Archive for May 2016

Trump: Unexpected and Unconventional but Suited for Our Times

May 11, 2016

Trump: Unexpected and Unconventional but Suited for Our Times, American ThinkerScott S. Powell, May 11, 2016

One of the most extraordinary things about Donald Trump’s primary victory in the Republican Party is that he received more votes from people identifying as Christian than his closest competitor Ted Cruz — the son of an evangelical pastor and one who profusely displayed his Christian identity in speech and temperament. In contrast, by standards that many believe to be the essence of Christian character as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, Donald Trump has been anything but meek, merciful, or peacemaking in his political rise. Some have likened him to a one-man wrecking ball. So what’s going on?

No one doubts that these are unusual times, with more forces pulling the United States down than at any other time in history. There is plenty of blame to go around for America’s spiraling state of decline, but at the top of the list are two things: First, we have had a culture captured and constrained by secular progressive political correctness. Second, we have an overbearing federal government that has corrupted both parties, the bureaucracies, and even the supposedly independent Federal Reserve.

At the grassroots, Republicans have tried to bring about a corrective, and they did succeed in getting many conservative reform candidates elected to congress in the last six years. Yet the stranglehold of political correctness and the corruption of Washington from special interests and lobbyists have proven insurmountable. Washington, DC — a metropolis producing very little with limited industry and almost no manufacturing — has become the richest city in the country, while driving the nation to the edge of financial ruin, as manifest in a national debt exceeding $19 trillion, 47 million people on food stamps, and a true unemployment rate that may be three times higher than the manipulated official rate released by the federal government.

Even as white Christians have diminished in their overall percentage of the population at large, according to the Pew Research Center, they still account for nearly seven in ten Americans who identify with, or lean toward, the Republican Party — about the same percentage as in the 1980s during the Reagan years. The problem is the GOP — despite its success in gaining majorities in both houses of Congress and controlling the power of the purse — has been ineffective as an opposition party during the Obama years.

The tipping point for many Christians came with a realization that the Republican Party was as incapable of protecting their rights and values at home as it was feckless in stopping an errant foreign policy that undermined trust with allies and emboldened enemies.

Two unnerving breaches of protection prompted many to recognize compelling qualities in Donald Trump over other candidates. First, he exuded an unapologetic toughness about building a wall and stopping the wave of illegal immigrants flooding over the Mexican border. Second, he was unequivocal about obliterating ISIS quickly and decisively — ending its wanton slaughter of Christians and other ethnic groups. And bridging both of these issues, in the aftermath of ISIS-inspired attacks in San Bernardino and Brussels, Trump unhesitatingly opposed Obama’s wish to take in undocumented Syrian refugees, “until we figure out what the hell is going on.” In that alone in the eyes of the majority, Trump demonstrated he was presidential, putting the protection of Americans as the top priority.

Political correctness and intolerance, which debilitates critical thinking, discourse and debate, has been shaping American culture for more than a generation. Throughout the seven plus years of the Obama administration, political correctness has driven domestic and foreign policy — with disastrous results. Obama has gone beyond anyone in recent memory in assaulting the First Amendment, undermining both speech and the exercise of Christian religion. We now see among liberals and secular progressives operating in the Democrat Party an Orwellian power structure that seeks to advance a statist, socialist and globalist transformation of the U.S. by silencing opposing views through the courts, misinformation, and distortion of the truth. Call it “newspeak” as Orwell did or the successor term “doublespeak,” its purpose is the same: to shape the masses thinking and obfuscate what is really going down.

Political correctness has not only prevented development of an effective strategy to deal with Islamist terrorism. It has turned U.S. relations in the Middle East upside down. The Obama administration celebrated the ouster and replacement of Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak, a long-standing U.S. ally, with Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi. A similar glee was initially expressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the news of Muammar Gaddafi being hunted down and killed, only to be followed by increased mayhem in Libya, leading to the tragedy and humiliation of the U.S. at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.

But for many Christians, the bridge too far was Obama’s rebuke of Israel and his end run around the U.S. Congress, in forcing through a fundamentally flawed nuclear deal with Iran. Iran is both the top exporter of hate and the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism whose longstanding primary targets are the United States (often referred to as the “big Satan”), and Israel (the “little Satan”).

Everyone recognizes that Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. His Christian supporters certainly know this as well or better than his critics. But they also recognize that sinners are all that there are to choose from and that America’s precarious position at home and abroad requires an unconventional leader with unusual characteristics — some of which may not be aligned with a stereotypical Christian temperament.

One thing few could disagree with is that Trump deserves credit more than any conservative for fracturing the foundation of political correctness, upon which rests the entire liberal superstructure.

In fact, conventional conservatives may have reached a limit in expanding their audience. In contrast, it appears to be harvest time for Trump. His style of common sense plain talk has the potential to make huge inroads into both independent and liberal constituencies who are just now waking up to the absurdities of political correctness. While many still can’t see clearly, the fog is lifting, and the soul, spontaneity and humor of America is making an incipient revival, even in the midst of rancor.

If one can get past the braggadocio, narcissism and other negatives of Trump’s character, on the positive side he exudes confidence, ambition and a keenness to make good deals, get results and win. He is bold, direct and doesn’t shy away from confrontation. Mr. Trump is quite social and clearly likes to entertain, but he is also tough as nails, unrelenting and unpredictable with adversaries. He is unquestionably and refreshingly patriotic.

It turns out that some of these qualities are among those most vital to rebuilding relations with America’s allies and restoring respect — even fear — from adversaries. Mr. Trump’s irectness also suggests he is the best-suited presidential candidate to take on America’s greatest threat — insolvency. He could break the cycle of denial that completely engulfs the Democrat Party, and has hitherto prevented predecessors from doing much of anything regarding the nation’s out-of-control spending, deficits and unsustainable debt. Additionally, Trump’s toughness may be the key virtue needed to rule in a divided country and to successfully downsize and restructure federal agencies and get Washington out of the way of the American economy and its people.

Although the GOP believes it has a big tent, understandably many party members with well-established positions and values have great difficulty in accepting for the highest office in the land a newcomer candidate as fundamentally different as Donald Trump. To them I would say, unusual times with threats on every front at home and abroad call for an unconventional candidate. And it’s not so hard after all to recognize qualities in Donald Trump that make him in certain ways uniquely well-suited for our times.

 

She Spoke Up About Cooked ISIS Intel. They Booted Her—for Cursing

May 11, 2016

She Spoke Up About Cooked ISIS Intel. They Booted Her—for Cursing

ByPamela Geller on May 11, 2016

Source: She Spoke Up About Cooked ISIS Intel. They Booted Her—for Cursing | Pamela Geller

Obama’s CENTCOM is cooking the data to make it appear as if we’re defeating ISIS when in fact we aren’t. It’s cynical and thoroughly politically motivated: the administration wants to make it seem as if it’s doing something against terrorism so that Hillary can get elected and the gravy train can continue. When the courageous Carolyn Stewart spoke up, she was fired. The entire treasonous CENTCOM brass and the Obama administration as a whole needs to be fired.

“She Spoke Up About Cooked ISIS Intel. They Booted Her—for Cursing,” by Nancy A. Youssef, Daily Beast, May 9, 2016:

TAMPA, Florida — She worked on and off for five years identifying targets for the U.S. military’s Central Command.

And then, when, some believe, she spoke up about cherry-picked intelligence in the ISIS war, she was drummed out of her job—allegedly for cursing twice in the span of the year.

Those were just some of the surreal allegations thrown around last week in a Tampa law office conference room turned into a quasi-courtroom.

Had the case not involved the third-highest ranking person at the Defense Intelligence Agency, a two-star general, a military judge, and hours of testimony—all at a cost of thousands of dollars—it would have been hard to take seriously. Even with those high-ranking officials, at times it was hard not to do a double-take about what was happening.

After all, if cursing were really a fireable offense in the military, every soldier, sailor, Marine, and Defense Department civilian would have to be sent home.

The case suggested that, at CENTCOM, there are two wars being waged: one against ISIS and a separate internal fight between whistleblowers and commanders. This all came to the fore during a rare public hearing last Wednesday before the government appeals board, brought by a subordinate of Gregory Ryckman, the top-ranking civilian at CENTCOM’s Joint Intelligence office, known as the J2.

The woman at the center of the case makes a now-familiar allegation: that the same military officials who cherry-picked information about the ISIS war and downplayed the terror group’s rising threat also selectively picked information about her. The Pentagon inspector general now is investigating whether CENTCOM officials, including Ryckman, watered down assessments on the rising jihadist threat to comport with the White House.

The woman at the center of the controversy in this case, Carolyn Stewart, is a small person with a big voice. The Army veteran seemingly is demure at first glance, with shoulder-length light brown hair. But as soon as she speaks, it is clear she is not afraid to say exactly what she thinks.

She repeatedly prodded her lawyer throughout the day-long hearing about which questions to ask, which evidence to present, and which details to point out in her favor.

The hearing was a window into how allegations of toxic work environments, faulty reports, and bad leadership consumed the office tasked with leading CENTCOM’s intelligence gathering. At issue during the hours-long hearing was whether Stewart cursed at CENTCOM, and if she did curse, whether that created a hostile work environment.

“I went to other action officers to avoid Ms. Stewart,” one witness explained to the judge, in support of the decision to reassign her.

The hearing, held through a teleconference connecting DIA lawyers in Washington with a judge in Atlanta and the complainant in Tampa, had all the markings of a proper trial. Someone wore a robe and lawyers yelled out objections.

But one couldn’t help thinking it was like an episode of The Office. Those charged with helping target ISIS terrorists were instead obsessed with things like who “bitched out” whom. The government claimed she said it to another woman. Another witnesses said someone else said those words to Stewart.

It is worth noting that such debates were occupying a command post tasked with leading the war on ISIS. And yet the key issue of the time was how precisely Stewart handled a colleague telling her he would not adjust a target order.

“Did she toss the papers down or did she place them down?” a government lawyer asked a witness.

In the midst of the war against ISIS, the highest-ranking general in charge of intelligence gathering sat for hours waiting in a Tampa law office to testify for all of 15 minutes. The Defense Intelligence Agency chief of staff, the third-highest ranking member of that office, testified for hours over why she decided that a few curses could not be tolerated in an office that helped determine which suspected ISIS members should be targeted for death from above….

Humor | The DB interview: White House Press Secretary clarifies U.S. involvement in Iraq

May 11, 2016

The DB interview: White House Press Secretary clarifies U.S. involvement in Iraq, Duffel Blog, May 11, 2016

joshua-earnest-1-1000x600

WASHINGTON — Reporter Kate C sat down for an exclusive interview with White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest to get straight answers on U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Kate C: Thank you for sitting down with us today, Press Secretary Joshua Earnest.

Joshua Ernest: Please, call me Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

KC: Sure thing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Three U.S. troops have died in Iraq since 2014, the most recent being Navy SEAL Charles Keating IV in a firefight.

PSJE: Yes, terrible news for us here. Oh, and for everyone of course.

KC: But at Tuesday’s press conference you said U.S. troops “do not have a combat mission” in Iraq. Could you clarify “combat mission?”

PSJE: Excellent question. You’ll notice I use “quotation marks” a lot with my “hands” for this interview, but don’t pay too much “attention” to that.

KC: Got it. So the mission —

PSJE: You have to understand that “combat” and “mission” are just two words from a dictionary. What do they “really” mean? What are words even? Hard to say.

KC: Perhaps I should rephrase. It’s documented that our troops are coming under fire in Iraq. You said, “the relatively small number of U.S. service members that are involved in these operations are not in combat but are in a dangerous place.” What is the White House’s definition of “combat?”

PSJE: I like your use of “hand quotes” at the end there. See how it really looks like quotation “marks”?

KC: The definition of combat —

PSJE: My hands have been tied — I mean dry — lately so I use Aveeno “Active Naturals” in “Lavender.”

KC: Um, ok. Let’s move on to the number of “boots on the ground” in Iraq. President Obama announced a troop cap of 3,870 and this April it was raised to 4,087, but there are an estimated 5,000 there now, not including contractors.

PSJE: I’ve actually been working on a “flow chart” for this one.

boots-on-the-ground-flow-1

KC: I’m not sure you’re supposed to be showing anyone that.

PSJE: Look, it’s better to keep things murky until a major “news” paper makes a fuss about it. Discretion keeps our troops “safe” and the “enemy” on their “toes”. You want our troops “safe” don’t you?

KC: I’m not sure what’s happening right now, and I am actually more confused about U.S. involvement in Iraq than before this interview started. But thank you for your time?

 

Manchester Police Apologize for “Allahu Akbar”

May 11, 2016

Manchester Police Apologize for “Allahu Akbar” Power LineJohn Hinderaker, May 11, 2016

In Manchester, England, police staged a mock suicide bombing attack at a shopping center as part of a training exercise. The pretend bomber yelled “Alluhu Akbar” just before he detonated his mock explosives–a touch of verisimilitude appropriate to the exercise. But it prompted a complaint, followed by an apology:

Police in Manchester, England has issued an apology, after a suicide bombing “simulation” which involved an actor shouting the Islamic phrase “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater) before detonating mock explosives.

The simulated terror attack was held at one of the UK’s largest shopping centers, the Old Trafford Centre, and was part of a counter-terrorism training drill preparing for a possible Paris-style assault by jihadist terrorists.

However, police later apologized for “linking Islam” with terrorism.

The drill had been criticized by some politicians and Muslim activists, including The Community Safety Forum, an anti-Islamophobia organization.

“This sort of thing panders to stereotypes and further divides us. It will increase anti-Muslim hate crime,” the group claimed.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes being, of course, the issue that is currently roiling Europe. Here is the Manchester Police Department’s statement:

“For the past 24 hours, GMP (Greater Manchester Police), along with other agencies, has been hosting a counter-terrorism training exercise based at the Trafford Centre, which began with a mock suicide bomber detonating a bomb inside the shopping centre,” police spokesman Gary Shewan said.

“It is a necessity for agencies, including the police, to train and prepare using exercises such as this, so that we would be in the best possible position to respond in the event that the unthinkable happened and an attack took place.”

“The scenario for this exercise is based on a suicide attack by an extremist Daesh-style organisation,” he continued, using the Arabic term for the ISIS terrorist group, “and the scenario writers have centred the circumstances around previous similar attacks of this nature, mirroring details of past events to make the situation as real life as possible for all of those involved.

“However, on reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.”

“Linking” Islamic terrorism to Islam is now an offense punishable by career derailment.

So, what is the actor carrying out a mock suicide bombing supposed to yell before he pulls the cord? Excelsior? Geronimo? (No, wait, never mind.) Take that, you Limeys? I suppose he had best maintain a discreet silence.

Reality eventually intrudes:

Also on Tuesday, Italian police revealed that two Afghan nationals arrested in the southern Italian city of Bari were part of an Islamist terror cell linked to ISIS, which was plotting attacks in both Italy and Britain.

Three other cell members are still at large, two of whom are believed to have returned to Afghanistan.

Fortunately, the terror attacks planned by this stall have been forestalled, at least for now. But if they had been carried out, you can be sure they would have been preceded by cries of “Allahu Akbar.”

fake-suicide-bomberThe Manchester suicide bombing exercise

Europe to campaign for arch-terrorist’s Nobel Peace Prize

May 11, 2016

Europe to campaign for arch-terrorists Nobel Peace Prize, Israel National News, Dalit Halevi, May 11, 2016

Nobel peace prizeMarwan Barghouti mural on security barrier Kobi Gideon/Flash 90

The wife of arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti has revealed that European MPs and political parties support her husband’s candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize, and will soon come out and publicly express their position of support for him.

Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of the senior terrorist from Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party who is serving five life sentences in Israel, welcomed her husband’s Nobel Prize candidacy in an interview with the Turkish Anadolu news agency.

She praised the Arab League support for his candidacy, which was submitted in early March by Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina, who won the Nobel Prize back in 1980 for his human rights work.

According to Fadwa Barghouti the very submission of her husband’s candidacy for the prize gives a message to the world that the “struggle” of the Palestinians is legitimate, and that Barghouti is a symbol of a legitimate “struggle” and not a symbol of terror.

Her talk of a European campaign of support comes after Labour party head Jeremy Corbyn – whose party is in the midst of a massive anti-Semitism scandal – was revealed in early May as having glorified Barghouti as an “icon,” comparing him to Nelson Mandela of South Africa.

Barghouti was convicted of organizing numerous terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and was sentenced to five life sentences in 2002 for his leading role in planning suicide bombings during the 2000 Second Intifada or Oslo War.

Those life sentences stem from his conviction on five murders – Yoela Hen (45), Eli Dahan (53), Yosef Habi (52), Police officer Sgt. Maj. Salim Barakat (33) and Greek monk Tsibouktsakis Germanus.

The arch-terrorist is considered one of the founders of Tanzim, one of Fatah’s armed terrorist factions. Numerous Israeli civilians were murdered by Tanzim terrorists under Barghouti’s reign, although he was not tried for those murders.

Barghouti has continued to exert great influence within the Fatah party even from prison. Likewise he has been visited by Arab MKs, and has sought presidency of the PA from jail.

As outrageous as Barghouti’s candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize may be, it is not the first time an arch-terrorist has been considered for, or indeed awarded, the prize.

Yasser Arafat, the founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and an arch-terrorist responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis, was given the prize together with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after the 1994 Oslo Accords.

Recent Nobel Peace Prize candidates were US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for their work forming the controversial nuclear deal – which reportedly has already sparked a regional nuclear race. Kerry and Zarif ended up being snubbed by the prize committee.

US President Barack Obama won the award in 2009 after less than a year in office, and before having taken any concrete steps in his post that would have possibly warranted the more than $1 million prize.

Geir Lundestad, former Director of the Nobel Institute for 25 years, said last September that giving Obama the award was a mistake.

London’s New Mayor To Trump: Let In Muslims Or Risk Attacks

May 11, 2016

London’s New Mayor Warns Trump: Let In Muslims Or They Will Attack America

Source: London’s New Mayor To Trump: Let In Muslims Or Risk Attacks | The Daily Caller

The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.

Trump recently praised Sadiq Khan for winning London’s mayoral race, and said he would be willing to create an exception in his policy restricting Muslim entry into the United States in order to allow Khan to visit. But in a statement Tuesday, Khan dismissed Trump’s invitation, and also denounced his views on Islam as “ignorant,” suggesting Trump’s policies would increase the terrorist threat in both the U.S. and

U.K. (RELATED: Khan Rejects Trump’s Invitation, Endorses Hillary)

“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.

Could North Korea Secretly Build an Iranian Bomb?

May 11, 2016

Could North Korea Secretly Build an Iranian Bomb? The National InterestPeter Brookes, May 10,2016

(Please see also, The Iran-North Korea Axis of Atomic Weapons? — DM)

Khamanei-300x271

Editor’s Note: The National Interest and the Heritage Foundation have partnered for a multi-part occasional series examining various aspects of the Iran nuclear agreement. The below is part four of the series. You can read previous parts here: one, two and three.

Last summer’s Iran nuclear deal has been roundly criticized for a number of solid reasons, ranging from Tehran’s ability under the deal to continue advanced centrifuge research to lingering questions about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

That’s all well established.

One issue that has been largely ignored—wittingly or unwittingly—is this: What if Iran were able to find a suitable partner to collude with on an ‘‘underground” nuclear weapons program, all while seemingly staying within the restrictions of the July 2015 nuclear deal?

In other words, Tehran could by all public accounts adhere to the P5+1’s (China, France, Germany/European Union, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But concurrently, Iran could work clandestinely with another country to advance its nuclear weapons program, essentially circumventing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections and monitoring of the nuclear program inside Iran.

What better candidate for covert cooperation than cagey North Korea?

First, there’s no doubt that North Korea has a nuclear weapons capability. It has conducted four—maybe soon five—tests (2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016), possibly using both plutonium and uranium as fissile material.

Next, some analysts believe Pyongyang may have already “miniaturized” or “weaponized” the underground testing device into a nuclear warhead, capable of being mated to a ballistic missile. Even if North Korea hasn’t achieved it yet, it’s working on it.

Pyongyang has also expanded its missile testing beyond land-based launches. It now has conducted at least two subsurface ballistic missile tests that may also be related eventually to its nuclear weapons program. Clearly, these North Korean capabilities—though not all proven—would benefit an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Also important is that Pyongyang seems willing to share its nuclear know-how with others, as evidenced by its building of a nuclear facility for Damascus that was destroyed in an Israeli air strike in 2007. Though public evidence is scarce and, if available, gauzy, it’s quite reasonable to conclude with some confidence that Pyongyang and Tehran already have some sort of established security or defense relationship. For instance, in 2012, Iran and North Korea reportedly signed a science and technology (S&T) agreement. It’s fair to assume that any cooperation is defense-related.

Indeed, considering the sorry state of their respective economies, research and industrial bases, it’s hard to conceive of what sort of civilian S&T Pyongyang might offer Tehran—and vice versa, of course.

Lending credence to this idea is the report that, at the time of the S&T agreement’s signing, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke of how Tehran and Pyongyang had “common enemies.” The United States quickly—and clearly—comes to mind.

The idea of collaboration should come as no real surprise, as it’s seemingly well-known that the Iran and North Korea are reported to have been cooperating at some level on ballistic missiles going back to at least the late 1990s. For instance, it’s long been asserted that some Iranian ballistic missiles (e.g., the Shahab) are based on North Korean ballistic-missile technology (e.g., the Nodong) or transfers (e.g., the Scud).

Equally alarming is the New York Times report suggesting that the 2013 North Korean nuclear test may have been conducted “for two countries.” That notion was raised by unattributed U.S. government sources and gives support to concerns that Pyongyang and Tehran may be cooperating on more than ballistic missiles. This wouldn’t be the first time such an allegation has been leveled at Tehran and Pyongyang informally, but perhaps the first time it’s been acknowledged by Washington, taking into account a source not willing to be identified.

Of course, the situation has changed dramatically with the JCPOA now in force. Iran now has more than a passing interest in moving forward with its nuclear weapons program—especially considering the evolving regional security situation—without losing the benefits that the agreement provides, such as the removing of crippling economic sanctions. From Iran’s perspective, the need for “nuclear networking” with North Korea is greater than ever.

Of course, it’s not just Tehran that is in need. Pyongyang is also needy for its own reasons, such as its self-imposed, collectivist economic woes and the increasing international economic sanctions it faces over nuclear and missile tests.

In addition, North Korea could use some technical assistance with its space launch program, where Iran is arguably more advanced, but which is integral—and critical—to Pyongyang’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program.

Lastly, both countries despise the United States and some of its allies (e.g., South Korea and Israel). Accordingly, Iran and North Korea would benefit from the existence of another state that threatens America with nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

 In other words, there’s plenty of political and military motivation for these two rogue states to get together on nuclear and/or missile matters, arguably even more so today than last summer, before the JCPOA came into effect.

‘Clinton Cash’ doc set to stir up controversy as it debuts at Cannes

May 11, 2016

Clinton Cash’ doc set to stir up controversy as it debuts at Cannes

05/10/16 04:01 PM—Updated 05/10/16 04:04 PM

Source: ‘Clinton Cash’ doc set to stir up controversy as it debuts at Cannes | MSNBC

CANNES, France — A massive police force will be guarding the Cannes Film Festival this year. But the only scuffle on the horizon may come in response to the right-wing producers of a devastating new documentary about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s alleged influence peddling and favor-trading. That film, “Clinton Cash,” screens here May 16 and opens in the U.S. on July 24 — just before the Democratic National Convention.

The allegations are as brazen as they are controversial: What other film at Cannes would come up with a plot that involves Russian President Vladimir Putin wrangling a deal with the alleged help of both Clintons, a Canadian billionaire, Kazakhstan mining officials and the Russian atomic energy agency — all of which resulted in Putin gaining control of 20 percent of all the uranium in the U.S.?

RELATED: Latest anti-Clinton book promises to be most ‘fantastic’ yet

MSNBC got an exclusive first look at “Clinton Cash,” the flashy, hour-long film version of conservative author Peter Schweizer’s surprise 2015 bestseller, which The New York Times called the “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.” The Washington Post said that ”on any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption.” Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta denounced the book as a bunch of “outlandish claims” with “zero evidence.”

The film portrays the Clintons as a greedy tag team who used the family’s controversial Clinton Foundation and her position as secretary of state to help billionaires make shady deals around the world with corrupt dictators, all while enriching themselves to the tune of millions.

The movie alleges that Bill Clinton cut a wide swathe through some of the most impoverished and corrupt areas of the world — the South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, India and Haiti among others — riding in on private jets with billionaires who called themselves philanthropists but were actually bent on plundering the countries and lining their own pockets.

In return, billionaire pals like Frank Giustra and Gilbert Chagoury, or high-tech companies like Swedish telecom giant Ericsson or Indian nuclear energy officials — to name just a few mentioned in the film — hired Clinton to speak at often $750,000 a pop, according to “Clinton Cash.” When a favor was needed at the higher levels of the Obama administration to facilitate some of the deals, Hillary Clinton was only willing to sign off on them, the movie reports.

As a film, it powerfully connects the dots —  whether you believe them or not — in a narrative that lacks the wonkiness of the book, which bore a full title of “The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

It packs the kind of Trump-esque mainstream punch that may have the presumptive GOP nominee salivating. He recently declared, “We’ll whip out that book because that book will become very pertinent.”

RELATED: Clinton Foundation: ‘We made mistakes’

The hour-long documentary is intercut with “Homeland”-style clips of the Clintons juxtaposed against shots of blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, villainous dictators and private jets, all set to sinister music.

Produced by Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, with Schweizer as the film’s talking head, the documentary might be easy to dismiss as just another example of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” the former secretary of state referenced so many years ago.

But what complicates matters for Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that the book resulted in a series of investigations last year into Schweizer’s allegations by mainstream media organizations from The New York Times and CNN to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, many of which did not dispute his findings — and in some cases gathered more material that the producers used in the film. More recently, some information uncovered in the Panama Papers has echoed some of Schweitzer’s allegations in the movie and book.

Andrea Mitchell Reports, 5/1/15, 12:43 PM ET

‘Clinton Cash’ author responds to criticism

The Clinton campaign loudly denounced the book as a “smear project” last year and Schweizer’s publisher, the Murdoch-owned Harper Collins, had to make some corrections to the Kindle version. But the changes, in the end, involved seven or eight inaccuracies, some of which were fairly minor in the context of the larger allegations, Politico reported.Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to calls and emails requesting comment about the film Tuesday.

One of the most damning follow-ups to Schweizer’s most startling accusation — that Vladimir Putin wound up controlling 20 percent of American uranium after a complex series of deals involving cash flowing to the Clinton Foundation and the help of Secretary of State Clinton — was printed in The New York Times.

Like Schweizer, the Times found no hard evidence in the form of an email or any document proving a quid pro quo between the Clintons, Clinton Foundation donors or Russian officials. (Schweizer has maintained that it’s next to impossible to find a smoking gun but said there is a troubling “pattern of behavior” that merits a closer examination.)

But the Times concluded that the deal that brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling all of the world’s uranium supply is an “untold story … that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“Other news outlets built on what I uncovered and some of that is in the film,” Schweizer, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, told NBC News Tuesday. “To me the key message is that while U.S. politics has long been thought to be a dirty game, it was always played by Americans. What the Clinton Foundation has done is open an avenue by which foreign investors can influence a chief U.S. diplomat. The film may spell all this out to people in a way the book did not and it may reach a whole new audience.”

US Will Not Pursue Death Penalty Against Accused Benghazi Leader

May 11, 2016

State Department Will Not Pursue Death Penalty Against Accused Benghazi Leader

BY:
May 10, 2016 5:00 pm

Source: US Will Not Pursue Death Penalty Against Accused Benghazi Leader

Ahmed Abu Khatalla, the accused ringleader of the of the Benghazi terrorist attacks that killed four Americans including a U.S. ambassador, will not face the death penalty if found guilty, Justice Department officials announced Tuesday.

The decision was revealed in a filing to D.C.’s federal trial court and marks a victory for Khatalla’s attorneys who had pressed the government to nix the death penalty as a punishment should the Libyan militant be convicted at trial, the Associated Press reported.

A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Khatalla on 18 charges in October 2014, three months after U.S. special forces captured him during a June raid in Libya.

U.S. investigators have labeled Khatalla as the central figure behind the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on a State Department diplomatic compound that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department information management officer Sean Patrick Smith, and two other Americans.

“The department is committed to ensuring that the defendant is held accountable for his alleged role in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission and annex in Benghazi that killed four Americans and seriously injured two others, and if convicted, he faces a sentence of up to life in prison,” Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said in a statement Tuesday, according to the Washington Post.

Hillary Clinton, who was serving as secretary of state during the attacks, remains at the center of the Republican-led investigation into the attacks.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R, S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, is leading the congressional probe seeking to determine whether Clinton failed to heed proper security warnings prior to the assault.

Report: Homegrown Violent Extremists Planting Roots Across US

May 11, 2016

Report: Homegrown Violent Extremists Planting Roots Across U.S. Foiled ISIS attacks, plots, and terror funding grows across nation

BY:
May 10, 2016 3:30 pm

Source: Report: Homegrown Violent Extremists Planting Roots Across US

At least 75 homegrown violent extremists were found to be operating across the United States in 2015, with the largest portion of these individuals pledging allegiance to the ISIS terror group, according to recent figures published by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.

The largest number of homegrown extremists were caught providing material support to various terror organizations, while at least 21 percent of the terrorists were found to be planning attacks in the United States, according to the figures.

Another 10 percent successfully carried out terror attacks in California, New York, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, according to the data, which shows that the New York City area was home to the largest number of violent extremists.

Violent extremists were found be operating across the continental United States, including California, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, and states along the East Coast, according to the data, which confirms separate reports showing that there were more domestic terror-related arrests in the United States than at any time since the 9/11 attacks.

The figures come amid what some experts describe as an unprecedented rise in the number of foiled terror plots in the United States.

Congressional attempts to investigate the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals snagged on terror charges since 2014 have been stymied by the Obama administration. There remain at least 1,000 open investigations into ISIS members residing in the United States.

Officials with New Jersey’s homeland security agency determined that radicalized extremists have demonstrated a continuing ability to operate across the United States, prompting concern from some terrorism experts who warn that the American homeland remains highly vulnerable to violent extremists.

“In 2015, [homegrown violent extremists] demonstrated an ability to operate in New Jersey and throughout the United States while connecting with like-minded individuals online and acting independently from organized terrorist groups,” New Jersey’s homeland security agency stated in a brief of the latest terror figures. “Since late 2014, a variety of radical groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have encouraged [extremists] to attack in their home countries.”

At least 87 percent of these terrorists are connected to ISIS, while the rest have aligned themselves with the al Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front and other Salafi jihadi groups.

The data shows that 23 of the 75 extremists discovered by authorities were either plotting attacks on the United States or caught after successfully conducting them, according to the figures.

A portion of these individuals, at least 4 percent, has fled overseas, the data shows. The rest were arrested or killed by authorities.

Nearly half of the 75 extremists attempted in some way to travel overseas, in many cases to receive training or resources from foreign terror groups.

Federal and local authorities continue to disrupt terror plots across America.

At the same time, the Obama administration is preparing to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States in fiscal year 2016 by shortening the security screening process from around two years to about three months. Around 85,000 refugees will be resettled in the U.S. in total this fiscal year.

The plan has ignited further concerns about the possibility that some refugees also have ties to terror groups.

“Even after the terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, and Brussels, we still have so-called ‘experts’ telling us that the terror threat is overblown,” said Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism and national security analyst with Unconstrained Analytics. “But all of the indicators say the threat is escalating.”

Intelligence reports show that more than 40,000 individuals from 120 different countries have traveled to fight in war-torn Syria, with at least 250 known suspects from the United States, Poole noted.

“There are two dozen reported cases of terrorists traveling among Syrian immigrants, adding yet another dimension to the threat,” Poole said. “To ignore or dismiss the indicators of the metastasizing terror threat would be criminally negligent.”

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon analyst and expert on rogue regimes, warned that the domestic terror threat will continue to grow so long as U.S. officials continue to dismiss the problem.

“Home-grown extremism is accelerating and those around Obama are more interested in attacking those calling attention to the problem rather than the actual terrorists,” Rubin said.

“Globalization isn’t a one-way street. And so the problem of homegrown extremism isn’t going away,” he said. “The question now is whether the U.S. response is going to be denial or handicapped by political correctness. If there’s one lesson historians should take from the Obama administration, it is that declaring a problem non-existent or contained doesn’t make it so.”

“Al Qaeda didn’t die with Bin Laden, no matter how much the journalists seeking Obama’s good graces desired,” Rubin added. “The Islamic State wasn’t a mere JV terror team, as not only Iraq and Syria, but also Egypt, Libya, and Afghanistan know too well.”