The State Department Just Revealed Something About Hillary That’ll Have Bernie Sanders Grinning

According to a report, more than 150 emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information that was classified only after the fact. Clinton is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. 

The information was first reported Monday by Fox News:

The U.S. State Department is slated to release about 7,000 of Clinton’s emails Monday evening, the largest release yet, Fox News noted. “We’re producing more documents this month than we have produced in the previous three releases,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a briefing with reporters Monday.

At least one Clinton supporter was skeptical of Henry’s reporting:   

But the veteran White House reporter took it in stride:

Furthermore, Toner confirmed Fox’s report later Monday, noting none of the information was classified at the time it was sent, but also that “somewhere around 150” had been “subsequently upgraded” to classified.  

A U.S. District Court judge ordered the State Department in May to release a certain number of Clinton’s emails every month, meeting certain goals. Toner also said this latest release means the State Department will have exceeded its court-ordered target of disclosing more than 25 percent of the emails by September.

In the latest Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released Saturday, Clinton still leads her closest rival, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 37 percent to 30 percent among likely Democratic caucusgoers. The former first lady still leads the RealClearPolitics average of national polls among Democratic presidential candidates with 48 percent, with Sanders trailing with 26 percent.

Is Hillary in serious trouble? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary’s ‘Grand Strategy’ For Mideast Brought Unnecessary Bloodbath

The current bloodbath in the Middle East is centered in formerly stable secular nations that the United States, over several presidential administrations, attempted to “democratize.” Under the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton partnership, the destabilization was dramatically increased in an effort to find an overall fix, a grand strategy. That grand strategy was soon found in an all-encompassing plan to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East via the Muslim Brotherhood.

The exact date the Muslim Brotherhood-White House relationship began is not known. However, the Wall Street Journal first reported on Secretary Hillary Clinton “reaching out” to the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, shortly after the Egyptian government fell to protesters. The relationship must have actually begun much earlier. Clinton’s trusted aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin, had been steadily moving her toward the Muslim Brotherhood. How much will be revealed about Abedin in the “missing” emails on Hillary Clinton’s personal server used for State Department business has not yet been determined by the FBI.

Abedin at the time was U.S. deputy chief of staff at the State Department and had been a long time personal aide of Secretary Clinton. Abedin, whose mother and father were deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, convinced Clinton that to “control” the outcome of the Arab Spring and keep governments from falling into extremist hands, the United States must back “moderate” Islamist parties. Of course, her “moderate” solution was the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that works for the same end result as the Islamic State but is willing to get there at a slower pace.

The Obama/Clinton grand strategy for the Middle East was dealt with in depth in a Wall Street Journal article by Walter Russell Mead in 2013. Describing the grand strategy he wrote:

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey’s AK Party and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the ‘moderate middle’ of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups.

From the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood was assisted by the Obama White House in taking over nations that had been secular leaning, including Tunisia and Egypt, under the guiding hand of Hillary Clinton. The attempts in Libya and Syria failed, but those nations are still bleeding as a result. The main victims of the Abedin/Clinton plan accepted by the Obama White House have been the actual moderates, who are secularists, and, of course, the Christians.

Currently, the only nation under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood is our NATO “ally,” Turkey, which is supporting violence against Egypt for casting off the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 and voting in favor of a more secular government. Turkey also assisted tens of thousands of Sunni Islamist fighters to cross the border into Syria to war with the secular government there. Still, the Muslim Brotherhood has the full support of the Obama White House.

The delusional concept that having a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood in control will somehow restrain “extremism” is alive and well at the White House. A blind eye is turned to the fact that 90 percent of the jihadists from all over the world going to fight jihad in Syria and Iraq have used Turkey as their entry point. With the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally, it is not possible for the White House to be critical of anything Muslim. This may explain Obama’s empty and duplicitous response to the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya by the ISIL.

President Obama could find no religious motivation for the killings at all! His White House issued a statement saying: “The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.”

Well, the Islamic State had tried to make the religious element as clear as they could. They even produced a polished production video showing the 21 Christian men, hands bound behind them, being led one-by-one along a beach to their brutal slaughter. They could be heard crying out “Ya Rabbi Yasou,” which translates as “Lord Jesus!” while others recited the Lord’s Prayer. The video, titled, “A Message Signed with BLOOD to the Nation of the Cross,” is indisputably and intensely religious. The entire production is full of references to the Quran and the Hadiths of Muhammad.                

In an article concerning the video production, theologian and scholar Dr. Mark Durie wrote: “The whole event was meticulously choreographed and rehearsed. The video’s obvious purpose is to humiliate and terrorize Christians, whom it derisively calls, ‘The Nation of the Cross.’” Still, Obama could not even bring himself to identify the victims as Christians, referring to them only as “citizens.”

Contrast this evasive response to the quick way he reacted a few days earlier when, during a neighborhood dispute over parking spaces, three Muslims were gunned down. Immediately, President Obama blamed their deaths on religious discrimination, saying: “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.” Had President Obama known then that the killer was an activist atheist and a far left “progressive” Obama fan, he probably wouldn’t have said anything.

In the case of the parking lot dispute in which the victims were Muslims, FBI agents were immediately ordered in by President Obama to investigate possible civil rights crimes. Yet, when Maj.Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 fellow soldiers plus one unborn baby at Fort Hood in 2009 while shouting, “Allah Akbar,” President Obama saw the “crime” as “workplace violence.” Within hours, he asked the nation to be “constrained” and not blame Islam or Muslims for the death toll.

The White House will not even refer to the Islamic State by name and uses the initials ISIL in all official statements. To say the name that the organization calls itself is even taboo at the White House because the word “Islamic” is a part of that name.

The logic for this refusal was made clear by Obama Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson in a Fox News Sunday program on Feb. 22.

Johnson said, “To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on. I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly.” Identifying Islamic terrorists as Islamic gives them “dignity” is the liberal logic.

But the Obama administration has no problem using the term “Christian” to identify terrorists, even if they are not Christian. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on MSNBC must then have given “dignity” to Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Army when she called it a “Christian militant group.” In reality, Kony’s group is a strange mixture of religions, including animism. His recognition of Jesus is just about as authentic as is the Islamic version of Jesus. Even so, Kony’s army is at most responsible for one act of terror for every 10,000 acts of terror by Islamic groups in the world today; this is not to say that he should not be brought to justice quickly.

During his interview on Fox News, Secretary Johnson did let slip the real reason why the Obama administration does not use the word “Islamic” when describing terror, and where the term “violent extremism” came from. Muslim leaders in the United States don’t want the Obama administration to refer to Islamic terror as Islamic terror. Johnson said, “The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is, ‘ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion.’” This non-diplomatic translation of the remark would be, “The Muslim Brotherhood affiliate CAIR does not want the term Islamic used in a way detrimental.”

Because of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration is trying to fight the shadow of fundamentalist Islam, which is terror, without identifying what casts that shadow of terror on the world today. A people, a nation that refuses to identify its enemy cannot defeat that enemy. It is not possible to defeat a shadow; the figure that casts the shadow must be defeated. Until there is an administration in Washington, D.C., that is willing to identify and fight the enemy of Western civilization, there can be no lasting success.

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

About the author:  William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition based in Washington, DC, and a long-time advocate for the defense of Christian minorities in the Middle East, and for ending American aid to Islamic “rebel” groups. The Religious Freedom Coalition is actively involved in providing humanitarian aid to Christian refugees from Syria and Iraq who have fled to Jordan and Lebanon. For more information, please go to www.ReligiousFreedomCoalition.org.  For information on the Christmas for Refugees program sponsored by the RFC, please see www.christmas4refugees.org.     

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Marine Corps Vet And His Two Sons Go To Iraq To Fight ISIS

A 49 year-old Marine Corps combat veteran and his two sons, also Corps combat vets, have volunteered to go fight ISIS in Northern Iraq. They made the decision to go as individuals out of a strong desire to help those in need and take the fight to the enemy.

For security reasons, the three asked Fox News not to report their last names. The plan came together over the last few months. James, 23, the younger of two brothers, served two tours in Afghanistan as an infantryman, but had a burning desire to do more.

Nearly a year ago, he started planning a trip to Kurdistan in Northern Iraq to document the fight as a combat cameraman. After talking it over with his dad, Harry, who served in multiple combat tours including in Iraq, and his brother Josh, 29, who was deployed twice to Afghanistan, they decided they would go together.

“If the military, conventional forces were going, we’d go with them,” said James. “We’d sign back up, no problem. But they’re not. And that’s what it comes down to. They’re not and we’re capable and we’re going.”

The State Department neither approves of, nor forbids, their actions, and told Fox News that others have chosen to do the same. Humanitarian Defense Abroad, headed by another former Marine, is helping fund their mission through donations. It has supported dozens of other veterans desiring to return to the fight.

“ISIS has threatened our nation and us individually,” James explained. “They came out and said every military member needs to watch out because we are coming for you. We are Marines. We are going to bring the fight to them.”

The three plan to join the Kurd Peshmerga forces, which are taking the fight to ISIS in northern Iraq. “We are going to contribute on our level. My brother is a heavy machine gunner, my dad is a sniper, I was a rifleman…we are going to bring that together and present that to the Kurds and aid them in whatever way possible,” James added.

Their families are of course concerned. “Worst case scenario is one or two of us being killed,” the father Harry said. “And we would be fools to think that may not happen. We know that from being deployed. We have already accepted death and we’ve done everything we can to take care of our loved ones in case that happened.”

James agreed the cost of their collective decision could be high: “Obviously, losing my brother or my father would be terrible, devastating. But this is the life we live. We are warriors.”

For Harry, his reasons for wanting to go are simple: “I love my country, I love the ability to debate, I love the ability to worship as I want, I love the ability to pursue happiness and I’m willing to put my life on the line, not just for this country but for complete strangers.”

Josh offered similar sentiments: “My intent is to make my brothers who wear the uniform proud of me again and continue to bring havoc to the enemy and protect my family.” He recalled from his previous combat experience, “It wasn’t the gunfights that made me happy, it was the smiles [of those he helped protect], knowing that we did a good thing…I’m an American and this is what we do.”

Fox News reports that the father and his two sons gave the interview shortly before they shipped out and are now already on the ground in Iraq.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

WATCH: Howard Dean Just Revealed The REAL Culprits Behind Hillary’s Email Scandal. There’s Just One Problem

Former Democratic Party chairman and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Hillary Clinton “did not break any rules” in using a private server for official emails while she served as secretary of state. Dean is openly supporting Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton’s campaign admitted Wednesday that the personal server kept in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home did have classified information on it, but contended that the information was not originally marked as such. Reuters reported last week that as many as 30 of the emails made public so far out of tense of thousands to be reviewed for release contain classified information.

Regarding the emails on her server, Clinton has said at various times from last Spring until last week:

I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.

I never sent classified material.

I did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.

While appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Gov. Dean was asked by host Chuck Todd if Clinton was handling the situation well, given that her answers were “evolving.” Dean, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2004, told Todd he doesn’t think the former first lady’s answers are evolving. “I think they’re steady as she goes,” Dean said.

Dean then told Todd who he thinks is really behind the Emailgate scandal:

Look, this is, in fact, manufactured partly by a press that’s bored and partly by the Republicans. Here’s the deal: she did not break any rules, she did not break any policy. She may have sent stuff that was classified that wasn’t labeled classified, and it is well known that the State Department and others are trying to get stuff classified after the fact. She can’t be blamed for this. So I look at this as the usual press frenzy, the pack journalism, and I think it’ll go away, because there’s no substance to it.

However, the former first lady is currently under an FBI probe, an investigation that would by all appearances be non-partisan and certainly not prompted by Republicans. The Bureau hopes to determine “what’s there, how it got there and who put it there,” according to NBC News. They will also try to recover deleted files from Clinton’s server, as well as determine who had access to it.

Despite the increased scrutiny, Clinton is leading her main challenger for the nomination, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in a RealClearPolitics average of polls 49 to 25 percent.

h/t: Mediaite

Is Hillary Clinton doomed? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Security Expert Reveals 3-Word Truth Bomb That Destroys Hillary’s Only Email Defense

Information Hillary Clinton sent on her unsecured, private email server falls was classified, regardless of whether it it was marked as such, according to a top security expert.

“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard, the director of the US government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) from 2002 through 2008.

“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and US possession,” Leonard told Reuters, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was “blowing smoke.”

When Reuters examined emails made public so far, it found at least 30 email threads from 2009 that include what the State Department’s own “classified” stamps now identify as so-called “foreign government information,” defined by federal rules as any information, written or spoken, provided confidentially to U.S. officials by foreign officials.

Federal regulations say this type of information must be presumed classified to protect national security and diplomatic integrity. The State Department has said this type of information is included in emails sent and received on Clinton’s private server.

Reuters also reported that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along.

Reuters identified 17 emails Clinton sent containing confidential information and many more in which she received it. Confidential is the lowest level of classified information.

When Reuters asked the State Department about its findings, a spokesman said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

h/t: Business Insider

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth