional investigations. The Clinton camp clearly and corruptly pressured government officials to downgrade the intelligence classification of documents in order to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s false claim that she never trafficked in classified materials on her private e-mail system. Further, they fraudulently exploited exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to bury documents that might harm Clinton — including documents on the Benghazi terrorist attack — such that the public would never see them. Their motive was political — i.e., to minimize the damage of Clinton’s felonious mishandling of classified information — but the intentional effect of their corrupt actions was to obstruct both FOIA cases and Congress’s oversight of the State Department.

Kennedy improperly pressured the FBI to declassify and help him conceal a classified Benghazi e-mail. Nevertheless, after studying the pertinent FBI reports from the batch released on Monday, I conclude that he did not offer a bribe to entice the FBI’s cooperation — the alleged quid pro quo in which, for downgrading the document’s classification, the State Department would reward the FBI with workspace in countries where the bureau’s presence was prohibited or extremely limited.

Instead, I surmise that a very foolish FBI agent — who was frustrated by Kennedy’s unresponsiveness about foreign postings for the FBI and who was ignorant of the magnitude of what Kennedy was asking him to do — loosely floated a potential quid pro quo to Kennedy . . . not the other way around. Moreover, this agent immediately alerted Kennedy that he could not help him once he finally realized the document in question (a) related to the Benghazi terrorist attack in which four Americans including the U.S. ambassador had been killed, and (b) had been classified as “SECRET/NOFORN” (i.e., secret information not releasable to foreign nationals) by the bureau’s counterterrorism division.

Read more

How Hillary’s lawyers ran roughshod over the FBI

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images; AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 19, 2016:

Last August, FBI officials paid a visit to Hillary Clinton’s lawyers’ office in Washington and begged to see six laptop computers containing the former secretary of state’s classified e-mails. They were told to take a hike, and they did.

Clinton’s lawyers “declined to provide consent” for the bureau to even search the laptops, let alone seize them, claiming they may contain “privileged communications.”

Instead of seeking to subpoena the evidence, the FBI meekly “wished to arrange for secure storage of them in a manner agreeable to both the FBI and the attorneys” — even though the attorneys lacked authorization to handle the material, which included Top Secret information.

While arrogantly stiff-arming the FBI, Clinton’s lawyers “admitted that the e-mails contained on these laptops had been viewed by attorneys who did not have a security clearance at the time,” a newly released FBI report of the incident reveals.

The embarrassing scene, which played out at the law offices of Williams & Connolly, is just one of many examples of how lawyers loyal to Clinton ran roughshod over the FBI investigation.

In the end, investigators were able to see only e-mails from certain dates on laptops owned by top Clinton aides Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills, who conducted the e-mail seek-and-destroy mission for Clinton. After the restricted viewing, they had to agree to destroy the evidence as part of outrageous side deals FBI Director James Comey agreed to honor, even after these key witnesses were immunized against prosecution.

Mills and Samuelson are represented by former Justice Department attorney Beth Wilkinson, a longtime Democratic booster. Wilkinson also is defending two other former State Department officials central to the FBI investigation: former deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman.

Veteran FBI agents say letting one attorney represent four subjects is unheard of in a criminal investigation. The highly unusual arrangement not only allows witnesses the opportunity to share information and corroborate their stories, but it makes it virtually impossible for the FBI to put pressure on one of them to cooperate against the others.

If one of the clients ended up in criminal jeopardy, Wilkinson would never let that client say something adverse about any of her other clients. In effect, Comey let all these important witnesses — Mills, Samuelson, Reines and Sullivan — collude and coordinate their testimony before his agents ever got a crack at them.

Sure enough, partially declassified summaries of their interviews with FBI agents show that all four hewed to the same unbelievable line that they did not know their boss had a private e-mail address hosted on a private server until they heard about it in the news.

A cabal of lawyers also arranged a joint defense for Clinton inside State after she left and as Congress sought her e-mails in the Benghazi investigation.

An FBI staffer believed the State Department was shielding Clinton.

“[Redacted] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON,” FBI notes read.

According to interview summaries from the FBI, staffers came under “immense pressure to review quickly and not label anything as classified.”

The team normally responsible for determining which records should be kept secret said lawyers “conducted their own review” of Clinton’s e-mails — and did not consult with the CIA and FBI but with lawyers at the White House and Justice Department.

The team “felt intimidated when they used or suggested the use of the [classified] exemption on any of the 296 [Benghazi] e-mails,” according to “302” interview notes.

State lawyers gave a thumb drive containing the archive of Clinton’s e-mails to her lawyers at Williams & Connolly, but would not provide copies to the State Department’s own inspector general or to diplomatic-security officials, even though they requested them.

Career bureaucrats “were suspicious” of the lawyers John Kerry tapped to deal with congressional committees seeking Clinton e-mails, because some of them previously worked for entities that “appeared to create a conflict of interest,” the FBI said.

The names of those entities were redacted, and are among the more than 4,500 redactions in the 350 pages of documents released in the FBI investigation.

Comey has testified that he could find no evidence of ill intent by Clinton and her minions in his year-long probe of her e-mails. But his own FBI staffers complained that State officials pressured them to downgrade the classification of Clinton e-mails, even offering a “quid pro quo.” If that’s not ill-intent, what is?

Paul Sperry is a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily.

See Hillary’s Libyan jihadi atrocities

A rebel fighter shouts "Allahu Akbar!" (God is the greatest!) in front of a burning vehicle belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after an air strike by coalition forces, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic (LIBYA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

A rebel fighter shouts “Allahu Akbar!” (God is the greatest!) in front of a burning vehicle belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after an air strike by coalition forces, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic (LIBYA – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

WND, by Jerome R. Corsi, October5, 2016:

NEW YORK – The extreme brutality unleashed by the mercenaries and Islamic fighters who joined Libyan-based jihadists to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi with the backing of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and NATO is demonstrated in three videos released to WND.

The videos, obtained through a trusted source, were vetted by Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders who spoke to WND. The Libyans verified the videos were taken in Libya in the weeks after the U.S.-backed NATO bombing that began in 2011.

As WND has reported, Clinton’s State Department had decided to rebuff offers Gadhafi had made to abdicate peacefully and avoid a war. And, meanwhile, Politico reported Tuesday the Obama administration is moving to drop charges against an arms dealer who had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s determination to arm anti-Gadhafi rebels.

The Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders, in an exclusive Skype interview published by WND on Sept. 21, characterized Clinton as the “Butcher of Libya.” They contended her State Department was “behind the terrorist groups controlling Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, behind the militia in Misurata who destroyed a great part of Libya and displaced 2 million people from their lands because they were accused of being loyal to Gadhafi.”

Readers are cautioned that the three videos published here are shockingly graphic.

The first video shows a group of unidentified foreign mercenaries and terrorists interrogating a half-naked soldier from Gadhafi’s army, who is lying prone on his stomach, with his arms and legs spread, while his interrogators simulate sodomy with a weapon and a boot.

Read more

State Dept Focused on ‘Reintegrating’ Traveling Jihadis Back into US, Says Muslim Director

Creeping Sharia, 

That is actually a recommendation from the Muslim directing the State Department’s efforts to “counter” so-called violent extremism (a distorted euphamism for Islamic jihad)!

After stints abroad enslaving, selling, raping and dismembering young girls, beheading Christians and other non-Muslims, burning and boiling Muslims and destroying another country – the Muslim in charge wants to offer known jihadists who left the U.S. “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.” Infiltration at the highest levels.

Source: State Dept.: U.S. Should ‘Rehabilitate’ and ‘Reintegrate’ Foreign Fighters Back into Society

The director of the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the State Department outlined some of the department’s strategic planning Wednesday to counter “violent extremism.”

Irfan Saeed praised Denmark’s strategy of rehabilitating and reintegrating foreign extremist fighters into society, asking, “What happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

Speaking at a National Academy of Sciences’ panel on “Ideologically Motivated Violence,” Saeed described rehabilitation and integration as a strategy area of focus for the State Department.

“We’ve seen a large number of individuals travel overseas to foreign conflict zones, places like Iraq and Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan,” Saeed said. “So what happens when they come back? You have to be able to rehabilitate them and then re-integrate them back into society.”

He cited the program in Aurhus, Denmark, “where they’ve really struggled with this issue, but they’ve come up with a comprehensive way to try to rehabilitate these individuals once they come back and then reintegrate them into society.”

Saeed discussed other strategies to counter violent extremism during the panel including intervention which he described as “something as simple as offers or alternatives to prosecution.”

“It’s one thing to throw everybody in jail and figure it out later,” he said, but officials “understand that we can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”

He also emphasized the importance of “strategic messaging,” arguing that “we figure if we can put some good messages on the internet, we can stop radicalization violence.”

He cited the work of the State Department’s new Global Engagement Center, which is charged with “coordinating U.S. counterterrorism messaging to foreign audiences” and was established by Executive Order in March.

Pretty much every Muslim group in the U.S. has rejected the so-called CVE approach (although they probably take the money). Read:  Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Program Collapses Into Absurdity.
Here’s Saeed’s limited bio from a 2014 Johns Hopkins event:

Irfan Saeed is a Senior Policy Advisor at the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Mr. Saeed advises DHS leadership on policy isues at the intersection of civil rights and homeland security, developing and coordinating activities relating to countering violent extremism. Prior to joining Homeland Security, Mr. Saeed worked as a Criminal Prosecutor, at the state and federal levels. Mr. Saeed worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, US Department of Justice, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, as well as an Assistant District Attorney, in New Orleans, Louisiana. He served as Resident Legal Advisor at US Embassies in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. While deployed to the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, he was tasked to develop the Community Engagement Office, the first of its kind in U.S. Embassies worldwide, to use traditional public diplomacy tools to counter violent extremism (CVE) in Pakistan.

Based on the continuing violence against women and non-Muslims in Pakistan, that effort could be classified as an utter failure.


click for details

Yet, that got Saeed promoted to the State Dept.

Based on the growing number of jihadis and deadly jihad attacks in the U.S., he clearly isn’t generating a return on investment in the U.S. either.

Irfan’s name popped up in the Creeping Sharia archives back in 2010 when he attended Obama’s White House Ramadan feast (i.e., Month of Jihad) with many Muslim Brotherhood luminaries including Huma Abedin’s mother.

U.S. Offers $3M Reward for U.S.-Trained Tajik Commander Who Joined ISIS

Tajik Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, second from right, in an ISIS video.

Tajik Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, second from right, in an ISIS video.


WASHINGTON — The State Department announced a $3 million reward in the U.S. effort to nab an American-trained Tajik special forces commander who now lends his skills to ISIS.

Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, a sniper who led a special paramilitary unit in Tajikistan’s Ministry of Interior, was named a specially designated terrorist by the State Department in September 2015 after appearing in an ISIS propaganda video — and a few months after the U.S. government acknowledged Khalimov was trained in part by the United States.

“From 2003-2014 Colonel Khalimov participated in five counterterrorism training courses in the United States and in Tajikistan, through the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security/Anti-Terrorism Assistance program,” spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala told CNN in May 2015.

The Tajik vowed in an ISIS video released that month, “God willing, we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you.” The commander of the elite police unit OMON (Special Purpose Mobility Unit) defected to the Islamic State in April 2015.

“Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he said in Russian. “You taught your soldiers how to surround and attack, in order to exterminate Islam and Muslims.”

Khalimov said he took a U.S. course with contractor Blackwater. He also received training in Russia.

Interpol issued a red notice for Khalimov in June 2015, noting that the 41-year-old speaks English in addition to Russian and Tajik.

The State Department encouraged anyone with information on the Tajik’s whereabouts to contact the Rewards for Justice office via the website,info@rewardsforjustice.net, or at 1-800-877-3927.

According to the department’s 2015 terrorism report, 700 Tajiks had joined ISIS by the end of the year. That statistic pulls from Tajik government estimates.

“In addition, the government remained concerned that instability in neighboring Afghanistan would push violent extremist groups across the border into Tajikistan. In response, the Government of Tajikistan worked to strengthen its efforts to fight terrorism and radicalization, although its focus was almost entirely on law enforcement measures, with little attention given to countering violent extremism. Tajikistan sought to increase military and law enforcement capacity to conduct tactical operations through bilateral and multilateral assistance programs, including programs funded by the United States. The United States, Russia, Japan, and the EU also provided funding for border security programs,” said the report.

Tajikistan crafted a strategy to counter “violent extremism” by the end of last year, the State Department noted, but “some previous government measures designed to reduce the threat of violent extremism had a negative impact on religious and political freedoms.”

The country offered amnesty last year to terrorists who wanted to return home from Iraq and Syria. A few have taken Tajikistan up on the offer, including Farrukh Sharifov, who has since hit the lecture circuit to spread the message about the horrors of ISIS.

Fighters who want to return have been first screened through a Tajik government hotline called the Trust Line, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. “When a Tajik fighter calls from abroad and asks for help to come home, our officers and psychologists talk to them to identify the fighter and their intentions,” an operator said.

Aiding and Abedin

Credit: Dave Clegg

Credit: Dave Clegg

Weekly Standard, THE MAGAZINE: From the September 5 Issue by Stephen F. Hayes:

As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter’s in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan.

There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.

Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.

Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia.

Win, win, and win.

The White House naturally insisted that Hillary Clinton’s views had no bearing on her husband’s decision to change his itinerary. And a subsequent New York Times article about the curious sequence of events found “no evidence” she had prevailed upon the president to alter his plans. But that same article, published under the headline “Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices,” noted the “unique aspect” of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: “While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign.”

In fact, people did. The hosts of the event moved it up so that it might take place before a final decision had been made on the South Asian schedule. Suhail Muzaffar, one of two primary organizers of the fundraiser, told the paper: “‘We thought it went very well, in terms of the message and the timeliness of it, especially in terms of the president’s going to the region.” His co­host, Dr. Asim Malik, added: “I cannot deny that the fact that she’s the president’s wife makes a difference.”

A similar dynamic is at play in the growing controversy over Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation: People sought to influence her decisions as secretary of state by making donations to his foundation. And while we cannot yet offer definitive conclusions about the extent to which those efforts were successful, disclosures over the past several weeks make clear that Clinton and her top aides eagerly provided special access to Clinton Foundation donors—and, in some cases, provided that special access because they were Clinton Foundation donors.

Such conflicts of interest—perceived and real—should come as no surprise. They were the focus of Clinton’s cabinet nomination. “The main issue related to Senator Clinton’s nomination that has occupied the committee has been the review of how her service as secretary of state can be reconciled with the sweeping global activities of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation,” said Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, moments after her nomination hearing was gaveled to order on January 13, 2009. “The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state, although neither Senator Clinton nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the foundation.” The keys, Lugar said, will be transparency and preventing overlap between the work of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Large chunks of the hearing were devoted to an extended discussion about whether a Memorandum of Understanding drafted to make clear the lines between State and the foundation went far enough. Republicans wanted more assurances and a more detailed statement of the rules. Democrats, for the most part, were happy to leave things vague. Democrats won.

The recent revelations leave in tatters Clinton’s unequivocal claim from July: “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”

There are, in fact, many connections.

In June 2009, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain, sought a meeting with Secretary Clinton. He initially made requests through normal diplomatic channels but they went unfulfilled. Khalifa, a Clinton Foundation donor, got creative. Doug Band, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who helped create the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary Clinton. Band noted that Khalifa, “a good friend of ours,” would be visiting Washington and was seeking a meeting with Secretary Clinton. Abedin responded, noting that she was aware of Khalifa’s requests made “through normal channels.” She told Band that her boss didn’t want to commit to a meeting.

Two days later, the situation had changed. Abedin emailed Band to inform him that Khalifa was on the schedule and would be seeing Secretary Clinton in Washington. “If u see him, let him know,” she emailed. “We have reached out thru official channels.”

Another email, this one from Dennis Cheng, a fundraiser at the Clinton Foundation, to Abedin at the State Department, reveals that Clinton invited Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor, to a reception at her home in 2012. When Clinton’s team was asked about her involvement with Pinchuk in 2014, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the New York Times that Clinton had never met Pinchuk and the Ukrainian “was never on her schedule” during her tenure at the State Department. (Cheng had been a colleague of Abedin at the State Department before moving to the Clinton Foundation.)

That same month, in June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, traveled to New York City to interview two candidates to lead the Clinton Foundation. Mills, Clinton’s top aide, appears to have had significant involvement with those at the highest levels of the Clinton Foundation. Laura Graham, chief operating officer of the Clinton Foundation, left 148 telephone messages for Mills between 2010 and 2012, according to State Department records obtained by Citizens United via Freedom of Information Act requests and first reported by James Rosen of Fox News. The tally covers only half of Clinton’s tenure at the State Department and does not include calls in which Graham and Mills connected. Still, the 148 messages from Graham were exponentially more than any other individual left for Clinton’s top aide.

Many of these recent revelations have come despite efforts by Clinton defenders to keep them from the public. The FBI last week turned over to the State Department nearly 15,000 emails it recovered during its investigation of Clinton’s private server. Many of them—”thousands,” according to FBI director James Comey—were “work-related” emails that Clinton claimed she had turned over to the State Department. On August 8, 2015, Clinton signed a declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., swearing “under penalty of perjury” that she’d directed all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related turned over to the State Department.

That plainly didn’t happen. Why not? Comey offered several explanations in his July 5 press conference announcing he wouldn’t be charging anyone in connection with the scandal. Perhaps they were lost in routine system purges of the kind that any email user might perform. Or maybe her lawyers mistook these thousands of “work-related” emails as “personal” because their search techniques weren’t as sophisticated as those used by the FBI.

While the FBI recovered thousands of work-related emails that Clinton failed to turn over, Comey reported that many others had been deleted. The FBI director acknowledged that while the FBI did not have “complete visibility” as to the contents of these emails or a thorough understanding of how they were permanently erased, he nonetheless offered his assurances that “there was no intentional misconduct” in the sorting of the emails.

If Comey’s explanations seemed generous when he made them, they seem even more charitable today. In his telling, Clinton’s failure to turn over thousands of work-related emails—at least some of which include evidence of coordination between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that Clinton World was eager to keep secret—was merely the result of incompetence or bad luck. And the efforts her lawyers undertook to delete the others were unremarkable, benign. “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,” Comey said at his press conference. Yet moments later, Comey acknowledged: “They deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

There may be a simple reason the FBI didn’t find evidence of intent: They didn’t ask. That’s the explanation Representative Trey Gowdy offered in an interview with Fox News on August 24. “I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent,” Gowdy said, referring to the FBI’s notes from its interview with Secretary Clinton.

And the evidence the FBI collected, particularly with respect to how some of Clinton’s “personal” emails were deleted, indicates that questions about intent ought to have been among the first ones asked. FBI interviews with the techs responsible for erasing Clinton’s emails suggest that her team went to great lengths to ensure the messages would never be seen again. The Clinton team used a technology called “BleachBit” to permanently delete those emails. BleachBit, according to its website, allows users to “shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery” and “overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files.” The techs used additional tools to ensure those emails would be unrecoverable.

So Clinton, who took virtually no precautions to safeguard her emails—”personal” or “work-related”—while they sat on her server, went to great lengths to ensure that the emails she withheld from the State Department could never again be seen by anyone. She did this nearly two years following her departure from the State Department and only after she understood that the government was interested in seeing her emails. Seems like a lot to do to protect yoga schedules and emails about the grandkids.

The challenge for Clinton is simple: survive until November 8. So she’s avoiding the media—265 days and counting since her last press conference—and trying to offer reassurances about the Clinton Foundation.

There’s little reason to believe her. This is the same woman, after all, who promised during her nomination hearing seven years ago that she would take extraordinary measures to separate the foundation from her work at the State Department and do her best to “avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.




Also see:

Corruption: The Clinton Foundation and Boko Haram

Michelle-obama-bringbackourgirlsDid the State Department use Boko Haram to subvert Nigeria’s presidential election out of Obama administration policy, or because of the mass donations to the Clinton Foundation from a Nigerian oil billionaire?

CounterJihad, Aug. 24, 2016:

World News has an important story about the State Department’s meddling in Nigeria’s presidential elections using the tool of Boko Haram violence.  C-SPAN has a further interview with the author of that piece here.  Yet there is still an important question to be asked: was the meddling in Nigeria’s Presidential election merely an Obama administration decision to effect regime change by subverting a free election, or was it in service to a major Clinton Foundation donor from the Nigerian oil fields?

Evidence that Obama intended to subvert the election is strong.  Obama’s own former chief strategist for his Presidential campaigns, David Axelrod, had his consulting firm AKPD was brought in to run Presidential competitor Buhari’s campaign.  The campaign was largely based on allegations of then-President Goodluck Jonathan’s corruption, and inability to fight Boko Haram successfully.  Of course, President Obama as Commander in Chief had the ability to support Nigeria with American forces, and President Jonathan had been begging for such forces to come to his aid.  Indeed, Jonathan ultimately accomplished a significant military victory just a few weeks before the election with the use of South African private military contractors providing training, advice, and helicopter transport.  These were all things denied to the Nigerians by the State Department. And almost immediately upon Buhari’s victory, the Obama administration announced it was open to expanding cooperation to fight Boko Haram.

This suggests that had the State Department not opposed the designation and blocked counter terrorism cooperation, Boko Haram could have been militarily suppressed during the Jonathan Administration.  Combined with the aid given to the political opposition by the President’s own political operatives, the picture is one of a democratic election intentionally subverted by allowing a terrorist organization to flourish until the election could be won.

But there may be more to the story.  From 2009 through 2013, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had refused to designate Boko Haram as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in spite of intense bipartisan pressure to do so.  Why?  Both Citizens United and Senator David Vitter have sought FOIA releases of documents explaining State’s thought process at this time. However, there is a major Clinton Foundation donor who had a clear interest:  a Nigerian oilfield billionaire named Gilbert Chagoury.

Gilbert Chagoury has substantial oil exploration interests in Nigeria. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2009, the same year Hilary Clinton took office as Secretary of State. Gilbert Chagoury is part of a small Nigerian clique that includes President Muhamadu Buhari.  He was interested in seeing Buhari elected, and is reportedly the one who pushed for Axelrod’s firm to be brought in.

It would have been in the business interests of Chagoury, and Buhari to keep former president Goodluck Jonathan from initiating oil ventures in northern Nigeria until Buhari was able to secure the presidency.  That would make sure that the contracts got into the right hands.

Now, with that in mind, return to the World News story:

Meanwhile, Boko Haram often showed up better equipped than the Nigerian military: “Boko Haram was extorting even government officials in the north, state and local officials, and certainly the military,” said an American working in the area for more than a decade, who spoke to WORLD and is not named for security reasons. “Very wealthy Muslim businessmen totally have been backing Boko Haram. There was huge money involved. Money used to purchase arms—it was crazy.”

Where were the funds and support coming from? In part from a corrupt oil industry and political leaders in the North acting as quasi-warlords. But prominently in the mix are Nigerian billionaires with criminal pasts—plus ties to Clinton political campaigns and the Clinton Foundation, the controversial charity established by Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton in 1997.

The Clintons’ long association with top suspect tycoons—and their refusal to answer questions about those associations—takes on greater significance considering the dramatic rise of Boko Haram violence while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Did some Clinton donors stand to gain from the State Department not taking action against the Islamic terrorist group?…

Critics argue it was Clinton herself who has led the way on U.S. indifference, spurning the standard FTO designation (issued 72 times since 1997) that could have bolstered U.S. efforts against Boko Haram years before the infamous [“#BringBackOurGirls”] kidnappings. [Emphasis added.]

Both Clinton and the Obamas made a big noise about those kidnapped girls.  They didn’t actually do anything to help them, though.  Perhaps now we begin to see why they did not.

Bribery: Clinton Approved Arms Sales After Big Clinton Foundation Donations from THIS Arab Nation

Screen-Shot-2015-12-18-at-4.52.50-PM (1)CounterJihad, Aug. 23, 2016:

Yesterday Judicial Watch released emails showing that a Crown Prince of Bahrain was able to secure a meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundationafter being rejected by official State Department channels.  Today, the International Business Times follows up on that report by revealing that the timing of this meeting lined up with a sudden, and large, increase in arms sales to Bahrain.  Furthermore, this increase came in spite of Bahrain being engaged in massive human rights abuses and suppression of peaceful civilian protests.  Finally, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers destroyed the emails documenting this meeting without turning them over to the State Department.  These were among the emails destroyed as allegedly “personal.

Now, Bahrain is an important regional ally of the United States.  The US 5th Fleet, also called NAVCENT as it is the fleet permanently assigned to US Central Command, is based out of Bahrain’s harbors.  Bahrain would thus ordinarily enjoy some US military arms sales, as well as occasional access to high level State Department officials.  However, in this case the State Department had already turned down the request for a meeting when it came through official channels.  So, Crown Prince Salman contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask them to get him a meeting anyway.

And they did.

Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band personally contacted Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman, Huma Abedin, to request that she arrange the meeting in spite of official refusal.  Band described Crown Prince Salman as a “Good friend of ours,” and he certainly was that.  The Judicial Watch release details that Salman arranged more than thirty million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  From the perspective of the State Department, he was just another Arab prince.  From the perspective of the Clinton Foundation, he was a good friend who needed special treatment.  He got it.

He got more than that, too, according to the Times.

Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests….  As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

During those Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 — when Bahrain was accused of using tear gas on its own people — the Clinton-led State Department approved more than $70,000 worth of arms sales classified as “toxicological agents.”

In addition to that, there were sales of armored vehicles, missiles, ammunition, and more.  The sale faced intense opposition in Congress, especially given Bahrain’s ongoing massacres of its own citizens in its streets merely for peacefully protesting the government.

But the Crown Prince wanted his meeting, and he wanted his arms, and he got both because he was a good friend of the Clinton Foundation.

Not that the public would have known this, but for the FBI investigation.  Clinton’s lawyers deleted these emails without turning them over to the State Department, though it turns out that they are clearly public records that explain just how a momentous decision was made on a major arms deal.

In spite of that, the FBI recommended no prosecution.

Also see:

Daily Caller: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway

(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

Daily Caller, by Richard Pollock, Aug. 11, 2016:

Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official.

The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.

Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices — a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.

The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York “would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

Read more




Also see:

Judicial Watch Uncovers New Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails

Huma Abedin, then deputy chief of staff and aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during a meeting with leaders for the Open Government Partnership in New York. Photo: AP

Huma Abedin, then deputy chief of staff and aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during a meeting with leaders for the Open Government Partnership in New York. Photo: AP

Judicial Watch, Aug. 9, 2016:

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC)  – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of State Department records, of which 44 email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).  These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.  Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.  According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State.  For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room.  An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby.Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy.  Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State.  Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.

The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin” (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s hdr22@clintonmail.com address.

This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.

Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here andhere).

Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.

In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails.  In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”  This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

Also  see:

State Dept. Says Program to Dissuade Jihadis Failed. So They TRIPLE Its Budget



Even in its final months, the Obama administration continues to pour taxpayer money into its disastrous projects designed to “counter violent extremism.” The projects have failed, and were foredoomed to fail because of the administration’s policy of denying and ignoring the enemy’s motivating ideology.

The New York Times reported Thursday:

[T]he Obama administration has revamped a program designed to lure foreign fighters away from extremist groups like the Islamic State, focusing on a series of new advertisements and social media posts that seek to appeal to emotion rather than logic.

Emotion, logic, whatever. No such approach can work as long as the administration refuses to admit what inspires Muslims to join jihad groups in the first place.

This latest bout of wishful thinking and fantasy-based policymaking comes at a high cost to the taxpayer:

Money for the program, which is managed by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, tripled this year, to $16 million, after administration officials concluded that past efforts that had attempted to scare potential militants away from the extremist groups were not working.

At least the government correctly concluded that, indeed, the programs were not working:

[M]ultiple reboots have shown how hard it has been for these programs to find traction. … [R]ecent attacks in Turkey, Iraq, France and Bangladesh seemed to show extremism has been spreading.

But this time, the Times assures us, it’s going to be different:

The new initiatives have been tailored to keep the United States government’s involvement as low-key — and in some cases, as secretive — as possible, because overt American backing for some projects had turned off the exact group of disaffected young men that the campaign is trying to reach.

So the State Department finally realized that Muslims who hate America will not be dissuaded via appeals from … America?

Baby steps! Still — not going to work. The Times reports:

“[T]hese new efforts include using Facebook videos, Instagram ads and other social media that have been designed to convince young men and women that joining the militants’ fight means breaking their mothers’ hearts, tearing apart their families and leaving their loved ones to lives of emptiness.”

So the latest plan from the Obama administration rests on this assumption: A young man who thinks he is serving Allah in a cause commanded by the supreme being — and who thinks that being killed will secure a place in Paradise for himself and (in accord with statements attributed to Muhammad) for his family — will be dissuaded by realizing his mother might miss him.

The State Department is forbidden, as a matter of policy, from studying or understanding the jihadi worldview. They instead operate under the assumption that Muslims aspiring to jihad have the same basic values and priorities of modern secular Westerners. This assumption is, at best, unproven.

This Keystone Kops myopia is longstanding. The Times writes:

[P]ast efforts from the administration had sought to frighten potential jihadists with warnings that waging war against the West would get them killed, but officials concluded that the warnings actually served the opposite purpose of glorifying militancy.

The willful blindness necessary to believe that jihadis — who repeatedly avow that they “love death” — could be dissuaded from jihad in any significant numbers by fear of death is breathtaking. It epitomizes how wrongheaded the administration’s approach has been from the beginning.

Even the Times acknowledges this about the initiative, while citing unnamed “critics”:

 [The initiative] was unlikely to have done anything to dissuade young people from joining either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State.

However, while the New York Times admits that the administration’s program to dissuade jihadis has thus far been completely ineffective, it has no idea why.

In reality, all possible versions of this program are doomed to failure because they manifest no understanding whatsoever of the jihadis’ worldview, beliefs, assumptions, motives, and goals. None of this is surprising, since the Obama administration has forbidden the examination and discussion of all of that.

Take, for example, one image that the State Department published on Twitter. It says:

Women under ISIS are enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, flogged.

Obviously this would deter someone from becoming a jihadi only if he already thought it was terrible for women to be enslaved, battered, beaten, humiliated, and flogged.

The State Department wonks who came up with this weren’t allowed to learn from the Qur’an. So they obviously don’t know that the Qur’an mandates the enslavement of infidel women (4:3; 4:24; 23:1-6; 33:50; 70:30) and the beating of disobedient women (4:34).

A Muslim who knows that is unlikely to be troubled by the prospect of the Islamic State beating or enslaving women.

The Times adds:

On Sept. 11, 2014, for example, an Al Qaeda leader posted on Twitter that ‘on this day, in 2001, the USA’s largest economic shrine, the idol of capitalism was brought to the ground.’ The State Department quickly responded on Twitter by posting a photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State leader, wearing a Rolex watch: “Nobody’s a bigger fan of the fruits of capitalism than so-called #ISIS Caliph.”

This, too, was myopic: from an Islamic standpoint, the Rolex was not a sign of hypocrisy, since Islam does not have the reverence for asceticism that Christianity has. Rather, it was a sign that Allah had blessed the caliph, since blessings are promised to the pious in both this world and the next – and those blessings specifically include the spoils of war against non-Muslims.

The caliph could have been signaling to his followers: “Kill an infidel, take his Rolex.”

No matter how much money they pour into it, this program will fail on the drawing board until the State Department drops its willful ignorance about the ideology that fuels and motivates the jihad.

DNC Speech: Hillary Clinton Deletes Foreign Policy Disasters as Secretary of State

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, July 29, 2016:

PHILADELPHIA – Notoriously missing from Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech here at the Democratic National Convention was a list of any significant accomplishments from her time as Secretary of State.

The words “secretary of state” only appeared twice in her speech.

One of those times she stated, “I have to tell you, as your Secretary of State, I went to 112 countries, and when people hear those words – they hear America.”

Here, she seems to be brandishing her foreign travel as a signature achievement while she was one of the nation’s highest serving diplomats.

The second and final direct mention of her former State position came when she exclaimed, “As you know, I’m not one of those people. I’ve been your First Lady. Served 8 years as a Senator from the great State of New York. Then I represented all of you as Secretary of State.”

When she did briefly mention her record, Clinton mostly spoke in generalities and she seemed to be combining her time as  a Senator and Secretary of State.

She stated:

Look at my record.  I’ve worked across the aisle to pass laws and treaties and to launch new programs that help millions of people.  And if you give me the chance, that’s what I’ll do as President.

I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.

I’m proud that we shaped a global climate agreement – now we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves.

I’m proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.

While she didn’t outline her role in the talks with Iran that led to the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Clinton did tangentially mention the Iran deal. “I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.”

Absent from her DNC speech was Clinton’s central role in the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, a military campaign that directly resulted in the destabilization of that country and its subsequent descent into chaos. Islamic extremists have since taken over large swaths of Libya, and have used the country as a staging ground to attempt to infiltrate Europe.

Islamic terrorists infamously carried out deadly attacks on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Clinton did not bring up her State Department’s role in denying security requests to the woefully unsecure U.S. facility.

Clinton further failed to mention her strong support for the so-called Arab Spring, including the toppling of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, a staunch U.S. ally, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resultant rise to power there until a military coup in 2013.

Clinton referenced the threat of the Islamic State without explaining that the global jihadist group has taken up sanctuary in countries that were destabilized during her tenure as Secretary of State.

She stated:

I’ve laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won’t be easy or quick, but make no mistake – we will prevail.

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.

BOOK RELEASE: See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense

Center for Security Policy, April 14, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001. The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government. Until now.

With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion. It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.

see_no_sharia_thumb-683x1024In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.

Frank Gaffney noted,

“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success. We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”

Clare Lopez added,

“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policymaking apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic. This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”

The Center for Security Policy is proud to present this monograph as the latest in its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the other volumes in this Readers Series, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series at https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/civilization-jihad-reader-series/

Buy “See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense” in paperback or Kindle format on Amazon.

PDF of the newly released monograph

REVEALED : An Enemy Within

Jim-650Porterville Post, by James E. Horn, March 26, 2016:

By way of introduction, I am a retired Foreign Service Officer who worked for the Department of State and served abroad for a quarter of a century.

At a recent meeting, a question was posed to me about something I had never thought of or considered nor to my knowledge has any other prognosticator addressed this. The question: Is it true that a lot of State Department officials are Moslem?

The Department of State, the CIA, the Department of Defense and many other agencies have a continuing need for linguists (over 165 languages and dialects). We need to train our people in languages to enable them to perform their duties. There are two primary institutions for language training, the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute located in Northern Virginia, and the Pentagon’s Defense Language Institute located in Monterey, California.

The length of a language course depends on the complexity of the language. For example, an American can learn rudimentary “soft” languages such as Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian in five months, French in six months, etc. Medium languages such as German, Russian, or Scandinavian languages can be learned in eleven months. “Hard” languages are Korean, Mongolian, Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic require a much longer training cycle of up to three years for high levels of proficiency. Only people with a very high language aptitude can begin to qualify for such extensive and costly training.

Arabic’s learning course begins with a year in the United States at one of the aforementioned institutes. The second year is a total immersion program in an Arabic speaking country where the student lives away from and does not associate with many other English speakers, has no American TV, radio, newspapers, etc. By the end of this second year, the student has achieved some fluency. Only the very top 10% of this group are moved into a third year, usually at Al-Azhar University (and Mosque) in Cairo, Egypt. Throughout this training, instruction is primarily provided by Imams.

When I was assigned to the American Consulate in Istanbul, I received two hours per day of Turkish language training, and then spent some of my leisure time making friends with Turks where I could practice over tea at café’s, etc. From one of these contacts, I was introduced to an English speaking Imam at Istanbul’s Blue Mosque where I received more Turkish training for free. My Turkish language instructor at the Consulate was, of course, an Imam.

An Imam is highly trained in Islam. Imams who speak English are further trained in Dawah (Moslem Missionary Work) and serve as propagandists in order to spread Islam, to recruit others to follow Islam, to convert either openly or covertly to Islam.

For example, the CIA Director is very likely a Moslem convert who reportedly swore his oath to Islam while he was stationed in Saudi Arabia. When sworn in, he refused to place his hand on a bible, but instead used an original draft of the constitution dating from 1787 – before it included the Bill of Rights. A Moslem’s oath of allegiance to Islam supersedes any oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Therefore, isn’t CIA director Brennan sworn to defend Islam to the detriment of America? Isn’t that a traitor?

Through the Arabic language program, all students are subjected to intense pressure by their Arabic teachers to adopt – to swear an allegiance to Islam by repeating the Shahada oath three times. There should be no doubt that some if not many of our State Department, CIA, Military, and other agencies’ Arabic and related Moslem world language speakers are covert converts to Islam as is CIA Director Brennan.

My answer to the question is: Yes, indeed, a lot of people involved in our national security organizations have unfortunately sworn their allegiance to the enemy – Islam. They are Americans born and raised in our communities, and also are Moslem Brotherhood appointees. Their numbers are probably in the thousands, and they are working steadily to subvert our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our republic. They need to be ferreted out and removed from their positions and either deported or exiled.

Let’s not forget that subsequent to the Moslem sneak attacks on the United states on 9/11, certain people in Washington decided that we needed to bring hundreds if not thousands of Arabic speakers into play at the National Security Agency, CIA, and other agencies to translate thousands of daily Arabic language communications into English. To the detriment of the American people, this was done hastily and with the wrong people advising the president and others in accomplishing this task.

Unfortunately, Moslem Brotherhood (the enemy) operatives were put in charge of this massive hiring program. Thousands of fluent Arabic speaking Christians and Jews were excluded totally from this program. Only Moslems got the jobs, and I can assure you that valuable, important intelligence was not properly translated (if at all) and what did go forward was with the intent of misinforming and misleading our top officials in the White House and elsewhere. We are suffering severe consequences of this foolishness, and if we are to survive as a viable republic, need to rectify this quickly, or perish.

And, yes, I was pressured to repeat the Moslem oath, the Shadah and convert to Islam. By this point, I had learned enough about Islam and had the good sense to refuse and to walk away from that pressure

James E. Horn is a retired American Diplomat
He can be reached at james@portervillepost.com

Iran Missile Tests Possible Violation of U.S. Sanctions, U.N. Resolutions



Breitbart, by John  Hayward,  March 9, 2016:

Iran conducted another round of illegal ballistic missile tests on Tuesday, and they may prove to be an even more egregious violation of sanctions than the launch in October. Iran openly defied the United Nations and United States — which an Iranian general described as “our main enemy” — and threatened to walk away from President Obama’s nuclear deal.

“State media announced that short-, medium- and long-range precision guided missiles were fired from several sites to show the country’s ‘all-out readiness to confront threats’ against its territorial integrity,” AFP reported. The Iranian broadcasts included pictures of the launches, which included ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers.

AFP notes these missile exercises were dubbed “The Power of Velayat” by Iran, a “reference to the religious doctrine of the Islamic republic’s leadership.” More specifically, it apparently refers to a book by the revolutionary Ayatollah Khomeini, in which he argued that Islamic sharia law should rule over secular government, administered by clerical “guardians” — the essence of “hardline” political thought in Iran.

The launches were conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is under the command of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not President Hassan Rouhani. This leads to suspicions the missile tests were a demonstration of internal power and international defiance by the Iranian “hardliners,” after big “moderate” victories in the recent Iranian parliamentary elections.

“Our main enemies, the Americans, who mutter about plans, have activated new missile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and are seeking to weaken the country’s missile capability,” said IRGC Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh in a TV interview. “The Guards and other armed forces are defenders of the revolution and the country will not pay a toll to anyone… and will stand against their excessive demands.”

For all his alleged “moderation,” AFP notes that President Rouhani said in response to the prospect of fresh sanctions against Iran over missile violations: “Any action will be met by a reaction.”

Those reactions include a threat to walk away from Obama’s nuclear deal, if the U.S. insists on holding Iran to parts of the deal it doesn’t like.

“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue. What makes us remain committed to the deal is our national interests,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi said on Tuesday, during an address to an Iranian legal council. He implied that it would be America that nullified the deal, by imposing any further sanctions against Iran.

CNN quotes U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner saying on Tuesday that if the Iranian missile launches were confirmed as violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.S. would ask the United Nations to take an “appropriate response,” without specifying what that response might be.

“There are strong indications (this) test is inconsistent with U.N. Security Council 2231,” said Toner, referring to the relevant United Nations resolution. “If confirmed, we intend to raise the matter in the U.N. Security Council. We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response.”

There is some question about precisely what Iran launched last night, as Reuters notes images broadcast on Iranian TV of the most advanced missile Iran claimed to test, the Emad, appeared to come from the October test. The administration will want to confirm illegal missile tests before taking any further action.

In addition to the belligerent statements of defiance quoted above, the Iranian government argues that these missile tests were not violations of the Security Council resolution Toner cited, because the missiles cannot carry nuclear warheads.

On Tuesday afternoon, the White House said the Iranian missile launch was not a violation of the nuclear agreement, although the question of whether they violated U.N. Security Council resolutions remains:


Iranian State Television Flaunts Anti-Israel Ballistic Missile Launches

For the second day in a row, Iranian state television has broadcast propaganda videos that show the launch of several ballistic missiles with anti-Israel intent.

A video released Tuesday shows the inside of an underground tunnel used for launching the missiles. It features an Israeli flag painted on the ground which Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, members are meant to walk over on their way to launch.

Wednesday’s video shows another two missiles labeled with “Israel must be wiped off the Earth” in Hebrew. Persian-language media headlines included the Hebrew message in order to emphasize the IRGC’s anti-Israel intentions. The missiles were reportedly precision-guided Qadr missiles that put Israel within striking range.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC aerospace division, said that the tests were meant to intimidate Israel.

“The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles) is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance,” Hajizadeh said. “Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by these missiles.”

Iranian officials have brushed off the launches as part of their national defense capabilities, arguing that they are not in violation of the nuclear agreement implemented in January. The nuclear deal will free Iran from ballistic missile restrictions in eight years.

However, the tests do stand in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which states that Iran should not partake in “any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Speaking in Jerusalem Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden said that the U.S. would “act” if Iran violated the nuclear deal and would keep an eye on threatening conventional military activity.

“There is no need to doubt that the United States has Israel’s back,” Biden said.

Also see: