Dem Candidates Sanders, Castro to Speak at Radical Islamist Convention


I’ve always been mystified on how cordial Leftists are toward Islam, especially openly radicalized Islam that leads so often to Islamic terrorism. NOW I find out this Leftist/Islamist romance is being validated by Dem Party candidates for President and even included a Left-Wing Trump hater at a conference supported by American Muslims connected to the Muslim Brotherhood which is the parent Islamic terrorists such as Hamas. These Left-Wing nuts are oblivious to the fact if Islam ever gained political power in the USA, these Leftists would top the Islamic Jihad extermination list of non-submissive God-hating Leftist kafir.

If a kafir escapes extermination in a Muslim ruled nation (or area), read or watch the oppression of a kafir living as a Dhimmi:

 

 

 

 

 

The Clarion Project has the info.

 

JRH 8/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Dem Candidates Sanders, Castro to Speak at Radical Islamist Convention

 

Democrat candidate for president Bernie Sanders campaigns in Pasadena, California (Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)

 

By Ryan Mauro

August 6, 2019

Clarion Project

 

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have agreed to speak at the convention of a radical Islamist group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and hostility towards progressive Muslims and values.

 

Sanders and Castro will participate in a “presidential forum” held by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) during its convention in Houston August 31, 2019.

 

ISNA says it is inviting other Democratic presidential candidates and President Donald Trump to address its audience.

 

The U.S. Justice Department lists ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and often violent arm of the Islamist global political project. The Brotherhood’s goal is a worldwide caliphate with all of humanity living under sharia law.

 

The Trump administration announced three months ago that it was considering designating the Brotherhood as a domestic terrorist organization.

 

As we reported in June, Trevor Noah, the progressive host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, is also slated to speak at the ISNA convention.

 

He, like Sanders and Castro, is apparently unaware of—or is unconcerned with—ISNA’s radical ideology, including expelling Muslims for Progressive Values, a pro-LGBT group, from its conference in 2017 or the fact one of ISNA’s past presidents endorsed the execution of homosexuals by sharia-based governments.

 

By speaking at the event, Noah, Sanders and Castro are helping ISNA appear as moderate leaders of the Muslim-American community (not to mention helping ISNA raise money through ticket sales).

 

The presidential forum is also being hosted by Emgage Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group that has an inflammatory and Islamist-friendly history but has taken a stronger public stance against the Islamist ideology in recent years.

 

ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history – that of the Holy Land Foundation, an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood to finance Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing).

 

It was during this trial that the Justice Department explicitly listed ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American network. This determination was supported by large quantities of publicly available evidence and internal Brotherhood documents.

 

The Holy Land Foundation actually operated from within ISNA, with money for Hamas passing from ISNA accounts to the Holy Land Foundation for distribution to the terrorist group.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis upheld the designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in 2009, citing “ample” evidence linking ISNA to the Hamas/Brotherhood operation.

 

The current president of ISNA, Sayyid Syeed, was one of ISNA’s founders when it was established by the Brotherhood. ISNA was listed in a 1991 Brotherhood memo, which described their “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

 

Syeed was filmed in 2006 saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

 

The Fiqh Council of North America, once a part of ISNA but now an official “affiliate” of ISNA, also has radical members and underpinnings.

 

You can read more about the radical makeup of the ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council here.

 

The website for ISNA’s upcoming convention does not currently list its speakers but, if the past is any indication, it will include known extremists who appear moderate for condemning Al-Qaeda, ISIS and “terrorism” but support other terrorists like Hamas and an assortment of extremism, bigotry and anti-Western conspiracy theories.

 

By speaking at ISNA’s event, it is clear that these top leaders in the progressive movement still have a blind spot when it comes to the Islamist ideology. They usually don’t want to name it, exert no effort to identify it and seem uninterested in taking the time for a simple Google search to vet groups like ISNA.

 

The presence of Trevor Noah, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro and possibly more Democratic presidential candidates helps ISNA hide behind a moderate veneer and cleverly use its progressive partners to advance its anti-progressive agenda.

 

If Sanders, Castro and Noah are genuine about the need to detoxify our political environment of extremist rhetoric and ideologies as they say they are, they should cancel their appearances at ISNA’s convention.

 

RELATED STORIES

 

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — Profile

 

Muslim Brotherhood Not Violent? Think Again

 

Extremists Headline ISNA 2018 Convention 

______________________

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow, national security analyst and the director of Clarion Intelligence Network. Mauro is also an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

Copyright 2019 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

MORE ABOUT Clarion Project

 

NOT Fake News: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch Now ALL Under Investigation


Until some Republican members get some backbone in Congress and President Trump’s DOJ effectively drains its swamp, I will not expect any indictments for these criminals. Backbones and swamp drainage will mean indictments for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch and hopefully the last Criminal-in-Chief Obama. THEN there will be a shot to return America to the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers intended.

 

JRH 6/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

NOT Fake News: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch Now ALL Under Investigation

 

By JOSEPH CURL

JUNE 26, 2017

The Daily Wire

 

You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media, but President Donald Trump is not under FBI investigation (repeat: NOT).

 

But you know who is? Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders. Loretta Lynch.

 

In early June, Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, launched a new probe of former Secretary of State Clinton’s attempts to deflect a Bangladesh government corruption investigation of Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor and friend of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

 

“While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business,” Circa reported.

 

“If the Secretary of State used her position to intervene in an independent investigation by a sovereign government simply because of a personal and financial relationship stemming from the Clinton Foundation rather than the legitimate foreign policy interests of the United States, then that would be unacceptable,” Grassley said in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

 

“Co-mingling her official position as Secretary of State with her family foundation would be similarly inappropriate. It is vital to determine whether the State Department had any role in the threat of an IRS audit against the son of the Prime Minister in retaliation for this investigation,” Grassley wrote.

 

Also, Sanders and his wife are both under investigation over a bank loan Jane Sanders got to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News reported last week.

 

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders’ top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents’ allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People’s United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

 

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders’ office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan. 

 

And former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now under investigation, too. The Senate Judiciary Committee last week opened a probe into Lynch’s efforts to control the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email scandal.

 

Grassley, along with the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, sent a letter to Lynch asking her to lay out exactly what she did during the Clinton probe. Former FBI Director James Comey testified this month that she tried to get the FBI to downplay that probe. “At one point, she directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Comey said in his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

 

Comey said Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”

 

From the nonstop coverage of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, you’d think he was under FBI investigation. But he isn’t. Instead, three big Democratic players are.

 

But you wouldn’t know that from the MSM coverage. In fact, Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s Meet The Press, didn’t even ask Sanders about being the subject of an FBI investigation during a seven-minute interview on Sunday.

 

Par for the course.

_____________

Follow @JosephCurl on Twitter. Email josephcurl@gmail.com.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, THE DAILY WIRE

 

Intro to Google to Manipulating Searches to Favor Hillary


Hillary-Google Screen Capture

John R. Houk – Editor

© June 11, 2016

 

If you are a Conservative you consider it a fairly logical guess that the major search engine giants are in the tank to promote the Dem Party nominee for President, right?

 

SourceFed evidently desired to test a Conservative’s logic by running tests. They found that Google was not only supportive of the Dem Party by of Hillary Clinton in particular. How? By manipulating your search with the autocomplete algorithm to point toward favorable info on Hillary and unfavorable info on Trump and Sanders.

 

The SourceFed homepage doesn’t really point to an about page for semi-computer literate Baby Boomers (like me) to figure out what their raison d’etre is. I am guessing computer geeks and/or nerds know exactly the purpose of SourceFed. The SourceFed homepage does point to a lot of Youtube projects involving the same name. The SourceFed Youtube about page offers this:

 

Description

 

Welcome to SourceFed! Everything that should and shouldn’t matter explained by the people who love the same things you do. We do the news… sort of.

 

We also go even more in-depth with all our stories on our website SourceFed.com. Also, if you like our stuff, be sure to show us some love on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

 

At any rate, I found the SourceFed video at the Washington Free Beacon. The Beacon their report with the roughly 7-minute SourceFed video which exposes Google. The Beacon runs an article more suitable to Baby-Boomer-Speak. Evidently Google, in an attempt to protect its integrity, is denying the results of the SourceFed analysis. I am guessing the denial because the Beacon runs another video – this time by the Washington Examiner – that runs a similar to SourceFed analysis in response to a Google denial. The Washington Examiner video is not a Youtube video but it has an embed that my various blog platforms may or may not accept.

 

JRH  6/11/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Google Allegedly Manipulating Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

By Aaron Kliegman

June 10, 2016 12:16 pm

Washington Free Beacon

 

VIDEO: Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary?

 

 

[Blog Editor: Just for clarity, the Youtube description is not a part of the Washington Free Beacon article]

 

Posted by SourceFed

Published on Jun 9, 2016

UPDATE: Friday June 10

 

Google has responded to this video via an email statement to the Washington Times:

“Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.”

Read the full article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/10/google-denies-burying-bad-hillary-clinton-stories/

While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton. If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm. According to a research paper cited in this video, that kind of search result manipulation has the potential to substantially influence the outcome of actual elections.

Sources:
Google Search Results Can Change Elections: http://bit.ly/1MTSboF
Wikileak’s Julian Assange Links Google and Clinton Camp: http://bit.ly/25LaEPF
Eric Schmidt, Head of Pentagon Board: http://bit.ly/21HREvG
Eric Schmidt Funds Groundwork: http://bit.ly/1FWIXar
Official ‘Groundwork’ Website: http://bit.ly/1WP53z3

 

Tech giant Google is allegedly manipulating its online search results to bury terms that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to an analysis conducted by SourceFed, a news website with a prominent YouTube channel.

 

“SourceFed has discovered that Google has been actively altering search recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so quietly that we were unable to see it for what it was until today,” SourceFed’s Matt Lieberman said in a new video posted online Thursday.

 

Lieberman explained how, for example, if someone types “Hillary Clinton cri” into Google, the site’s auto-complete function, which provides the user search term suggestions while typing into the search bar, shows three potential searches: “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” “Hillary Clinton crisis,” and “Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994.” But when someone types “Hillary Clinton cri” into Yahoo’s search engine, the first search suggestion to appear is “Hillary Clinton criminal charges,” followed by “Hillary Clinton crimes” and “Hillary Clinton criminal.”

 

“There’s clearly something wrong here, right?” Lieberman asked. “It’s like if you put three people into a room that’s on fire and two out of three people yell ‘fire’ and the third person yells, ‘I’m in a room.’”

 

The SourceFed analysis shows that this mismatch in search terms is intentional rather than the result of people searching different terms on different websites.

 

Lieberman explained that when SourceFed searched in Google Trends for “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” the site’s top search suggestion for the aforementioned example, there were not enough searches of the term to even build a graph on the site. However, when SourceFed searched “Hillary Clinton crimes,” Google gave back a full graph, indicating that far more people are searching for the latter term rather than the former.

 

“Which begs the question, why on earth is [Hillary Clinton crime reform] the first potential result?” Lieberman asked. “Google just doesn’t want you to know or ask.”

 

To gather more data, SourceFed wanted to see if Clinton’s much-discussed private email server that she used as secretary of state would yield similar results.

 

They discovered that when someone types “Hillary Clinton ind” into Bing or Yahoo, the first search suggestion is “Hillary Clinton indictment,” followed by a series of indictment-related search terms. When the same text is typed into Google, though, the first two recommended terms are “Hillary Clinton Indiana” and “Hillary Clinton India.”

 

“Could people really be searching more for ‘Hillary Clinton India’ than ‘Hillary Clinton indictment?’” Lieberman asked.

 

When he typed the two terms into Google Trends, it showed that people have been searching for “Hillary Clinton indictment” eight times more often than “Hillary Clinton India.”

 

“The intention is clear: Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site,” Lieberman said.

 

For comparison, SourceFed searched for negative terms associated with Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. When they typed in “Bernie Sanders soc” for socialist and “Donald Trump rac” for racist, Google matched the recommendations for Bing and Yahoo.

 

“At this stage, I must be clear: We at SourceFed are not accusing any individuals of any crimes,” Lieberman said, adding that if Google did manipulate search results it would be “unethical and wrong but not illegal.”

 

He added that there is no evidence of Hillary Clinton’s campaign having involvement with this issue, but noted there are a “stunning” number of links between Google and the Clinton campaign, most of which stem from Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., and former chief executive officer of Google.

 

Lieberman also noted that Schmidt is a major funder of The Groundwork, which is, according to Democratic campaign operatives, “an investment by Schmidt to ensure that Hillary Clinton has the technological and engineering prowess to win the election.”

 

The Groundwork is one of the Clinton campaign’s most expensive outside contractors, costing $177,000 in the second quarter of 2015 alone.

 

Lieberman said the connection between Google, Schmidt, and Clinton is clear, adding that the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon, is a former Google executive.

 

Lieberman also explained that, despite voters having access to an innumerable number of sources of information, manipulating Google searches can have a profound effect on voters’ decisions.

 

SourceFed cited the work of Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute of Behavioral Research, whose most recent experiments focused on changing political opinion through search engine results. In his study, according to Lieberman, Epstein held a mock election and allowed the mock voters to search for various terms regarding the two candidates. Epstein showed mostly positive results for both Candidate A and Candidate B, while having a control group that received mixed, untouched results.

 

“What he found was that he was able to swing voters up to 48 percent for whatever side had more positive results, a process he dubbed ‘voter manipulation power,’” Lieberman said.

 

Epstein was quoted after the experiment as saying, “Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

 

Lieberman noted that the Hillary Clinton campaign has made no comment about the topic of search manipulation.

 

[Blog Editor – Washington Free Beacon of interest: Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary; BY: Brent Scher and Elizabeth Harrington; 6/10/16 1:30 pm]

 

+++

Washington Examiner VIDEO: Is Google Manipulating Search Results to Favor Hillary Clinton?
http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=freebeacon_hom_non_non_dynamic&videoId=30980961
_________________________

Intro to Google to Manipulating Searches to Favor Hillary

John R. Houk – Editor

© June 11, 2016

_________________________

Google Allegedly Manipulating Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

Aaron Kliegman   Email Full Bio 


Aaron Kliegman is a Media Analyst for the Washington Free Beacon and a Master’s Degree Candidate in Johns Hopkins’s Global Security Studies Program in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the Free Beacon, Aaron worked as a Research Associate for the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank, and as the Deputy Field Director on Micah Edmond’s campaign for U.S. Congress. He graduated from Washington & Lee University in 2014 and lives in Washington, D.C. His Twitter handle is @Aaron_Kliegman. He can be reached at kliegman@freebeacon.com.

 

©2016 All Rights Reserved – About Page

 

Hillary Indictment Trouble?


Bill laughs at jailed Hillary

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2016

 

It appears that FBI Director James Comey is the first lynchpin hurdle on whether or not Hillary Clinton is indicted for using a private home server to receive and send classified information. (The second lynchpin would be Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the third lynchpin President Barack Hussein Obama.)

 

Director Comey is providing at least the appearance of a vigorous FBI investigation into Hillary with unverified reports that over a hundred FBI Agents are involved in combing server data.

 

Also apparently Director Comey seems to have earned the respect of both Dems and Republicans as a non-political civil servant serving in both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. Based on that journalist evaluation I have read about I thought it might be interesting to provide an excerpt from one of today’s Salon.com articles. Salon should be evaluated as a committed Leftwing Internet rag:

 

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams

These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

 

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. …

 

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?

 

Would you be able to claim negligence?

 

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general and former intelligence officials saying that indictment is justified.

 

 

I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.

 

 

Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

 

 

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government” explains the possible political motive …

 

In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.

 

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?

 

ABC News

 

…  “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’” 

 

There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

 

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails.

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

 

An article in Madison.com titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

 

Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano? 

 

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

 

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents? 

 

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

 

President Obama’s White House communicated with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

 

The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

 

Foreign nations and hackers already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

 

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon. With READ ENTIRETY (This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams; By H. A. GOODMAN; Salon.com; 4/5/16 10:12 AM CDT)

 

Did I mention that Salon was a Leftist rag? AND Salon is throwing Hillary under the bus in favor of Bernie Sanders. Did you notice the author Goodman mentioned “22 Top Secret emails” – as in classified – more than a few times?

 

Regardless of this refreshing bluster from Salon.com, I have noticed that pundits on the Left and the Right do not think Hillary will ever be indicted although not really for agreeing reasons. Most Leftist pundits toe the line that this is all a Right Wing conspiracy of the usual smoke and mirrors with no proof of a fire. Right Wing pundits tend to believe that neither Loretta Lynch nor President Barack Hussein Obama will allow Hillary to be indicted on their watch.

 

Lloyd Billingsley of FrontPageMag.com offers a scenario that doesn’t really fit the usual Left-Right talking points about Hillary Clinton. Billingsley throws the ball in Director Comey’s court and some interesting facts connected to history between Comey and Hillary in the view Hillary received some interesting passes in some questionable legal issues. Below is the article in entirety.

 

JRH 4/5/16

Please Support NCCR

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

COMEY, CLINTONS AND CLEMENCY

 

By Lloyd Billingsley

April 5, 2016

FrontPageMag.com

 

Hillary Clinton’s email problems, going back to her time as Secretary of State, have not drawn heavy coverage from the old-line establishment media. As the investigation nears its final stages, FBI director James Comey’s past dealings with the Clintons may prove of interest.

 

Detail on those dealings emerged in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, a 2004 book by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor to Time magazine who has written for Life, the New York Times, and Vanity Fair. None could be described as conservative but Andersen is candid about Hillary’s political past.

 

Hillary’s friends Robert Treuhaft and wife Jessica Mitford were “avowed Stalinists” who opposed the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and remained committed to the Communist cause. American Evita charts Hillary’s admiration for Marxist theoretician Carl Oglesby and Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, from whom Hillary learned that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

 

After Bill Clinton left the White House, one staffer told Andersen, the entire focus was on “getting Hillary back in.” The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

 

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that any pardon was discussed.

 

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

 

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson notes, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.

 

Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen finds it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

 

On September 4, 2013, James Comey became director of the FBI. In that role, Comey oversees the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material on her private email and server. Whether she gets a pass this time is uncertain, but Comey’s history with the Clintons is worth media attention. So is Hillary’s history on the subject of terrorism.

 

“At Hillary’s urging,” Andersen writes, “the President granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who have been sentenced to prison following a wave of bombings from 1974 to 1983 that took the lives of six Americans and wounded scores of others. Incredibly, the terrorists had not even asked for clemency.”  The worst attack was the January 24, 1975 bombing of Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan. The Puerto Rican FALN exploded a bomb during the lunch hour, “hurling body parts into the street and killing four people.”

 

The terrorists accepted President Clinton’s offer of clemency but expressed no regret for their actions. Former U.S. Attorney Joseph Di Genova went on record that “the Puerto Rican terrorists were pardoned because they were a political benefit to the president’s wife. Make no mistake about it.” As Anderson notes, FBI director Louis Freeh opposed the pardons, as did New York major Rudy Giuliani, senator Charles Schumer and former Puerto Rico governor Carlos Romero Barcelo who, says Andersen, “pleaded with the president not to release the bombers.”

 

Stories on the Clinton pardons have not been a staple of the current campaign, in which Republicans have been the targets of choice on the terrorism issue. Perhaps a bit more balance is in order. Reporters, meanwhile, will find American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power a worthy refresher course on the Democratic frontrunner.

 

_____________________

Hillary Indictment Trouble?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2016

___________________

COMEY, CLINTONS AND CLEMENCY

 

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Film Industry.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so far this year and is a key resource for students, scholars and members of the media.

 

Since 2003, the Center has promoted an Academic Bill of Rights to support students’ academic freedom, and free the American university from political indoctrination and renew its commitment to true intellectual diversity. This campaign has had a permanent impact on American higher education.

 

In 2007, the Center undertook an READ THE REST

 

%d bloggers like this: