The Glazov Gang-Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood via YouTube, November 3, 2016
Posted tagged ‘Hillary Clinton and Islam’
The Glazov Gang-Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood
November 4, 2016Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations
October 12, 2016Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, October 12, 2016
The Washington Examiner reported last week that “at 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America than ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations….And while the doors remain open on the U.S.-Mexico border, the biggest percentage increases in immigration are all from largely Muslim nations.” What could possibly go wrong? Hillary Clinton knows, as she revealed in a 2013 email that makes her current public position on immigration absolutely inexplicable.
The Examiner added that according to Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler of the Center for Immigration Studies: “The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”
Hillary Clinton, despite her determination to increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the United States by 550%, knows very well the risks involved in this massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and in her scheme to increase their number even more. The Daily Caller reported Monday that “in a private 2013 speech, Hillary Clinton worried about the risk of ‘jihadists’ entering Jordan with ‘legitimate refugees’ because ‘they can’t possibly vet all those refugees.’”
Clinton said in a speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago: “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees. So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”
Clinton vowed during her second presidential debate with Donald Trump: “I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” So she apparently believes that while Jordan and Turkey cannot vet the refugees and winnow out the jihadis from among peaceful Muslims, the United States government under a Hillary Clinton administration will be able to do so.
This is an extraordinary claim: two Muslim nations are unable to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, but a non-Muslim nation will be able to do so? Hillary Clinton could only advance such a proposition in a world in which non-Muslim spokesmen such as John Kerry, David Cameron and Pope Francis pronounce confidently and authoritatively on the nature of Islam, blithely contradicting Islamic law and theological consensus, as well as the closely-argued Qur’anic exegeses of numerous jihad leaders, in telling us that Islam is a religion of peace that rejects every form of violence. Clinton herself has declared: “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Since she is so sure that she knows all about Islam and Muslims, Clinton is doubtless sure that she will be able to ensure that U.S. immigration and refugee authorities “will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” Yet when she makes statements so divorced from reality as her claim that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that those whom she thinks pose a risk to us will be those who actually do pose a risk to us.
Even worse, when as far back as three years ago, she indicated that she had some idea of the difficulty even for Muslim countries to vet the refugees properly, her advocacy of a steep increase in Muslim immigration is, at very least, astonishingly irresponsible. Her position appears to be based on a toxic combination of willful ignorance and hubris – toxic not for her presidential chances, but for the possibility that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the United States.
Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”
October 11, 2016Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”, Creeping Sharia, October 11, 2016
From last weekend’s Wikileaks release of Hillary Clinton emails.
Source: WIKILEAKS
…
What makes for successful immigration?
It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.
Screenshot below:
In a separate email to Clinton’s campaign chief:
From:orca100@upcmail.nl To: podesta@law.georgetown.edu Date: 2016-02-21 00:51
Subject: Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans
Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany – with far worse to come because of demographics · Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-51448987.html. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin’s juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry
…
Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities. Incidentally, the same sad observation can be made of the Black Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean (see previous statistics-packed emails and upcoming info – you have yet to receive these!).
More examples this morning:
Hillary In Leaked Email: Saudi Arabia And Qatar Are Funding ISIS
Leaked Emails Expose Tight Link Between CNBC And Clinton Campaign
Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House?
October 2, 2016Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House? Investors Business Daily, Kerry Jackson, September 30, 2016
(Please see also, Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views? — DM)
Huma Abedin, above, is a key aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. But her close ties to Islamic fundamentalists has some questioning her role as Clinton’s “shadow.” (AP)
Some have expressed concern that Bill Clinton might be back in the White House, this time as the first gentleman.
But as worried as they might be, at least Bill isn’t a supporter of Shariah law. We wonder if we can say the same thing about the person who will be one of Hillary’s chief, if not top, advisor.
Huma Abedin has been called Hillary’s “shadow” by Politico. Hillary has said if she had a second daughter, it would be Abedin. She has been with the Democratic presidential candidate since 1996, when Hillary was first lady.
Abedin has followed Clinton through her years as a U.S. senator from New York and was by her side when Hillary was wrecking America’s foreign relations and making a mess in the Middle East as secretary of state. While deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State, Abedin also worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm that does business with international business titans.
Today, Abedin is ranked third in the Clinton presidential campaign hierarchy. If Hillary is elected, Abedin will surely have an office in the West Wing where she will use her formidable influence on Clinton to shape administration policy.
Just as Abedin has trailed Clinton for two decades, a serious question has trailed Abedin: Is she sympathetic to radical Islamists and a proponent of Shariah law in the U.S.? This question isn’t asked because she’s a practicing Muslim and speaks fluent Arabic. It’s due to her family ties.
Four years ago, five congressman sent a letter to the State Department inspector general, charging that Abedin’s father, mother and brother were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is considered a terrorist organization by several nations, though not the U.S. The letter cited “a personal intervention by Secretary Clinton that allowed a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader, Tariq Ramadan, to enter the United States — overturning a policy of the previous administration that precluded him from doing so.”
A former federal prosecutor also noticed that U.S. policy “radically shifted in the Brotherhood’s favor” while Abedin was in the State Department.
For their efforts, the five U.S. lawmakers were treated as cranks by the Democrats and media. But were they on to something? That’s unknown. The story essentially died. The legacy media couldn’t be expected to dig into it because it might cast one of their own — a Democrat — in a poor light.
We do know some things, though, and one of them is that Abedin’s late father, Syed Abedin, was a firm defender of Shariah law. A video from a 1971 interview that has recently surfaced shows Syed, a Muslim scholar, discussing Islam’s “hostile” response to the West’s involvement in the Middle East. He seems to also argue that Shariah law must be enforced by national governments in Muslim countries.
Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, also has an interesting history. She was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a Shariah law periodical, from 1995 to 2008. Paul Sperry, a former IBD bureau chief, reported last month in the New York Post that Huma worked “for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as ‘assistant editor’ on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the U.S. was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of ‘sanctions’ it leveled against Iraq and other ‘injustices’ allegedly heaped on the Muslim world.”
Huma’s brother, Hassan, is also an editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Huma’s mother’s sketchy ties don’t end on those pages. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a former Republican congressional candidate and current Donald Trump supporter, wrote last month inThe Hill that Saleha “sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”
Huma’s father had his own Muslim Brotherhood connection, says former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. And it wasn’t tenuous.
“There is persuasive evidence,” he wrote in 2012 in PJ Media, “that her father was a member of the Brotherhood.”
One can imagine the shape of the conversations around the Abedin dinner table. Huma must be steeped in the twisted ideas that drive Islam’s hostility toward the West. Could it plausibly be any other way?
Of course the mainstream media don’t care much. They see it as their job to get Clinton elected, no matter who she has hitched herself to.
Imagine, though, the media response if it turned out that the mother of one of Trump’s high-ranking advisors had been a member of a group of harmless old ladies who met now and then to honor the Confederate dead and tend to their graves. There would be an inquisition. That person would be drummed out of her position and have to go into hiding. The issue would become a truncheon used to club Trump whenever the campaign-media complex needed it.
But anyone associated with Hillary Clinton is an angel who should never be held up to scrutiny, no matter what their family ties are.
Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views?
October 2, 2016Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views? Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, October 2, 2016
(Please see also Daddy’s Issues, which elaborates on the Islamist views of Huma Abedin’s father. — DM)
Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)
Abedin, herself, worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.
Concerns about Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, both when she was secretary of state and now, as the Democratic presidential nominee, began surfacing in 2012. According to leaked emails, Abedin is slated to become secretary of state if Hillary Clinton is elected president.
In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.
Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.
Clarion Project covered that request extensively, as the Congressional members who made it were pilloried by their colleagues. We also covered the extremism of Abedin’s mother, father and other family members.
Now more information has been uncovered regarding the Islamist beliefs of Abedin’s parents. While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.
Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:
As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”
In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”
Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”
The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“
In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.
The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”
In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”
However, an exception does exist: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”
The New York Post reports that Saleha is on the payroll of the Saudi government and part of her job is to advocate for sharia law in non-Muslim countries like the United States.
“In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.
“Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse,” reported the newspaper.
We hope that Abedin does not hold the same opinions as her parents or the journal of which she was the assistant editor. And it would certainly be nice to have to tell us that.
An Ongoing Affront to Freedom: UN Resolution 16/18 and the Assault on Free Speech
September 18, 2016An Ongoing Affront to Freedom: UN Resolution 16/18 and the Assault on Free Speech, Counter Jihad, September 17, 2016
Often the worst attacks on liberty are camouflaged with shining names. United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, among international governments’ worst assaults on the freedom of speech, was formally titled “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”
Who could be against that? Certainly not Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, who hosted the conference to help the UNHRC implement this resolution. She said that the United States was hosting this conference because the resolution captured “our highest values… enshrined in our Constitution.” In fact, what the Constitution protects is the freedom to criticize any idea – religious or otherwise. In fact, the Constitution forbids laws that establish any religion as beyond criticism, or as being especially protected by law.
Of course it will be no surprise that the real authors of 16/18 were members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hillary Clinton was the Obama administration’s point-person in working with the OIC. Of course it will come as no surprise that the real thrust of 16/18 is preventing criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Obama himself said that the future must not belong to those “who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
In fact, 16/18’s original text simply said that it forbade “Defamation of Islam,”and made no mention of defending any other faith. Following the adoption of the resolution by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, who expanded it to other faiths as well, there was an intense push by the OIC nations to include “Islamophobia” as especially forbidden. The focus on Islam expanded throughout the period of the resolution’s negotiation.
The UN’s Secretary General went so far as to say that the freedom of speech and expression did not extend to “insulting others.” He said this in 2012, after the high profile murders of cartoonists critical of Muhammed. He later claimed that 16/18 limited freedom of speech, which he called a “twisted negative logic,” a logic belonging only to the West and hostile to Islam.
It is an open question whether UN Resolution 16/18 endorses anti-blasphemy laws, but the OIC nations clearly believe that it does. The fact that Secretary Clinton would bill this resolution as an endorsement of America’s most treasured principles should be deeply alarming.
BRUTAL MURDER: Trans Rights Advocate Raped, Burned Alive
August 22, 2016BRUTAL MURDER: Trans Rights Advocate Raped, Burned Alive, Counter Jihad, August 22, 2016
Hande Kader was 22 years old. Kader made a living through what Buzzfeed gently refers to as “sex work,” but was not in any sense ashamed of it. Rather, Kader was an outspoken advocate for transgender rights and regularly appeared in public to appeal for those rights. On the 12th of August, Kader was raped and burned alive.
Turkey recently had a shadow report submitted for United Nations inquiry regarding the Turkish culture of violence targeting gays, lesbians, and transgender citizens. Dozens of murders have targeted these communities. Turkish politics have been swinging in the direction of Islamist parties in the same period, and since the purge following a coup attempt last month those moves towards political Islam will be strongly cemented. Islamist parties generally call for strict enforcement of Islam’s sexual mores as codified in traditional understandings of sharia.
Yet the submitted United Nations report does not mention the word “Islam” even one time, nor the word “Sharia.” For those who prefer to make the distinction between sharia and fiqh, which not all Islamists do, the word “fiqh” does not appear either. The submitted report, which was compiled by a set of LGBT advocates, does mention that the Turkish military continues to use an old version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that codified homosexuality as a mental disorder. They do not speculate on what would cause Turkish military psychologists to refuse to accept the revisions to the DSM, now generations old, that changed this understanding of homosexuality. Even if you think the connection between codified religious law and a refusal to move off the old DSM is not obvious, surely it is a question that deserves to be asked. Yet even these LGBT organizations refuse to ask the question.
A similar but far lighter story played out this weekend in the United States. There lesbian newscaster Sally Kohn denied the connection between sharia and violence against her community. A satirical petition began to get her to spend a week without guards in a sharia-compliant city:
A lot of right-wing nazi bigots are saying Sally Kohn is an idiot for showing support for Sharia Law, especially considering that she is a gay woman. As progressives, we know both Sharia Law and Muslims are tolerant and very LGBTQ friendly.
In order to show how LGBTQ friendly the Sharia, and it’s practitioners, are, Sally Kohn should spend a week’s holiday proudly displaying her homosexuality in Raqqa/Riyadh or any other place where Sharia is the law of the land, without guards of course, to show how safe, and how pro LGBTQ these practitioners of Sharia Law are.
Kohn’s response to this petition was instructive. She said that she opposes what she characterized as “authoritarian right wing extremism” in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, she said, there were at least two non-Muslim nations on the list of nations in which homosexuality is punished by death. Likewise, there were several Muslim majority nations in which homosexuality is not punished by death. (Sometimes, she did not mention, it is merely punished with prison.) Thus, she denied any necessary connection between sharia and violence against LGBT citizens.
Rather, she would like to try to paint this as an issue of a broad political left versus a broad political right — broad enough that it is somehow sensible to speak of “authoritarian right wing extremism” in Iran and Saudi Arabia as being like right wing politics anywhere else.
Perhaps Kohn should investigate her assumption here by checking with Hillary Clinton, whom Kohn has endorsedin the Presidential election. Yet according to a report by Paul Sperry, Clinton’s liberal attitudes on sexual rights turn out to be constrained — just when she’s speaking to audiences in places like Saudi Arabia.
[I]n 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”
At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”
What does Hillary Clinton know that Kohn does not, that causes Clinton to agree that bikinis are shameful and unworthy of female dignity when speaking to an Islamist audience? What does she know that causes her to avoid raising these most obvious of issues, or to challenge sharia’s legitimate power to force the submission of women as well as LGBT citizens? Clinton has no trouble challenging American “right wing extremists.” Doesn’t that suggest that there’s an important difference here, one that explains both why the oppression is so much stronger in Islamist nations and also why even ordinarily outspoken liberals like Clinton are afraid to challenge it there?
One can understand the hesitance of the LGBT groups in Turkey to raise the issue, as they might be burned alive. Kohn and Clinton have no such excuse. If they are not going to provide aid and comfort to these LGBT groups in Turkey, who will? Would Donald Trump?
Gorka: The war is real and the war is here
August 18, 2016Gorka: The war is real and the war is here, Fox News via YouTube, August 17, 2016
Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt
August 17, 2016Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt, Breitbart, Tera Dahl, August 17, 2016
AFP
In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”
He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.”
He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”
His comments about cooperating with Egypt, Israel and Jordan were highlighted in the Arab world’s media, with headlines reading “Donald Trump Announces Plan to Cooperate with Egypt, Jordan, Israel to Combat Radical Islam” and “Trump vows to work with Egypt’s Sisi to ‘stop radical Islam’ if elected.”
Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.
Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood.
The Obama Administration, and Clinton’s State Department, again undermined President Mubarak in 2011 when they urged him to step down and pressured Egypt to hold elections “immediately” after the 2011 revolution. This policy favored the Muslim Brotherhood to win elections since they were the most organized at the time.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi in Cairo offering “strong support” for the Islamist President, saying, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition… We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”
The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but when millions of Egyptians took to the streets one year later, calling for early elections against the Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did all they could to undermine their efforts.
Over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 calling for the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. After one year of being in power, the Brotherhood was taking Egypt towards an Iranian theocracy and the Egyptian people stood against political Islam. The 2011 Egyptian Constitution had no impeachment mechanism included, so the only democratic way to remove the Brotherhood was signing a petition and taking to the streets in the masses. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets again in July, supporting then Defense Minister General el-Sisi and the Egyptian military in their efforts to fight terrorism.
The Obama Administration condemned the Egyptian military and police after the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood and punished Egypt by freezing military and economic aid to Egypt. This was done while the Egyptian military had launched a major offensive to “crush terrorist activity” in the Sinai that had built up during the Muslim Brotherhood government. Egypt had to fight terrorism alone – not only without support from the US – but with pressure to succumb to the requests from the US Administration to release the Muslim Brotherhood members from prison and reconcile.
The pressure from the Obama Administration against the removal of the Morsi regime emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood and they waged an Islamist insurgency, not only in the Sinai but on the streets of Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically targeted theChristian community and burned down over 65 Christian Churches and hundreds of Christian shops.
The Obama Administration sent U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt for “U.S. mediation efforts” and met with Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was in jail at the time and sentenced for life in prison. Our State Department, under John Kerry, sent a representative to Egypt pressuring the Egyptian government to release terrorists from jail.
The Obama Administration also sent Senators McCain and Graham to Egypt to ask the Egyptian government and military to find an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. They asked the Egyptian government to “sit down and talk” to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had waged war on the Egyptian people.
Since being democratically elected in 2014, winning with 97% of the vote, Egyptian President al-Sisi has made history speaking out for equality between Muslims and Christians. He was the first President in Egyptian history to visit the Coptic Christian Christmas mass service in January 2015. During his speech at the Christmas mass, he emphasized the need to look at each other as “Egyptians” and not as Muslim or Christian. He said, “We will love each other for real, so that people may see.” President Sisi again visited the Coptic Christmas mass in January 2016 where he vowed to rebuild the Christian churches that were destroyed by Islamists in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood were removed from power.
President Sisi has called for “Islamic reform” within Islam numerous times. During a speech to Islamic scholars in 2015, marking the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth, President Sisi urged reform of Islamic discourse and called on Islamic scholars to send Christmas greetings to Christians. In the televised speech to Islamic scholars, President Sisi stated, “We talk a lot about the importance of religious discourse… In our schools, institutes and universities, do we teach and practice respect for the others? We neither teach or practice it.”
The Egyptian government has also addressed the ideology by banning thousands of radical clerics from preaching in the mosques that are not licensed.
Recently, the government of President al-Sisi introduced a textbook for Egyptian public schools that requires Egyptian pupils to memorize the provisions of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and delineate the “advantages of peace for Egypt and the Arab states”. This is a major reform taken from the Egyptian government in normalizing and strengthening relations between Israel and Egypt.
President Sisi should be considered a key ally of America as he is leading Egypt towards democracy and also is leading the fight against global jihad, both militarily and politically, in countering radical Islamic ideology. Instead, he has yet to be invited to the United States from President Obama.
Hillary Clinton has been critical of Trump’s position towards Russia, but policies implemented under the Obama Administration have pushed Egypt towards Russia and have alienated our strongest Arab ally for over 40 years. Egypt and Russia signed a$2billion arms deal after the United States abandoned them during their fight against terrorism. Russia also is providing Egypt with $25 billion to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant.
Donald Trump in his speech recognized the need to support our Muslim allies in the global war on terrorism. This is critical in defeating global jihad. We cannot afford another four years of a policy of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies as we have seen under the Obama Administration.
Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together
August 1, 2016Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, August 1, 2016
Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.
Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.
But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.
Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.
“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.
The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.
The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.
Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.
“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”
“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”
Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.
Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.
Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.
“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”
Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.
“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”
But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.
The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.
“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”
Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.
“Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.
For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.
“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”
If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.
Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”
“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”
From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:
– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.
– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.
– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.
– Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.
– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.
– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.
– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.
– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.
– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.
– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.
– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.
– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.
– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.
– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected.
– Visas are not properly scrutinized.
– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.
– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.
– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.
– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.
That’s not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.
“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”
Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments