Archive for November 4, 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Podesta Warned: “I Hope Hillary Truly Understands Now How Batshit Crazy David Brock Is”

November 4, 2016

Podesta Warned: “I Hope Hillary Truly Understands Now How Batshit Crazy David Brock Is” Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, November 4, 2016

The consistent view from both inside and outside of the Clinton campaign referenced Brock in the same terms. The obvious conclusion is that it is precisely those attributes that proved the attraction.

***************************

One of the issues that was raised repeatedly by Bernie Sanders and later by Donald Trump is the alliance between Hillary Clinton and David Brock, the founder of Media Matters. Brock has been widely attacked for what critics view as sleazy and vicious work on behalf of Hillary Clinton. You may recall Bernie Sanders denouncing Clinton for her continued alliance with Brock and use of his controversial PAC organizations. Sanders referred to Brock as simple “scum” but Clinton [neither? — DM] denounced Brock [n]or to discourage[d] Democrats from working with or contributing to his PACs. It turns out that even Clinton aides were disgusted by Clinton’s refusal to cut off Brock or to denounced his work. In the latest batch of Wikileaks, Neera Tanden, the President of Center for American Progress, allegedly emailed John Podesta that “I hope Hillary truly understands now how batshit crazy David Brock is.”

Of course, the question answers itself. The consistent view from both inside and outside of the Clinton campaign referenced Brock in the same terms. The obvious conclusion is that it is precisely those attributes that proved the attraction.

neera_tanden

The mainstream media has been repeatedly accused of ignoring the Clinton-Brock connection. Yet, the email (if accurate) shows that Clinton allies were equally concerned about the association. Tanden previously worked for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and later served as policy director for Barack Obama.

The subject of the email was simply “I Hope.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clinton character, David Brock, Media Matters, PACs
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition

November 4, 2016

Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, November 4, 2016

shhh

And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin.  The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.

***************************

Back in May, I had the opportunity to see a screening of Clinton Cash, the documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s  book of the same title. I wrote about it in this space here.  Now that the commentariat is finally beginning to catch up with reality — at last count, there were five, count ’em five, FBI investigations into the machinations of the money factory known as the Clinton Foundation — I thought it might be worth briefly revisiting the subject.

In May, I asked my readers: “Are you worried about ‘money in politics’?” If so, I suggested that they “Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long, hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.”

 The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million.

How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?

Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash [which I recommend] is a nauseating experience.

At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.

It’s this last item that’s most worrisome.  That the Clintons are a greedy, money-hoovering machine has been clear since they left the White House with cartloads of swag in tow (the exact amount is disputable: that they did so is not). There are some who say her mishandling of classified material is no big deal — it’s  just a technicality, who really cares? Can’t we put this behind us? Can’t we move on? At this point what difference does it make?

Well, there used to be such people.  If they still exist, they are scarce on the ground now.  Thanks to Wikileaks and some recent FBI revelations, it is now clear that Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material was no casual act of inadvertence. It was not, as she at first claimed with false naiveté, done simply as a matter of convenience by someone who was technically ill-informed and maladroit.

No, the whole process was a thoroughly calculated tactic. Given what we know now, there is something slightly nauseating about watching clips of Clinton lie when asked about her emails.  One classic is this clip, in which, when asked about whether she wiped her server she said coyly “Like with with a cloth or something?” She knew all about wiping servers, since her IT guys employed a sophisticated tool called Bleach Bit to do the job. (The company even uses an image of Hillary Clinton at their web page.)

Scrutinize Clinton’s performance in this clip. In a way it’s quite masterly.  Watch how she coolly modulates between impatience, naiveté, evasion, and outright lies.  We turned over the server, she says, what more can we do?  “We turned over everything that was work related, every single thing.”

We now know (well, we’ve always known, but now we really do know) that assertion is a lie — not just an untruth, but a deliberate lie.

It’s hard to know what is the most brazen thing about her behavior.  Turning over a server for investigation after having it professionally wiped is a candidate for the prize.  But for my money the most outrageous thing was responding to a Congressional subpoena by destroying 33,000 emails. (Andy McCarthy lays out the whole story with his customary clarity here.)

The revelation by the FBI last week that material that could be “relevant” to the Clinton email investigation had been found on a laptop shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, amateur photographer and penpal to pubescent multitudes Anthony Weiner, propelled the story to a new and vertiginous stage. Apparently, we are talking about 650,000 emails. How many had to do with yoga routines? How many concerned State Department business?  How many did Anthony Weiner see or share?  These are just a few of the questions prompted  by this ever more bizarre story.

The really amazing thing about the Clintons’ greed is how cavalier it has made them about national security issues. “Oh, that’s just a despicable right-wing talking point,” I sometimes here. Well, here’s what that well known right-wing publication The New York Times had to say in a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported:

… are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Worried yet? It gets worse:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin.  The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Cash, Clinton corruption, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Clinton investigation, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton unsecured server, FBI, Hillary Clinton and Russia, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Huma Abedin, Uranium for Russia
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts

November 4, 2016

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, November 4, 2016

(Please see also, America’s “Arab Spring” — DM)

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors, initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics.

By prosecuting Wilders, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or he will be committing a crime.

At no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of, say, British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalising a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

The Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

 

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors. In Britain, the gymnast Louis Smith has just been suspended for two months by British Gymnastics. This 27-year old sportsman’s career has been put on hold, and potentially ruined, not because of anything to do with athletics but because of something to do with Islam.

Last month a video emerged online of the four-time Olympic medal-winner and a friend getting up to drunken antics after a wedding. The video — taken on Smith’s phone in the early hours of the morning — showed a friend taking a rug off a wall and doing an imitation of Islamic prayer rituals. When the video from Smith’s phone ended up in the hands of a newspaper, there was an immediate investigation, press castigation and public humiliation for the young athlete. Smith — who is himself of mixed race — was forced to parade on daytime television in Britain and deny that he is a racist, bigot or xenophobe. Notoriously liberal figures from the UK media queued up to berate him for getting drunk or for even thinking of taking part in any mockery of religion. This in a country in which Monty Python’s Life of Brian is regularly voted the nation’s favourite comic movie.

After an “investigation,” the British sports authority has now deemed Smith’s behaviour to warrant a removal of funding and a two-month ban from sport. This is the re-entry of blasphemy laws through the back door, where newspapers, daytime chat-shows and sports authorities decide between them that one religion is worthy of particular protection. They do so because they take the religion of Islam uniquely on its own estimation and believe, as well as fear, the warnings of the Islamic blasphemy-police worldwide.

The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.

But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded, “Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.”

1546By prosecuting Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders for making “politcially incorrect” statements, Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

Whether or not one feels any support for Wilders’s sentiments is not in fact the point in this case. The point is that by prosecuting someone for saying what he said, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or they will be committing a crime. What kind of way is that to order a public debate on immigration or anything else? People may say, “He wouldn’t be allowed to say that about any other group of people.” And Wilders himself may not say that about any group of people, because he has his own political views and his own interpretation of the problems facing his country.

It is worth trying a thought-experiment: If Wilders or any other politician got up and asked a crowd “Do you want more or fewer British people in Holland,” I may not — as a British person — feel terribly pleased with him for asking the question, or terribly happy with the crowd if they chanted “Fewer.” Although if British expats in Holland were responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in the country, some mitigating sympathy for the sentiment may be forthcoming. But at no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

Like the behaviour of the British Gymnastics association, the Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing, they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

Categories: Blasphemy courts, Europe, Europe and Islam, Geert Wilders, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Europeans have no future – Putin on Migrant Crisis

November 4, 2016

Published on Nov 1, 2016

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran: Latest on a Female Political Prisoner

November 4, 2016

Iran: Latest on a Female Political Prisoner, Iran Focus, November 4, 2016

golrokh-ebrahimi

London, 4 November – A political prisoner in Iran had a visit from her mother for the first time since her imprisonment on October 24.

Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee was imprisoned for writing an unpublished story about the brutal act of stoning in Iran.

The Intelligence Revolutionary Guards were dressed in plain clothes when they came to arrest her; they kicked and punched the door in order to intimidate her, refuses to give their identities or produce ID or a court order.

Iraee was prevented from taking her asthma medication and according to her mother, the IRGC taunted Iraee, asking what use the medicine would be as she wouldn’t live very long anyway.
They handcuffed and blindfolded her in front of her neighbours and took her to Evin Court.

When in court Iraee explained the mistreatment she had suffered and she was finally allowed her medication before being transferred to prison.

Her mother, who is recovering from one surgery and on the waiting list for another, gave an interview to a Persian newspaper.

She said: “Golrokh is very much concerned about Arash’s (her imprisoned husband) hunger strike because he takes medicine and he is injured in [the] shoulder area while he was being detained by the Revolutionary Guards forces.”

Iraee requested that the person in charge of Evin Prison (where she is being held) call the person in charge of Hajiloo prison (where Arash is being held) to ask him to stop his hunger strike, as he will be unable to visit his wife unless he stops.

Iraee’s mother was told that this would be the only time she could visit and is unsure whether the Regime will change their minds.

Arash Sadeghi is a political prisoner who went on hunger strike to protest his wife’s imprisonment.

Categories: Iran - executions, Iran - human rights, Iran - political prisoners, Iranian law, Iranian prisons
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear

November 4, 2016

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 4, 2016

hilsmells

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

******************

In the final stretch of the election, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone to war with the FBI.

The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around so often this election that it ought to be retired. But it’s still unprecedented for the nominee of a major political party to go war with the FBI.

But that’s exactly what Hillary and her people have done. Coma patients just waking up now and watching an hour of CNN from their hospital beds would assume that FBI Director James Comey is Hillary’s opponent in this election.

The FBI is under attack by everyone from Obama to CNN. Hillary’s people have circulated a letter attacking Comey. There are currently more media hit pieces lambasting him than targeting Trump. It wouldn’t be too surprising if the Clintons or their allies were to start running attack ads against the FBI.

The FBI’s leadership is being warned that the entire left-wing establishment will form a lynch mob if they continue going after Hillary. And the FBI’s credibility is being attacked by the media and the Democrats to preemptively head off the results of the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.

The covert struggle between FBI agents and Obama’s DOJ people has gone explosively public.

The New York Times has compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover. Its bizarre headline, “James Comey Role Recalls Hoover’s FBI, Fairly or Not” practically admits up front that it’s spouting nonsense. The Boston Globe has published a column calling for Comey’s resignation. Not to be outdone, Time has an editorial claiming that the scandal is really an attack on all women.

James Carville appeared on MSNBC to remind everyone that he was still alive and insane. He accused Comey of coordinating with House Republicans and the KGB. And you thought the “vast right wing conspiracy” was a stretch.

Countless media stories charge Comey with violating procedure. Do you know what’s a procedural violation? Emailing classified information stored on your bathroom server.

Senator Harry Reid has sent Comey a letter accusing him of violating the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a nice idea that has as much relevance in the age of Obama as the Tenth Amendment. But the cable news spectrum quickly filled with media hacks glancing at the Wikipedia article on the Hatch Act under the table while accusing the FBI director of one of the most awkward conspiracies against Hillary ever.

If James Comey is really out to hurt Hillary, he picked one hell of a strange way to do it.

Not too long ago Democrats were breathing a sigh of relief when he gave Hillary Clinton a pass in a prominent public statement. If he really were out to elect Trump by keeping the email scandal going, why did he trash the investigation? Was he on the payroll of House Republicans and the KGB back then and playing it coy or was it a sudden development where Vladimir Putin and Paul Ryan talked him into taking a look at Anthony Weiner’s computer?

Either Comey is the most cunning FBI director that ever lived or he’s just awkwardly trying to navigate a political mess that has trapped him between a DOJ leadership whose political futures are tied to Hillary’s victory and his own bureau whose apolitical agents just want to be allowed to do their jobs.

The only truly mysterious thing is why Hillary and her associates decided to go to war with a respected Federal agency. Most Americans like the FBI while Hillary Clinton enjoys a 60% unfavorable rating.

And it’s an interesting question.

Hillary’s old strategy was to lie and deny that the FBI even had a criminal investigation underway. Instead her associates insisted that it was a security review. The FBI corrected her and she shrugged it off. But the old breezy denial approach has given way to a savage assault on the FBI.

Pretending that nothing was wrong was a bad strategy, but it was a better one that picking a fight with the FBI while lunatic Clinton associates try to claim that the FBI is really the KGB.

There are two possible explanations.

Hillary Clinton might be arrogant enough to lash out at the FBI now that she believes that victory is near. The same kind of hubris that led her to plan her victory fireworks display could lead her to declare a war on the FBI for irritating her during the final miles of her campaign.

But the other explanation is that her people panicked.

Going to war with the FBI is not the behavior of a smart and focused presidential campaign. It’s an act of desperation. When a presidential candidate decides that her only option is to try and destroy the credibility of the FBI, that’s not hubris, it’s fear of what the FBI might be about to reveal about her.

During the original FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton was confident that she could ride it out. And she had good reason for believing that. But that Hillary Clinton is gone. In her place is a paranoid wreck. Within a short space of time the “positive” Clinton campaign promising to unite the country has been replaced by a desperate and flailing operation that has focused all its energy on fighting the FBI.

There’s only one reason for such bizarre behavior.

The Clinton campaign has decided that an FBI investigation of the latest batch of emails poses a threat to its survival. And so it’s gone all in on fighting the FBI. It’s an unprecedented step born of fear. It’s hard to know whether that fear is justified. But the existence of that fear already tells us a whole lot.

Clinton loyalists rigged the old investigation. They knew the outcome ahead of time as well as they knew the debate questions. Now suddenly they are no longer in control. And they are afraid.

You can smell the fear.

The FBI has wiretaps from the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It’s finding new emails all the time. And Clintonworld panicked. The spinmeisters of Clintonworld have claimed that the email scandal is just so much smoke without fire. All that’s here is the appearance of impropriety without any of the substance. But this isn’t how you react to smoke. It’s how you respond to a fire.

The misguided assault on the FBI tells us that Hillary Clinton and her allies are afraid of a revelation bigger than the fundamental illegality of her email setup. The email setup was a preemptive cover up. The Clinton campaign has panicked badly out of the belief, right or wrong, that whatever crime the illegal setup was meant to cover up is at risk of being exposed.

The Clintons have weathered countless scandals over the years. Whatever they are protecting this time around is bigger than the usual corruption, bribery, sexual assaults and abuses of power that have followed them around throughout the years. This is bigger and more damaging than any of the allegations that have already come out. And they don’t want FBI investigators anywhere near it.

The campaign against Comey is pure intimidation. It’s also a warning. Any senior FBI people who value their careers are being warned to stay away. The Democrats are closing ranks around their nominee against the FBI. It’s an ugly and unprecedented scene. It may also be their last stand.

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton e-mails, Clinton investigation, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Comey, FBI, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Huma Abedin
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton

November 4, 2016

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton, Power Line, Scott Johnson, November 4, 2016

Barack Obama has emerged as a forceful advocate of Hillary Clinton in the course of the presidential campaign. He is more popular than she is, but they have a lot in common. They both have an equally low opinion of the intelligence of the American voters and they have a lot of evidence to support their opinion. They also share an equally distant relationship with the truth.

Obama’s signature domestic program was built on a torrent of demonstrable lies. Clinton has defended her criminally inappropriate use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business on proposition that have proven false in the fullness of time. They are both unregenerate liars.

Now Obama has stepped forward as a character witness for Hillary Clinton. Despite what you may have concluded on the basis of your own observations, Obama vouches for Clinton as an upstanding public official. In my view, this is akin to John Dillinger serving as a character witness for Creepy Karpis or, perhaps more aptly, Ma Barker. It’s almost funny.

The Media Research Center finds an interesting example of Obama testifying on behalf of Hillary at an Ohio campaign event this past Tuesday (video below). Even speaking briefly, as in this 40-second excerpt, Obama is obnoxious and grating. We are invited by MRC to analyze this somewhat ambiguous assertion: “And when she was challenged, she doesn’t make things up on the spot. She doesn’t double down on lies — that obviously are lies because there’s video.”

(The video is at the link. — DM)

What is he saying? MRC’s Craig Bannister subjects Obama’s assertion to a close reading that probably exceeds what is warranted, asking:

She’ll only tell an obvious lie once, but won’t “double down” on it if challenged?

She won’t keep repeating a lie – if “there’s video”?

She’ll take her time crafting a lie, not make one up “on the spot”?

Bannister concludes: “Regardless of whether Pres. Obama went off-teleprompter and made this up on the spot, or simply read the words of a speechwriter, any literal interpretation of Obama’s characterization of Hillary Clinton is disturbing, to say the least.”

It is indeed disturbing. We have entered the Twilight Zone of postmodern Democratic politics. I think Obama was lying about Clinton’s lying while revealing a little of his own wayward relationship with the truth in the process.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton lies, Obama and Hillary
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Donald Trump Latest Ad Featuring Anthony Weiner, Clinton Emails On Weiner’s Laptop

November 4, 2016

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad

November 4, 2016

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad, Center for Security Policy, November 3, 2016

csphamas

The Center for Security Policy reported in its September 2015 publication Star Spangled Shariah that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively setting its sights on the 2016 election cycle and preparing for a ‘get out the vote’ operation to mobilize its base. The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, is aggressively pursuing many of its operational objectives behind a screen of feigned ‘patriotism’. Since the inception of the USCMO in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood-led organization more than once has relied upon a less-than-transparent modus operandi that obscure its true agenda, activities, and intentions for the U.S. political process from the general public and even members of Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States includes the subversive infiltration of every sphere of American society and recruitment of assistance in the subversive process from unwitting American themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that the successful execution of its plan for societal destruction from within depends on what it calls the ‘settlement process:’ ‘In order for Islam and its Movement’ to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds and people, ‘enabled’ in the life of its society, and firmly established within organizations through which the Islamic structure is to be built, the Movement must work to obtain ‘the keys’ and tools of this of this ‘Civilization Jihadist’ project that is the responsibility of its vanguard, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The USCMO and its Secretary General Oussama Jammal relied upon the expertise of veteran Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah, banned and deported from the United States for a decade until his (apparently temporary) 2014 return. Samirah worked as chairman of the Islamic Association of Palestine, the progenitor to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It will be recalled that the IAP was established in 1981 by HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Samirah has functioned effectively as a catalyst for the next steps of Civilization Jihad described in the 1991 document ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for North America’ by working closely with USCMO leadership to ‘get out the vote’ to influence key elections before his return to Jordan in October 2015.

Today, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS doing-business-as CAIR. In the fall of 2016, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad unveiled the first-ever Muslim Brotherhood ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign. As noted on the CAIR website, donations to support the ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign are both tax deductible and zakat eligible. As explained in Islamic Law (shariah), however, ‘zakat’ is not merely ‘charity,’ but rather an obligatory tax on all Muslims and Muslim firms. According to shariah, all zakat proceeds collected anywhere on earth must be distributed among a legally-fixed set of recipients, at least one-eighth of which is always jihad.

In essence, therefore, HAMAS dba CAIR and the USCMO are not only running an influence operation under cover of ‘citizen activism’ during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but using proceeds dishonestly acquired under the cloak of star spangled shariah to support enemies of the United States and the Free World.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Hamas, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ex-NATO Commander Calls for Non-Cyber Response to Russia

November 4, 2016

Ex-NATO Commander Calls for Non-Cyber Response to Russia’s Election Hacks Breedlove: ‘Null’ response from Obama admin will reward Russia for bad behavior.

BY:

November 3, 2016 4:26 pm

Source: Ex-NATO Commander Calls for Non-Cyber Response to Russia

Philip Breedlove / AP

NATO’s former top commander recommended the U.S. government respond to Russia’s attempts to influence the presidential election through non-cyber means, emphasizing that a “null” answer would merely reward Moscow’s bad behavior.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, former NATO supreme allied commander for Europe and head of the U.S. European Command, said that the United States should considering using a combination of its diplomatic, information, military, and economic tools to punish Russia for directing hacks into U.S. political institutions.

“I don’t believe that a null set is the answer. I believe that we cannot reward bad behavior with no answer,” Breedlove told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based international relations think tank, on Thursday when asked to recommend an appropriate U.S. response to the election-related cyber attacks.

“I also believe—and this is discussed quite openly—we rely so much more on cyber than some of our competitors in the world that if we were to start a big fight in cyber, we stand to lose so much more,” Breedlove said. “I don’t think that necessarily is the answer. Again, what I think is that our nation has a broad series of tools—diplomatic, information, military, economic. That’s a crude approximation, but there’s a lot of tools to use and I think that we need to do that creatively, judiciously.”

The retired four-star Air Force general echoed warnings previously sounded by cyber security experts about the vulnerabilities of the United States in starting a “tit-for-tat” cyber conflict with Russia.

Last month, the U.S. intelligence community formally blamed the Russian government for directing cyber attacks on U.S. individuals and organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, in order to influence the presidential election, an accusation that Moscow has denied. The White House has promised to deliver a “proportional” response to Russia for orchestrating the hacks.

Breedlove’s own private emails were released by DC Leaks, a website that has been linked to Russian hackers, earlier this year. The DNC emails, as well as those from the personal email of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, have been released by WikiLeaks, which has denied having connections to the Russian government.

Breedlove described Russia’s provocations in cyber space, including the attempted election interference, as an element of Moscow’s “hybrid” warfare or pursuits of conflict “below the threshold.” He criticized the United States for exhibiting “tolerance” for Moscow’s actions.

“What does our tolerance say? What does our action or inaction say as it relates to everything from cyber in an election to continually meddling in the borders in South Ossetia? Where are we setting the bar as it relates to this conflict below the lines or below the thresholds, and what, again, does inaction mean?” Breedlove asked.

The retired general recommended that the next U.S. administration consider using a more “balanced” combination of diplomatic, information, military, and economic tools to deal with Russian aggression, rather than the Obama administration’s current approach of using economic sanctions and pursuing diplomatic relations to turn a corner with Moscow.

Breedlove also said Russia has been emboldened in recent years and views its global influence more positively.

“What Russia wants first and foremost is to be seen as an equal and be treated as a world superpower in a multipolar context. And frankly, what is the view from Moscow right now? They are probably pretty happy,” Breedlove observed. “They see themselves at the center of most of the great power conflict that is going on. They see themselves even at the center of the discussion about the U.S. election. So, I would say that right now Russia feels better about themselves on the world’s stage than they did years before.”

Breedlove retired from his dual-hatted post in May after 39 years of military service. Since his departure, already tense relations between the United States and Moscow have worsened over developments in Syria and a breakdown in cooperation between the powers on nuclear energy. NATO’s decision to deploy four battalions to the Baltic States and Poland on its eastern flank over Russia’s continued intervention in Ukraine has also aggravated Moscow, which has begun deploying forces and military equipment westward.

Breedlove acknowledged the high tensions with Russia but spoke optimistically about the opportunity of the next administration to find a path toward productive dialogue and cooperation with Russia.

At the same time, he expressed concern over Moscow’s pursuit of “below the threshold” competition and its willingness to escalate conflict, as well as the reemergence of the nuclear issue. This week, a high-level Russian official indicated that Norway would become a nuclear target after giving the United States permission to station hundreds of Marines on its borders.

The former commander also highlighted the improvements in Russia’s military capabilities that have been exhibited over the course of Moscow’s interventions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria over the last eight years.

“In the western and central and southern military districts, Russia is able to amass force and capability very quickly,” Breedlove explained. “The Russian force is a learning and adaptive force. It did not do so well in the first incursion into Georgia. It got much better when it went into Crimea. It learned in Crimea and was even better when it went into Donbass, and then was even better at several of the things they needed to be good at when they went into Syria.”

“It’s not the 10-foot-tall Soviet Union, but clearly it is a capable force,” he added.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »