[JW] Weekly Update: A New Clinton Computer Scandal?

Hillary Clinton is a liar. She uses the old Nazi Joseph Goebbels adage:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

When it comes to the FBI probe of criminality in relation to classified material on her unsecured email server, Hillary sticks to the line I did nothing wrong because anything marked classified was done retroactively. Only an idiot or a Democrat would believe that lie. (Begin about 2:33 mark)

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton 100% Confident Nothing Will Come From FBI Email Investigation - Special Report

Posted by Tech News | IT World 

Published on Feb 6, 2016 

 Hillary Clinton defiantly claimed at Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100 percent confident” nothing will come of the FBI’s investigation of her email practices and has no concerns about the controversy’s impact on her chances in the race. 

“I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” the former secretary of state said at the MSNBC-hosted debate in New Hampshire.

If wasn’t for Judicial Watch the Hillary lie about classified material would undoubtedly disappear into history for historians to tell the truth when the Clinton/Obama cabal of transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would not have recognized. Below is an email I received from Judicial Watch yesterday that highlights the obvious. Hillary is hiding something. What she is hiding has nothing to do with National Security. Rather her hiding and erasing has more to do with covering her butt so the Teflon keeps letting crimes slip away.

JRH 2/6/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Weekly Update: A New Clinton Computer Scandal?

Sent by Tim Fitton

Sent: 2/5/2016 4:51 PM

Email from: Judicial Watch

JW Uncovers another Hillary Clinton Computer Scandal
 

This is unbelievable. We have just received records from the Department of State disclosing plans by senior State Department officials to set up a "stand-alone PC" so that Clinton could check her emails in an office "across the hall" through a separate, non-State Department computer network system. Referencing the special Clinton computer system, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, writes Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, "The stand-alone separate network PC is a great idea." The emails are from January 23-24, 2009, a few days after Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State.

The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for State Department records about Hillary Clinton's separate email system.

In the email chain, Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the secretariat, responds to a request from Mills by informing her, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and Kennedy that the new personal computer "in the secretary's office" would be "connected to the internet (but not through our system)." Abedin responds, "We are hoping for that if possible."

The email exchange discussing plans to provide Clinton a separate computer to skirt the internal State Department computer network begins with a message from Mills to Lukens in which she requests Clinton being able to access her emails through "a non-DOS computer." The email discusses how the stand-alone computer can be set up and why it is "a great idea' and "the best solution":

From: Cheryl MillsSent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:45 AMTo: Lukens, Lewis ASubject: Re: Series of questions 

Lew - who can I talk to about: 

1.Can our email be accessed remotely through the web using a non-DOS computer like my laptop? 

2.I am traveling to the M-E - will my DOS bb work there and is there a cell phone attached? 

3.Spoke to Dan [Daniel B. Smith, former DOS executive secretary] re: bb for HRC (and reports that POTUS is able to use a super encrypted one) 

4.Spoke to Dan re: setting up Counselor office for HRC so she can go across hall regularly to check her email 

From: Lukens, Lewis ATo: cmills [REDACTED]Cc: Habedin [REDACTED]; Kennedy, Patrick F; Smith, Daniel BSent: Saturday, Jan. 24, 19:10:33 2009Subject: Re: series of questions 

We have already started checking into the NSA bb. Will set up the office across the hall as requested. Also, I think we should go ahead (but will await your green light) and set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary's office, connect to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk. Lew. 

From: Kennedy, Patrick F KennedyPF@state.govTo: Lukens, Lewis A <LukensLA@state.gov>; Cheryl MillsCc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel B <SmithD2@state.gov>Sent: Sat, Jan 24 19:48:25 2009Subject: Re: Series of questions 

CherylThe stand-alone separate network PC is [a] great ideaRegardsPat 

From: Huma AbedinTo: Kennedy, Patrick F; Lukens, Lewis A; Cheryl MillsCc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel BSent: Sat Jan 24 19:48:27 2009Subject: Re: Series of questions 

Yes we were hoping for that if possible so she can check her email in her office. 

*** 

From: Lukens, Lewis ASent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:26 PMTo: Kennedy, Patrick FSubject: Re: Series of questions 

I talked to Cheryl about this. She says a problem is hrc does not know how to use a computer to do email - only bb [Blackberry]. But, I said would not take much training to get her up to speed.

In separate litigation, the State Department told Judicial Watch and federal courts that Hillary Clinton was never issued secure State Department computing devices.

These emails are shocking. They show the Obama State Department's plan to set up non-government computers and a computer network for Hillary Clinton to bypass the State Department network. The fact that these records were withheld from the American people until now is scandalous and shows the criminal probe of Hillary Clinton's email system should include current and former officials of the Obama administration.

Our legal team filed these new emails with U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is now considering whether to grant discovery in a lawsuit seeking information on the "special government employee" status of Abedin. In our filing, we state:

[Judicial Watch] just recently received additional evidence that demonstrates that senior management at the State Department was well aware that Mrs. Clinton was using a "non-state.gov" system to conduct official government business. This evidence also shows that the senior management at the State Department knowingly aided Mrs. Clinton in establishing and using a "non-state.gov" system. 

[T]his newly discovered email demonstrates that there is at least a "reasonable suspicion" that the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA by creating, using, and concealing the "clintonemail.com" record system for six years.

The media took up this story (which was reported first by Fox News.) The Obama gang responded with careful word parsing. The State Department spokesman John Kirby told CBS News:

"I will say, a computer was not set up for Secretary Clinton," he said in an email to CBS News State Department Correspondent Margaret Brennan. 

Because "these matters are under review generally," Kirby declined to comment further.

Was a computer set up for Cheryl Mills (who evidently had the Counselor's office across the hall)? It will take another lawsuit or court-ordered discovery to get past this obfuscation.

We will continue our investigation - we hope with the support of the courts. In the meantime, you can see that email isn't the only Clinton computer scandal.

Hillary Clinton Discussed Prosecuting Republicans for Classification Violations

There are a lot of twists and turns in this one, but pay close attention to what a Hillary Clinton confidant advised her to do in response to some of the actions by congressional Republicans. When you have Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton, Eric Cantor and David Petraeus mentioned in one government document, it's time to pay close attention.

Back on January 7, 2016, we obtained a new batch of documents from the Department of State, including a "Confidential" memo from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal to the former secretary of state suggesting that a grand jury and the Senate Judiciary Committee should investigate whether former Rep. Eric Cantor or his staff violated the Espionage Act by disclosing classified information related to the FBI investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus.

According to the Blumenthal-to-Clinton email, if classified information was discussed by Cantor, his staff, or anyone "inside or outside the bureau," it "is a felony" in violation of the Espionage Act. Blumenthal's fantasy prosecution of Cantor aside, it is for sure true that if Clinton kept classified information on her non-state.gov server, that also may be a criminal violation of the Espionage Act. (And, of course, Petraeus eventually was forced to plead guilty in a slap-on-the-wrist plea deal.)

The documents also contain an email to Clinton in which Blumenthal sent a copy of a "Confidential" memo to top Obama 2012 presidential debate advisor Ron Klain warning that GOP candidate Mitt Romney would "falsify, distort, and mangle facts" in the final campaign debate. The Blumenthal memo was sent to Klain and copied to Clinton just four days before the final debate.

The documents include an email sent after the Benghazi attack in which Blumenthal informs Clinton of his "Latest Libya intel" regarding the turmoil in that country. Though barred by the Obama administration from being an official State Department advisor to Clinton, Blumenthal - who at the time was also employed by the Clinton Foundation - claimed to have "a very sensitive source" providing him "internal govt discussions high level" concerning Libyan internal security.

The new emails, also available on the State Department website, were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a court order. The Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, asked for the following:

• Communications between officials, officers, or employees of the Department of State and members of Congress, Congressional staff members, or Congressional members or staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi concerning the use of non-"state.gov" email addresses by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012, to January 31, 2013.

The State Department's records include the November 13, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he speculates about former Rep. Eric Cantor's dealings with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller concerning the agency's investigation of former CIA Director David Petraeus. In the email, Blumenthal raises the possible need for both a grand jury and a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of possible violations of the Espionage Act by Cantor and his staff if classified information was made public:

From: Sidney BlumenthalSent: Thursday, November 13, 2012 9:13 AMSubject: More questions. Sid 

Who else in the Congress besides congressmen Reichert and Cantor knew of the Petraeus investigation before it became public? How many congressional staffers were informed? What roles did they play in deciding who to inform about it? What were their communications among themselves and with others outside their offices if any? Did any of them discuss the matter with anyone in the Romney-Ryan campaign? 

Why was Cantor intent on informing FBI Director Mueller of the existence of an FBI investigation that was already resolved?... 

What were the internal discussions between Cantor and his staff on his referral to Mueller?... 

Was the supposedly rogue FBI agent, described in the Washington Post as motivated by his "worldview," acting alone? Did he discuss the investigation with any individual either inside or outside the bureau before he went to Reichert and Cantor? 

Disclosure of an espionage investigation is a felony. Will a grand jury be empaneled by the Justice Department? 

When will Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee and a former FBI agent, begin an investigation of this matter?

Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, responded not with a "you are crazy, why are you writing this to me" but with a request for more info:

What was his "worldview" and why would he think hurting P furthered it? Why would Cantor want to hurt P (beloved by Rs)?

The other major find is an another unhinged October 19, 2012, email from Blumenthal to Clinton in which he sends a copy of a lengthy "Confidential" memo to Klain expounding upon how to defeat Mitt Romney in the third and final 2012 presidential debate:

From: Sidney BlumenthalSent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:32 AMTo: HSubject: H: fyi, see especially point about bush. Sid 

1.Romney will inevitably falsify, distort and mangle facts on a range of subjects from Libya to the defense budget. But why is this debate different from all other debates? In the dedicated foreign policy debate, the stakes are higher-America's role in the world. That makes Romney's errors even more consequential and potentially threatening. And that must be an essential predicate of Obama's point when he exposes Romney's falsehoods. When Romney lies on domestic policy it's shameful, but when he lies on foreign policy it's dangerous. 

3.Romney's attack line on Libya is not only false, as exposed in the last debate. (Obama here can joke that Romney apparently wants to rerun the last debate but this time without Candy Crowley present to call him out. Romney will become angry and nonplussed.) His attack line is a reheated leftover of the Bush era attacks on Democrats designed by Karl Rove as weak on terrorism, which were themselves repackaged old Republican attacks from the Cold War. It's all nostalgia.... 

Then, really stick in the shiv by having Obama say that he was somewhat surprised that Romney in the last debate did not give President George W. Bush credit where credit is due-for example, breaking with the neoconservatives around Vice President Cheney by adopting the surge in Iraq led by current CIA director David Petraeus that prepared the groundwork for Obama's own policy in Iraq.

An email from Blumenthal to Clinton contains a lengthy "Confidential" memo in which he provides his "latest Libya intel" from "internal govt discussions high level." The memo, later forwarded by Clinton to then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, reveals that more than a year after the Obama/Clinton assisted overthrow of Qaddafi, ostensibly intended to bring about a peaceful transition, the country remained at the mercy of the same terrorist groups that attacked the Benghazi consulate. Claiming that his information comes from a "very sensitive source," Blumenthal informed Clinton of the following:

From: Sidney BlumenthalSent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:20 AMTo: HSubject: H: latest Libya intel; internal govt discussions high level. Sid 

1. On the morning of January 15, 2013 Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan was informed by Interior Minister Ashour Shuwail and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Mohamed Abdulaziz that Italy plan to close its consulate in Benghazi and reduce the size of its embassy in Tripoli following attacks on the consulate itself and the Italian consul general. Shuwail reported that the attacks were carried out by Eastern militia forces associated with Ansar al Islam, which, although put under pressure by the National Libyan Army (NLA) following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September 2012, continues to operate in and around that city. 

*** 

6. According to a very sensitive source, General Hassi disagrees with the NLA analysis that the Sabha attack was not aimed at Magariaf specifically, noting that there were five prior assassination attempts against Magariaf in 2012, and that he is a target for a diverse collection of enemies, including former Qaddafi forces, groups like Ansar al Sharia, and even his political adversaries in the GNC. Accordingly, Hassi intends to establish new programs to train a detachment of presidential bodyguards, and his own anti-terrorism personnel.

It is beyond ironic that Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, her secret Clinton Foundation adviser at the State Department, discuss criminal prosecutions of Republicans for the handling of classified information over the Petraeus scandal. And it is disturbing that then-Secretary of State Clinton was involved in advising the Obama reelection campaign on how to continue lying about the Benghazi attack. No wonder Hillary Clinton tried to hide these email records rather than disclose them years ago as required by law.

Federal Judge Orders State Department Answers on New Clinton Documents

The Obama administration continues to provide cover for Hillary Clinton, but some in the judiciary are running out of patience with the gamesmanship. We are pleased to report to you this week that Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the State Department to explain how and when new records from the office of Hillary Clinton were located and why they were not identified previously.

The court order comes in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records about the State Department vetting of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's potential conflicts of interest. The explanation was initially due on Monday, but Judge Contreras granted the State Department an extension to Friday, February 5, 2015, due to the federal government shutdown because of the recent blizzard. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00688)).

Last month, we learned that the Obama State Department recently found "thousands" of new records from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. According to information provided to Judicial Watch by various Justice Department attorneys, the new documents appear be "working" records in electronic format located on both "shared" and "individual" drives accessible to or used by persons identified as being relevant to our various FOIA lawsuits on the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton's term at State. The State Department admitted to Judge Contreras on January 14 that the new records include the files of two of Clinton's top aides:

The newly identified files that need to be searched in this case consist of office files that were available to employees within the Office of the Secretary during former Secretary Clinton's tenure as well as individual files belonging to Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.

Judge Contreras responded with a January 15 order that states:

Defendant [State Department] shall complete its additional search and file a status report (1) disclosing the volume of potentially responsive documents that must be reviewed, (2) containing a detailed description of how and when these files were located and why they had not been previously identified, and (3) proposing a revised schedule for the production of the non-exempt portions of responsive documents subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

At a July 9, 2015, hearing the judge was "concerned" about the preservation of Clinton's records and warned that the State Department will "have to answer for" any destruction of Hillary Clinton email records.

The lawsuit stems from a Judicial Watch FOIA request on March 17, 2015, and a subsequent lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, seeking:

• Records that identify the policies and/or procedures in place to ensure that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal or charitable financial relationships with foreign leaders, foreign governments, and business entities posed no conflict of interest to her role as Secretary of State; and

• Records concerning the State Department's review of donations to the Clinton Foundation for potential conflicts of interest with former Secretary Clinton's role as Secretary of State.

The State Department is protecting Hillary Clinton and has a history of illegally hiding documents from the courts and the public about her record. These newly found Hillary Clinton records show the State Department needs special policing from the courts, federal investigators, and Congress.

A separate and ongoing Judicial Watch lawsuit, one of nearly 23 active Judicial Watch lawsuits in which the Clinton email system is at issue, forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.

I wish I could tell you the State Department's explanation has arrived, but it has not. I expect it will come after hours in order to keep the new scandal out of the news. But we will spread the details far and wide, so be sure to check back here next week.

Until next week...

Tom Fitton
President

_____________________

JudicialWatch.org
425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024

About Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education programs include … READ THE REST

Explaining the Islamic State Phenomenon, Part Two

Here in Part Two Neriah examines the psyche primarily of non-Syrian/non-Iraqi Jihadis that have flocked to join the Islamic State. He explains the attraction partly resulting from the impotent bombing by the U.S. Air Force. (I found it interesting that Neriah doesn’t include other Western nations also bombing targets in the Islamic State such as the French, Russians, etc.) Typical as in Part One Neriah blames U.S. incompetent Foreign Policy and idiotic military decisions on the American government. As in my intro in Part One most of this Foreign Policy/Military idiocy was put into place by President Barack Hussein Obama and no little contribution by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now running for the Dem nomination for POTUS.

JRH 2/5/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Explaining the Islamic State Phenomenon, Part Two

By Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

2016-02-02

ACT for America

Part II:

Profiling the Jihadist

Almost all of those who join the armed Jihad, Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State fall into two primary categories:

1)    Criminals, often recruited in prison by radical imams who manage to rally those individuals to their cause by promising them that if they continue their actions on behalf of Islam – and not just for their only personal enrichment – their actions will become lawful and consistent with the will of Allah.

2)    The “exalted” and the “deranged” who dream of war and action, seeking to assert their manhood at all costs and who are in search of violence and epic adventure to express it. For these individuals, jihad offers a unique opportunity to indulge their inclinations and publicize them to satisfy their deranged ego.

Religion doesn’t have much to do with the jihadists’ actions. Most know nothing about Islam and mindlessly repeat some verses that have been hammered into them by radical imams, less stupid than them, but much more dangerous. Those who are outside these profiles are only a tiny minority – exceptions that confirm the rule. Jihadist university graduates, for instance, are often frustrated individuals who have failed to integrate into society through work, study, socialization, marriage, etc. There again, radical imams succeed to convince them that their failures are not of their making but that of the environment that dismisses them. They teach them the idea that it is legitimate that they restore the situation to their benefit and by acting with force.

In fact, all jihadists have a psychiatric pathology, characteristics of obsessive-compulsive, even depressive disorders, as well as an inability to be socialized. The study of their past reveals that they had left homes and families voluntarily, that many had been the witnesses of family crises, and that they were often unemployed. Some have even made use of drugs when they were not directly involved in its trafficking.

The Islamic State has an undeniable power of attraction over these individuals. Indeed, it controls a territory on which it can implement the life principles that guide its action. Thus, young men leaving to join the IS receive on the spot what they have lacked in their previous homeland: On the one hand, they receive a reason that spares them the need to reflect, to earn a salary, to court women, while on the other hand they are offered warlike activities that become an outlet for their frustrations.

For many, aspects of life – physical, sexual and sentimental – in the Islamic State are better than in their country of origin. This is particularly the case for Chechen fighters who flock to the IS because the conditions of combat in Iraq and Syria are less harsh than against the Russians. Many young jihadists in the Arab world believe the Islamic State offers them greater social justice. No doubt they hear of the permission to murder, torture, rape, and entering into forced marriage of non-Muslims, or even of Muslims when they are not quite as radical. And, of course, there is the extermination of the Shiites.

Why North Africans?

Out of the thousands who volunteered for jihad, about 5,000 fighters, originating from North African countries, have joined the ranks of IS and the Jabhat al-Nusra fundamentalist organizations active in Syria and Iraq. The biggest contingent is composed of Tunisians (3,000), followed by Moroccans (1,500) and Algerians (500-800) representing roughly 50 percent of the foreign fighters. These numbers exclude the European fighters of North African origin (mostly from France, 1,800, and Belgium, 400-600).

Ironically, most of North Africa’s jihadist groups were hesitant to associate themselves with the Islamic State until the United States commenced its military intervention in Iraq and Syria in August 2014. Jihadists such as Abdel Malek Droukdel from AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Mohammed Zahawi , from Libya’s Ansar al-Sharia, and Mokhtar Belmokhtar from al-Mourabitoun, who fought alongside Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, had refused, sometimes openly, to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State — even after it captured swathes of territory in Iraq in June 2014 and declared a caliphate. Recently, however, North Africa’s younger jihadist generation has become emboldened to break away from al Qaeda, seeking instead to join Baghdadi’s IS caliphate to benefit from its success and wealth. Rather than deterring these groups, the U.S.-led coalition’s sporadic airstrikes in Iraq and Syria seem to have afforded the Islamic State even more legitimacy in the eyes of North Africa’s jihadists.

Some of the Moroccan militants are filling senior positions in the Islamic State as are “emirs,” ministers (Justice, Finance, Interior), as well as a Military Emir (Military Chief) and even the head of a geographical region (the Turkman Mountain). However, 75 percent of the North Africans are “Inghimasiyyine,” an Islamic State terminology for an undercover operative responsible for protecting convoys and serving as the second wave of attack when an offensive mission or targeted attack is carried out.

During the first days of the civil war in Syria, the North Africans were organized in brigades, one of which was named “Sham al-Islam” and headed by a Moroccan, Ibrahim Benchekroun, alias Abu Ahmad EL-Maghrebi.  Some even nicknamed the brigade as the “Liwa al Infransiyyoun” (the French Brigade) since the combatants communicated among themselves in French; some of its members were French nationals, mostly of North African origins, who were integrated into the North African French-speaking brigade. The ill-fated brigade that was active in the Latakia region of Syria was almost annihilated by the Syrian army loyal to Bashar Assad. The remaining members were scattered in different units created since then by the Islamic State.

Considered by the Islamic state as “Muhajirun” (immigrants), the North African fighters receive a monthly salary of $2,000-3,000 (compared to $500 paid to the local fighters). If married, the volunteer receives an additional $200 and $50 more for each of his children. A new born child will automatically generate a “bonus.”

Be sure to read Part I here.

___________________

ACT for America accepts no funding from any governmental agency, any foreign influence peddlers, or political institutions. Your support of ACT for America is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate. ACT for America education is a 501(c)3 organization.

ACT for America Action Center

ACTION CENTER Page

ABOUT PAGE

• ACT for America is the largest and the only grassroots organization dedicated to national security and defeating terrorism. Today, ACT for America has expanded to 890 chapters and 280,000 members with a goal of 2,500 chapters and 1,000,000 members by the end of the decade.

• ACT for America is a non-partisan organization whose mission appeals to every American concerned about national security and terrorism -a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice.

• ACT for America educates citizens and elected officials to help impact national security policy & stands ready to take action as the only national security grassroots organization in America.

Who We Are

We are all Americans first -citizens who put their differences aside and came together to secure our country. Every American has one thing in common – “we are all interested” in keeping our homes, communities, states, and nation safe. What makes ACT for America different is that our members and supporters come from every background, age, gender, race, social status, political point of view, and lifestyle choice. Remember, national security is not a conservative, liberal, or libertarian issue - it's an American issue.

What We Do

ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer chapter network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

ACT for America focuses on activities that enhance the national security standing of the United States — such as educating elected officials from the school board level to Congress. Many of these officials go on to pass vital legislation to this end. ACT has driven the education process towards the successful passage of 37 bills in 19 states over the last six years.

About Brigitte Gabriel

Brigitte Gabriel is the Founder and President of Act for America. Ms. Gabriel is one of the leading national security experts in the world -providing information and analysis on the rise of Islamic terrorism. Ms. Gabriel lectures nationally and internationally about national security and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. Ms. Gabriel has addressed the United Nations, the Australian Prime Minister, members of the British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. In addition, Ms. Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisers of the Intelligence Summit.

Ms. Gabriel is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE and THEY MUST BE STOPPED. Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English and Hebrew.

I'm Still a Cruzer

John R. Houk

© February 4, 2016

The next day after the Cruz victory in Iowa the Senator was castigated by Ben Carson for disseminating false information that possibly led Carson supporters to support Ted Cruz. The question then is: Did Cruz tell his campaigners to lie about Carson or did the campaigners take it upon themselves to tell caucus goers that Carson had pulled out of the Iowa contest?

If Cruz was involved in that decision that indeed would be a dirty trick that probably isn’t illegal but morally bankrupt. If Cruz wasn’t culpable the next logical step would be to fire the campaign staff personnel involved in the error in decision or outright scandalous political behavior. Myself I am going to err on believing Cruz had little to zero involvement in giving marching orders to undermine Carson’s campaign.

This whole issue has inspired Donald Trump to cry foul probably because if Carson delegates left for Cruz, that may have rocketed Cruz to his win and relegated Trump to second place. After understanding situation, Trump has become furious. Not because Trump’s good buddy Carson was robbed of delegate votes but because the issue may have cost Trump an Iowa victory. Ergo, if I heard correctly on the news this morning, Trump wants the Iowa Caucus vote nullified and a do-over to occur. Frankly I doubt such a re-vote or re-count will occur; nevertheless, the tone taken by Trump demonstrates just how vicious the hotel/casino magnet can get when a “deal” falls through.

Now this led me to ask myself who are my favorite candidates to win the GOP nomination for President.

I have to be honest with you. I was as intrigued by the Trump make America great again message as many other Americans have been and still are. I want to reverse the Obama curse, make the military strong again, name and confront American enemies, stop illegal immigration, kick out illegal immigrants taking advantage of entitlements while deserving Americans are still waiting in line (e.g. Veterans), refusing Muslim refugees whose devotion to Islam will eventually lead to un-American activities rather than assimilation and so on.

With all that intrigue I had this gnawing in the back of my mind about how the old deal maker mixed with Big Business causes to the detriment of basic core Conservative values, mixed with Democrats that definitely promoted anti-Conservative principles and had a mixed pro-life and a mixed Christian affinity past.

Then I have always had an affinity to the causes that Cruz stood for such as pro-life, pro-Tea Party causes, a staunch Conservative and anti-Establishment GOP kind-of-guy.

I also liked Marco Rubio as a Christian and Conservative but thought his experience was a bit lacking especially when GOP Establishment individuals began to throw support behind Rubio after it became evident that Jeb Bush did not have the support of the GOP Conservative base.

And so perhaps we Conservatives should pay attention to Conservatives like Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post who have always questioned Trump’s dedication to Conservative principles and values as you can read in Alexander’s February third essay that is less than favorable toward Donald Trump.

JRH 2/4/16 (Hat Tip Don Moore of Blind Conservatives)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

If Trump Is the Answer...

What Is the Question?

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 3, 2016

The Patriot Post

“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.” —Patrick Henry, 1775

If Donald Trump is the answer, then what’s the question his supporters are asking?

Fact is, they’re asking the most important questions every genuine conservative is asking. Consistent with The Patriot Post’s mission statement, all of us are asking, “How do we restore constitutional limits on government and the judiciary? How do we restore free enterprise, our national defense capabilities and traditional American values? How do we undo all of the damage Obama has done and correct our nation’s course back toward Liberty? How do we defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and win the next presidential election?”

But Donald Trump?

By way of disclosure, let me say that I would “vote early and often” for Trump if he is the Republican nominee. Having said that, I hope there will be a more viable and reliable ballot option.

Bear with me.

In the wake of the Iowa caucus results, Trump is again asking, “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” After a 15-hour blackout, he woke up mad, claiming, “Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. … Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” This from a guy who has not voted in a Republican primary for almost 30 years… (This sounds like a set up — “I’m being treated unfairly, thus I will run third-party to insure a Democrat victory in 2016!”)

Though I consider Iowa more a generator of media advertising revenue than I do a solid predictive indicator of presidential election outcomes, the caucus results are, just the same, instructive.

Trump, who assumed he had Iowa in the bag, made two mistakes that will influence the results of the upcoming primaries.

First, he backed out of the Iowa debate just before the caucuses, not because he has “zero respect for [Fox News journalist] Megyn Kelly,” as he claimed, but to avoid being called out on a growing list of prevarications and obfuscations. Despite the not-too-clever diversion of his alternate event “for the veterans,” his supporters in Iowa stayed focused on the task at hand — casting a vote for the candidate they think is best suited to be the 45th president of the United States.

Second, while he may have avoided the Iowa debate, Trump’s petulant attack against his primary rival, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in the days after that debate resulted in exposing his clear and continuing support for ObamaCare, one of the most important agenda items on conservative lists for legislative repeal.

Just before the Iowa Caucus, Cruz asserted, “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor.” That is not quite accurate — Trump’s socialist health care plan is actually more statist than Clinton’s plan.

Trump attempted to deflect the criticism, protesting, “Ted Cruz is a total liar. I’m so against ObamaCare. … I don’t even know where he gets this.” Where Cruz “gets this” is the same place he got Trump’s liberal “New York values” — remarks from Trump himself! Trump has written and spoken repeatedly in support of state-run health care systems. In his book, “The America We Deserve,” he praised Canada’s failed socialist single-payer health care system: “We must have universal health care. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.”

Betrayed by his own words, Trump refuted (and simultaneously confirmed) Cruz’s claims, saying, “He has got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine because frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country.” Of course, Trump’s socialized medicine proposals would deepen the disastrous consequences of the so-called “Affordable Healthcare Act” and accelerate the deterioration of health care services. Think “Veterans Affairs on steroids.”

The fact is, Trump is a case study in contradictions, with long-held and defended liberal positions averse to Liberty, including his support for state-run health care, gun control, enormous tax increases and executive unilateralism. His apparent contradictions are now the toasts of late-night liberals like Stephen Colbert, who recently aired a “debate” segment, Donald vs. Trump.

Apparently, Trump didn’t receive the memo that a man has only one chance to make a first impression. Now, instead of providing a candid and honest explanation for his 11th-hour conversion to conservatism and all the flip-flopping, Trump is content to simply deny he ever held those liberal positions. His undeniable denial of reality should concern anyone who supports him.

Having said this, I expect protests from Trump supporters that will fall into two previously established categories.

About 10% will offer reasoned objections, which I welcome. They are actually open to criticism of Trump, and the resulting dialogue provides useful insights for both of us.

However, the remaining 90% will hurl vitriolic diatribes, shooting insults and threats at this messenger, much like the shots Trump takes at his critics. The rage and resentment in these protests are a testament to Trump’s anger-driven support, which I described in “The Trump Card — Ace of Anger Affirmation.”

For the record, I have been shot at on a few occasions — and by “shot at” I mean with high-velocity projectiles, not derogatory words — so insults don’t bother me. But what I do find deeply troubling is that the vitriolic variety reflects a cultish devotion to Trump, whose narcissistic persona basks in the light of such unquestioned devotion. Too many of his supporters are intolerant of any divergent perspective on Trump, no matter how well reasoned.

Don’t get me wrong: Grassroots Americans should be angry about the lame “establishment Republicans” who haven’t made way for the growing ranks of young conservatives now in the House and Senate.

And it’s not only Trump’s conservative supporters who are mad. Notably, analysis in The New York Times — “Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat” — recently reflected that “[h]is very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.” These are folks who, in 1980, might have been described as “Reagan Democrats.”

The comparison is understandable, given that Trump’s simple mantra, “Make America Great Again,” was “borrowed” from President Reagan’s slogan, “Let’s make America great again.” Fact is, Trump is a “good communicator” and his simple solutions to complex problems resonate with both grassroots Republicans and Democrats.

But Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, who was a genuine, humble conservative, and a model of servant leadership.

Human nature tells us that many people are more convicted by what they want to believe than by a considerable body of evidence contradicting those beliefs. Noted historian John Lukacs, in his book “Democracy and Populism,” wrote, “Most people believe and think what they prefer to think and what they want to believe: their vision of the world and their own likes and dislikes … are seldom separable.”

In the timeless words of John Adams, however, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Facts and evidence, fellow Patriots. Facts and evidence.

Donald Trump is not the answer to the critical questions genuine conservatives are asking, including those genuine conservatives among his supporters.

So, it’s off to New Hampshire we go, where I expect Trump’s “New York values” to play well. However, take note. His national disapproval rating has soared to 60%, which renders him all but unelectable against potential adversaries as fundamentally flawed as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.

But if Trump actually makes it to the general election and defeats his Democrat opponent, I note this irony: Now that the ranks of conservatives (as opposed to “Republicans”) in the House and Senate have surged, those conservatives might be faced with a “Republican” president who is both autocratic and statist, a combination that will be perilous to the future of Liberty.

Finally, Donald Trump was asked recently to define “conservatism” and he was at a loss of words – rare for Trump. But last week, Ben Sasse, one of the rising young conservatives in the U.S. Senate, was asked the same question, and Trump should listen to Ben’s 90-second response.

[Blog Editor: Here's Youtube video not a part of original Patriot Post]

VIDEO: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on MSNBC Defining Conservatism

Posted by Heritage Response Room 

Published on Jan 29, 2016

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

____________________

I’m Still a Cruzer

John R. Houk

© February 4, 2016

___________________

If Trump Is the Answer...

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2016 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: "The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

© 2016, The Patriot Post.

About The Patriot Post

About Mark Alexander

Donate Online