The Pulse of The Shariah Board of America: Obama and The Willful Deceit and Subterfuge Continues for The Implementation of The Project June 15, 2016


In what was called the First Conference of Jihad, held at the Al-Farook Mosque in Brooklyn on Atlantic Avenue in 1988, which also served as the headquarters for Al Kifah, Azzam instructed his audience of nearly 200 to carry out jihad no matter what they were, even in America. ”

Link here

“Working with bin Laden, Azzam set up a guest house for foreign Muslims to come to and join the war. This partnership would be the germ of today’s al Qaeda. Azzam also helped set up the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which attacked Mumbai in November 2008.”

Link here


Link here

Azzam was Sayyid Qutb’s lawyer.

Qutb had an even greater influence on bin Laden’s mentor and another leading member of al-Qaeda,[45] Ayman al-Zawahiri. Zawahiri’s uncle and maternal family patriarch, Mafouz Azzam, was Qutb’s student, then protégé, then personal lawyer, and finally executor of his estate—one of the last people to see Qutb before his execution.

Link here

The Charismatic Leadership Phenomenon in Radical and Militant Islamism
By Haroro J. Ingram.

Link here

The question of what to do in the post-Soviet world was paramount among the fighters still in Afghanistan. One important line of thought came from the writings of Palestinian scholar and mujahid Abdullah Azzam, who in April 1988 wrote of the need for a “pioneering vanguard” of Muslim warriors who would form the base, or “qaeda,” of an Islamic society spanning the reaches of the long-lost Islamic empire that once stretched from the Philippines to Somalia, Eritrea and Spain.
A mentor to Osama bin Laden, Azzam was also a founder of the armed Palestinian group Hamas and the Pakistani organization Lashkar-e-Taiba. His vision of ‘holy warriors’ was a precursor to the groups declaring loyalty to Al-Qaeda or bearing its moniker now roaming everywhere from the plains of western Africa to the jungles of Malaysia.

Back to Azzam…”The Spiritual Father of the 911 Attacks”

The Project:


This Special Report aims to analyze the Muslim Brotherhood organization as a global movement,
in particular their ideology and the key players involved in the movement as well as charting the
extent of their global reach. It seeks to present the facts and summarize them for use by both the
general public and researchers.


Link here



Editors Note: An update from our friends at and Greg Corombos:

Orlando shooter Omar Mateen (left) and San Bernardino shooters Tashfeen Malik (center) and Syed Rizwan Farook (right)

A former Department of Homeland Security official says it took him only a few hours to connect Sunday’s Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando to December’s carnage in San Bernardino, and he says the federal government’s active refusal to acknowledge reality is “handcuffing” efforts to keep the American people safe.

Philip Haney served nearly a decade at the Department of Homeland Security after its inception in 2003. His responsibilities there included investigations for Customs and Border Patrol through its National Targeting Center. While there, he played a key role in vetting people connected to Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic group with some 70 million members.

He is the author of the new book, “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”

In less than two days since the massacre at the Pulse club in Orlando, reports have surfaced that terrorist Omar Saddiqui Mateen was investigated multiple times by the FBI but was ultimately deemed not to be a threat, despite professing a link to the Boston Marathon bombers and the terrorist group Hezbollah.

Haney said that should have raised innumerable red flags, but he said the FBI’s own training procedures, updated in 2012, stopped common sense from taking the probe any further.

Has our own government already surrendered to Islamic jihad? A national security insider uncovers the terrible truth. Philip Haney’s “See Something, Say Nothing” is available now at the WND Superstore.

“Just because an individual is affiliated with a known terrorist organization, we can’t automatically assume that individual is a terrorist,” Haney said.

“That’s handcuffing. That is making it virtually impossible for basic law enforcement actions to be taken,” he said. “How can you develop a case if you’re trying to go to probable cause when you’re prohibited from making an association between an individual and the organization that he may be affiliated with?”

In addition to the stifling rules, Haney said one hand of government doesn’t know what the other is doing. He said all relevant government entities are supposed to be coordinated by a joint terrorism task force, but the idea works better in concept than in reality.

“The same thing happened with the Boston bombing,” Haney noted. “There was a disconnect in the transfer of information regarding the Tsarnaev brothers prior to that event. Apparently, here was a disconnect here as well.”

Reports that former co-workers were alarmed at Mateen’s angry rants are also chilling to Haney, especially the indications that the employer never followed up on the complaints with authorities out of fear of being politically incorrect. Haney said it’s the same story America saw in San Bernardino, when a neighbor was suspicious of what was happening at the terrorists’ home but did not report anything out of fear of being labeled Islamophobic.

Haney said the ignored warnings from co-workers also reminds him of another horrific case.

“The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about co-workers being concerned is exactly what happened with Nidal Hasan before the Fort Hood shootings. It’s like a tape recorder. We’re listening to exactly the same comments from people who raised concerns,” Haney said.

So while FBI Director James Comey says there was no basis to continue the investigation after Mateen insisted his pro-terrorist statements were just angry falsehoods expressed in anger to his co-workers, Haney said a few hours of work on Sunday not only proved Mateen was not a lone wolf but his network of influence can be tied to the San Bernardino terrorists.

After learning that Mateen was affiliated with the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce (Florida), Haney quickly discovered a statement from the center’s imam confirming that Mateen worshiped at the mosque. He said that connection is important to establish before unraveling the rest of the thread.

“I always follow the same process,” he said. “There are individuals, and there are organizations. They are inseparable, and one always leads to the other.”

Haney then discovered the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce is affiliated with the Sharia Board of America.

“Then I find out that the Sharia Board of America is directly linked to an association called the Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation,” said Haney, who then found the foundation was linked to a very familiar group.

“I’m now realizing I’m about to touch a case that was related to the San Bernardino shootings, the case that the records were deleted from by my own government and a case that was related to the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative that I worked on at the National Targeting Center. Ultimately, the Tablighi Jamaat case was shut down by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security out of concerns that the civil liberties of Muslims would be infringed.”

But Haney said the trail keeps going, as Rahmat-e-Alam is affiliated with the Darul Uloom Chicago.

“Now we’re overlapping with the San Bernardino case because the mosque in San Bernardino was called Darul Uloom Islammiya,” said Haney.

But there’s more.

“It turns out that the Darul Uloom Chicago organization, which is a madrassa, is directly related to the Islamic Institute of Education case that I worked on as an active-duty officer,” he said.

“All of it goes back to the Tablighi Jamaat case that I worked on at the National Targeting Center,” Haney explained. “There was only one degree of separation from the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce and that entire network that I worked on back in 2011.”

If Haney could connect that many dots in an afternoon, why couldn’t the federal government do the same?

“Did the FBI have access to any of that information? I don’t know,” he said. “Did the [Customs and Border Patrol organization] affiliates have access to this information? Yes, they did. Did anyone put the picture together? It doesn’t look like it.”

Haney stressed that these links are critical and meaningful because affiliation for Muslims is hugely important.

“In Islam, there is really no such thing as a lone-wolf individual. In Islam, the sense of community and family is an overriding awareness of everyone,” Haney said.

Fidelity to the Quran and the Hadith are other pillars of Islamic life, but he said the Islamic approach to homosexuality also cannot be ignored here.

“There is a fourth component and that the cultural, traditional worldview, that is violently opposed to homosexuality throughout the Islamic world,” he explained.

Enemies within? The hidden truth about the War on Terrorism. “See Something, Say Nothing” is available from the WND Superstore.

But none of that is enough for the government to remove its blinders with respect to radical Islam, according to Haney.

He was investigated nine times while working at Homeland Security, eight times during the Obama administration. Three of those probes ran simultaneously. The government also refused to allow him to see the files relevant to his case and the shuttering of the Tablighi Jamaat investigation. He was forced to obtain them through Freedom of Information laws. He said emails among the State Department, Homeland Security and other agencies told the the real story.

“They had concerns about civil rights and civil liberties of these individuals, by the way, who are foreign nationals,” Haney said.

How did the priorities get so mixed up? Haney said it all goes back to one moment.

“Things really started going sideways after the Holy Land Foundation trial in November 2008, when it was irrefutably proven in federal court that groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America (and) the North American Islamic Trust were to support for Hamas. That point is the turning point in the history of counter-terrorism,” Haney said.

“At that point, the administration had to make a conscious decision, whether to act on that law enforcement-based evidence and go forward and shut those groups down or ignore it and create a new policy, And that’s exactly what they did,” he said. “So people like me, who focused on those groups, ran headlong into the administration’s policy. Many of us suffered because of it.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Philip Haney and view the article here:

Link here















Obama Muslim Garb with brother Malik & Kenyan Muslim



What was close…I wonder what they missed.



FOR USE AS DESIRED, YEAR END PHOTOS - FILE - In this Aug. 30,, 2012 file photo, actor and director Clint Eastwood speaks to an empty chair while addressing delegates during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)


For those unaware…it’s still our country.


America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up here







The Flags of Our Fathers: DHS agent witnessed Muslim Brotherhood infiltration June 14, 2016



Editors note: From our friend Philip Haney, retired DHS agent and an excellent book review by Paul Bremmer and our friends at


DHS agent witnessed Muslim Brotherhood infiltration

‘I did my utmost to warn my chain of command’

Published: 06/05/2016 at 3:34 PM

By Paul Bremmer

The Islamic Society of North America was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, in which the HLF was charged with providing material support to Hamas. Yet Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama’s senior adviser, addressed the ISNA annual convention in 2009, months after the trial exposed the Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the U.S.

The administration surely knew about ISNA’s radical ties, but they failed to disassociate themselves from the organization, noted recently retired Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney in an interview with nationally syndicated talk-host Laura Ingraham.

“They made a decision to move away from a law enforcement-based policy of counter-terrorism into what is now referred to as Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), which is based on an emphasis on civil rights and civil liberties,” Haney said Friday.

Ingraham called Haney’s new book about his decade as a DHS whistleblower, “See Something, Say Nothing,” a must-read “blockbuster.”

“His new book is just terrific,” she said told her listeners.

“You have to pick up this book.”

Get “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad” now at the WND Superstore!

Not only did the Obama administration ignore the guilt of various individuals and organizations named in the Holy Land Foundation trial, they actually brought them into the administration to help form national security policy, Haney charged.

He said the best proof of this was in the CVE Steering Committee, created in the spring of 2010.

“At least six of the individuals on that steering committee were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Haney told Ingraham.

This cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood came back to bite the administration in February 2015 when it scheduled a Countering Violent Extremism summit at the White House. In preparation for the summit, the administration had designated three U.S. Muslim communities – in Boston, Minneapolis and Los Angeles – as “model communities.”

Philip B. Haney

“A day or two before the pending CVE summit, the leaders of each one of these so-called ‘model communities’ came out and publicly renounced the program as being discriminatory, ineffective and stigmatizing,” Haney recalled.

“They completely separated themselves from the very program that they had helped initiate, and then a few months later they did it again in New York City.”

Undeterred, the Obama administration took the CVE program global, with a complete infrastructure based in Europe. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the program was going global at the U.N. in September 2015.

“However, [CVE] started within the Department of Homeland Security,” Haney said. “I saw all of it happen because I was active duty the whole time, and I did my utmost to warn my chain of command that these people are not our friends.”

Much of Haney’s work at DHS was focused on compiling information on individuals and groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. He had input nearly 850 records into Customs and Border Protection’s electronic database.

In June 2009, Haney received a phone call from his superiors at the Port of Atlanta. They told him he would be ordered to remove the “linking information” from all of his Muslim Brotherhood-related files.

“That means the administration knowingly ordered me to remove information tied to the Muslim Brotherhood network after the evidence was presented in the Holy Land trial in November 2008,” Haney told Ingraham. “It wasn’t accidental, passive or even ignorant; they did it deliberately and intentionally.”

Ingraham was effusive in her praise of “See Something, Say Nothing.”

“This book has got to be read by you; you have to pick up this book,” Ingraham told her audience. “[Haney] saw it all from the inside, with the beginning of the apology tour, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration and the refusal to say what this is – Islamic jihadism.”





One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.


Philip Haney: Sharia Law Would Supersede U.S. Constitution

DHS Whistleblower to Trump: The threat of Islamic Terrorism is greater than you know





MB Network USA







FOR USE AS DESIRED, YEAR END PHOTOS - FILE - In this Aug. 30,, 2012 file photo, actor and director Clint Eastwood speaks to an empty chair while addressing delegates during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

For those unaware…it’s still our country.



America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.


Sign up here





Good Morning America – How RR Ya. History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government June 13, 2016


Is Is.

Obama Muslim Garb with brother Malik & Kenyan Muslim

Editors Note: From Clare Lopez, major contributor to Stand Up America and one of the leading authorities on Global Islamic Jihad.

Clare M. Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert, is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund. She was formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

by Clare M. Lopez
April 15, 2013 at 5:00 am



  • Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

— Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called “Arab Spring” is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region’s Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21st century Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da’wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood’s international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).

Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood

To understand the Brotherhood and how it operates, especially inside Western societies such as America’s, a brief overview of where it came from and why it was established is in order. Following the early years of blindingly fast military conquests, Islam began to falter as European Christendom doggedly kept pushing back, eventually surpassing an increasingly corrupt empire that had run out of lands to conquer, people to enslave, and riches to plunder. Yoked by consensus of the scholars (ijma) to an ideology that rejected critical thought, innovation, and scientific inquiry in favor of blind obedience to revelation, the Islamic world remained largely untouched by the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and eventual Industrial and Technological revolutions that catapulted the West to global power status.[5] Eventual European colonization of the Arab and Muslim world and the stunningly successful re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the modern State of Israel brought humiliation to people raised on tales of historical supremacism over these, its traditional dhimmi victims.

Aside from Israel, which came later, this was the world into which Hassan al-Banna was born in the early 20th century. An Egyptian Cairene, al-Banna seethed with frustration at Islam’s diminished status in the world; in particular he resented the presence and power of the British colonial administration in Egypt. The abolishment of the last Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk in 1924 was perhaps the worst indignity, one that left al-Banna and his young Muslim university contemporaries apparently feeling unmoored. They joined together in 1928, determined (as we know from their statements and writing) to rectify things; “rectifying things,” for them, seems to have meant re-establishment of the Caliphate and global enforcement of Islamic Law (shariah). The organization they founded to return Egypt, the Middle East, and eventually the world to “proper” subservience to Islam as ordained by Allah would be the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic).

Global Jihad

Since its inception in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood consistently has championed the cause of global jihad to “mobilize the entire Umma into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength…to jihad, to warfare…”[6] Until early 2011, its original bylaws could be found on the Brotherhood’s English language website, Ikhwanweb, established in 2005 by senior Brotherhood official Khairat al-Shater. Since then, they have been preserved by Steven Emerson at The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)[7]. Article (2) makes clear that the Brotherhood conceives of itself as “an international Muslim Body, which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion…establishing the Islamic State” and “…building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam.”[8]

In case that sounds relatively benign, Article (3) E gets more to the point: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.”[9] This is exactly what the Brotherhood did in Egypt in the violent years before and after the 1949 death of al-Banna, until it was forcibly suppressed, only to rise again in 2011-2012 when circumstances permitted.

The story of how those circumstances shifted to permit (even compel) the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power not only in Egypt, but also Libya, Tunisia, and perhaps soon, Syria and elsewhere, spans 20th century world history. World War II and the Brotherhood’s close alliance with Adolf Hitler and his genocidal antisemitic Nazis provided the perfect opportunity for Islam’s latest expansion into Europe, where dozens of Brotherhood branches were established. Upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, its clandestine networks of Muslim operatives were picked up by the western Allies and naively turned to the same purpose as the Nazis had pursued: to counter the influence of atheist communist Soviets.[10] So it was that Sa’id Ramadan, the son-in-law of Hasan al-Banna, and a delegation of Muslim Brothers, found themselves in the Oval Office on 23 September 1953 meeting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower.[11]

Organization and the Settlement Process

Aside from its ideology, if there is a single characteristic that defines the Brotherhood, it is organization. From its earliest days, the Ikhwan has operated with military-like efficiency. The Muslim Brotherhood plan for the infiltration and subordination of America is no different. Once again, the blueprint can be found in Hasan al-Banna’s Brotherhood bylaws, where, in Article (2) D, he lists as one of the key “Objectives and means” the following:

Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms.”[12]

To be sure, the patient task of Da’wa includes establishment of Islamic institutions, education of the non-Muslim population, and countering “the prejudices of Judeo-Christians against Islam,” as Ikhwan scholar Shamim A. Siddiqi wrote in 1989.[13] But in Islam, Da’wa, or the call to Islam, is always followed by jihad. Siddiqi, writing for the Muslim Brotherhood cadre in the U.S., was candid with them and cautioned that “[i]n this initial stage there may not be any opposition to Dawah work. For some time the Islamic Movement of America may have some smooth sailing. But with the increase in Dawah efforts, in the number of activities and growth of the strength of the organization, the anti-Islamic forces will take notice of the multifarious activities of the Movement,” “…the fight…may become a challenge for them,” and “[a]larming signals will be raised by the so-called ‘free press.'”[14]

“Smooth sailing” indeed would seem to characterize the early decades of the Ikhwan‘s Da’wa movement in America. The first official Muslim Brotherhood front organization founded in the U.S. was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established on the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois in 1964. Today, there are over 600 MSA chapters at colleges and universities across North America, working to recruit members to the Muslim Brotherhood and jihad. According to former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo, “The MSA serves as a recruitment tool to bring Muslims into the Brotherhood…[w]hich was its original purpose: to evaluate Muslims and to bring them into the Brotherhood and to recruit non-Muslims into Islam as a dawa entity, giving them the call to Islam.”[15] The MSA was the blueprint model for the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups that exist, function, and continue to multiply across the U.S. today.

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

— ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,’ 1981[16]

Holy Land Foundation Trial

The 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror-funding trial[17] has proven extremely valuable, well beyond its success in putting a U.S.-based jihad money channel out of business that had that sent millions of dollars to HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Hundreds of documents presented as evidence in the trial by U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors were subsequently placed online.[18] Among these was a transcript of a talk given in the U.S. in the early 1980s by a Muslim Brotherhood executive-level leader, Zeid al-Noman.[19] In it, al-Noman provided a remarkably detailed description of the history and mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, beginning with the establishment of the first front groups, such as the MSA, and proceeding according to the Ikhwan Bylaws to expand the network in a methodical, organized manner.[20] Today, this infrastructure extends its reach within every single pillar of societal support in America – academia, government, intelligence, legal community, media, military, society, and the workplace – and demonstrably exerts a powerful influence on U.S. policy, both domestic and foreign, at the highest levels.

The recruitment process begins with identifying and cultivating Muslims who show, by their dedication to living a devout Islamic life, that they might be susceptible to Brotherhood da’wa.[21] In a 27 December 2012 essay, Eric Trager, a Next Generation fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, provided a detailed look at the intensive process by which the Egyptian Brotherhood conducts its recruitment and training of young Muslim membership candidates; develops, reinforces, and repeatedly tests their commitment over a multi-year period, and ultimately incorporates them into its nationwide hierarchical organization.[22] What he describes tracks closely with al-Noman’s U.S. lecture from three decades earlier—which itself references a process modeled on Hassan al-Banna’s original vision. The ideological continuity and internal discipline manifested by the Brotherhood’s ability to maintain and replicate its “settlement process” across the world, and a span of more than eight decades, is remarkable. This is a formidable enemy.

The “Explanatory Memorandum” cited above, and also in the documentary evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial, likewise provides a telling glimpse into “the process of settlement” that the Brotherhood termed “civilization jihad.”[23] Quite literally, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. began as an immigration and settlement experience. As al-Noman recounts in his talk, “the first generation of the Muslim Ikhwan in north [sic] America composed [sic] of a team which included he who was an Ikhwan in his country…,” among others.[24] After that, ‘the Movement,’ as he calls it, slowly established the organizational structures from basic cell level all the way to leadership Councils that define the Brotherhood’s extensive presence in Egypt and elsewhere. The emphasis on an internal stealth jihad, to “sabotage” the West from within, characterized the movement from the beginning and drove the strategic decision to use front groups that are calculated to arouse little concern in an open and democratic society such as the U.S. Although not the focus of this report, it should be noted that massive financial support from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikhdoms has always played a central and deeply important role in the ability of the Brotherhood to fund its global expansion, especially in the U.S. — the ultimate prize for Islamic colonization.

The last page of the “Explanatory Memorandum” listed 29 Muslim Brotherhood groups under the heading, “A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”[25] Among these are the names of some of the best-known, mainstream Islamic organizations in the U.S. today, including a number whose Muslim Brotherhood-linked officials advise[26], socialize with[27], and train[28] the leadership of key agencies within the U.S. national security community. The list includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP, the immediate parent organization of the Council on Islamic American Relations or CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). This is, of course, but a small sampling of North American Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but gives an idea of the level of “acceptability,” among both mainstream Muslim and U.S. society in general, that the groups have achieved by stealth and deception.

One of the most “mainstream” of these front groups is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), named, by the Justice Dept., an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. According to Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP)[29], ISNA functions as a kind of umbrella organization for many hundreds of offshoot Islamic Societies across North America. Yet, in spite of its DoJ status as a front group for the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA still has been granted a coveted advisory role with the National Security Council (NSC) of the Obama White House.[30] ISNA’s president, Muhammed Magid, is not only the Director of the All-Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, but also an A-list invitee to White House iftar dinners, and a member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Countering Violent Extremism” Advisory Council.[31] In that capacity, Magid participated in a July 2012 CIA training session, speaking at Langley about “Building Communities of Trust: A Local Example of a Partnership between the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) and Law Enforcement.”[32]

The Project

There is one more document, called simply “The Project,” that should be examined in the study of the Brotherhood’s expansion into Western society in general, and the U.S. government in particular. A November 2001 raid by Swiss authorities on a villa belonging to Yousef Nada, the Muslim Brotherhood director of the Al-Taqwa bank (which had been funding al-Qa’eda), recovered this 14-page plan, written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982. “The Project” presents a “flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the ‘cultural invasion’ of the West,” according to Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism and Muslim Brotherhood expert. [33] Rather than relying primarily on terrorism, as al-Qa’eda and other kinetic-approach jihadis do, the Muslim Brotherhood opted instead for a progressive infiltration of the very structures of Western society in order to achieve the same end result that al-Qa’eda seeks: Islamic domination over the West.

In view of the alarming success this approach has achieved to date, not only across the Middle East and North Africa, but inside Europe and the U.S., it is worthwhile to quote from Poole’s articles just some of the tactics outlined in “The Project:” [emphasis added]

  • Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
  • Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
  • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
  • Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
  • Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
  • Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
  • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
  • Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
  • Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
  • Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
  • Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
  • Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world[34]

Information Dominance

With all of this information so readily available in the public domain, the obvious question must be, “Why doesn’t the U.S. government know that it is a target, realize that it is penetrated, and take steps to correct an obviously dangerous situation?” The answer can be summarized in two words: information dominance. As described in preceding pages, the Muslim Brotherhood approached its campaign to subvert U.S. society in a comprehensive but also a stealthy way. Recall the wording from the “Explanatory Memorandum,” which stated it would sabotage [our] “miserable house by their [our] hands.”[35] What this means is that the Ikhwan intend to co-opt the leadership of this country by fooling it into “believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby manipulating or coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates.”[36] Siddiqui, too, emphasized how the fight to impose Islam will intensify with “the help and involvement of the people of the land.”[37] As the evidence indicates, this is already happening.

As with any totalitarian system, controlling the information that the U.S. government is allowed to know about Islamic doctrine, history, law, and scriptures is paramount for the Brotherhood. If its sabotage operation were to be successful, the Ikhwan knew it would have to keep its targets ignorant of the true nature of Islamic jihad and shariah. This objective also fulfills the parallel objective to implement Islamic Law on slander and blasphemy, which says that “slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person [that is, a Muslim] that he would dislike.”[38] The truth about Islam’s violent history, savage penal system, inherent inequality and supremacism, and legal commitment to “warfare to establish the religion”[39] obviously would not be helpful in lulling unsuspecting kufr (infidels) into somnolence.

One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood’s surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to “know the enemy,” fell under the Brotherhood’s influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42]

As a consequence, for example, where the 2004 9/11 Commission Report contained hundreds of instances of the use of words like “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam,” by the time the FBI published its unclassified Counterterrorism Lexicon in 2008, those words were gone, entirely missing from the document.[43] That same year, the State Department, DHS, and the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) all instructed their employees to refrain from using the words “jihad” or “mujahedeen” to describe Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators. A flurry of publications such as DHS’s “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims”[44] and NCTC’s “Words That Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication”[45] advised that using such terms (that is, accurately, as the jihadis themselves do), could confer some level of religious credibility on terrorists or even possibly alienate moderate Muslims.[46] The 2009 National Intelligence Strategy[47] and 2010 National Security Strategy[48] both followed suit, avoiding the use of “jihad,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” the “Muslim Brotherhood” or “shariah” (except to say that these were not what U.S. strategy was about except in terms of “engagement” or “partnership”). By 2012, the entire Executive Branch, including DHS and the Defense, Justice, and State Departments, of the U.S. government was busy purging all instructors and training curriculum that associated Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures with Islamic terrorism.[49]

The sheer absurdity of America’s unilateral rejection of the vocabulary required appropriately to describe, understand, and counter the enemy is topped only by the sophistication of that enemy’s tactics in getting us to do it. If the officials whose professional responsibility it is to implement countermeasures based on the enemy’s threat doctrine are not allowed even to speak the words that explain the ideology that drives that enemy’s hatred, there is no chance these officials will be able effectively to direct a national security strategy. And that, of course, is the whole point.

The full-court press came in October 2011. On 19 October, an editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times by Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), that threatened the FBI and Dept. of Justice with a refusal from the U.S. Muslim community to assist in counterterrorism efforts if alleged “deep anti-Muslim sentiment” in training materials were not “immediately addressed.”[50] Piling on, a group of 57 “top U.S. Muslim groups,” including Muslim Brotherhood front groups, delivered a letter the same day to NSC counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, urging him to begin an “independent, effective investigation into the federal government’s training of its agents and other law enforcement” and institute a “purge” of any material that the undersigned organizations deemed unacceptable.”[51]

The official U.S. response followed closely at a 19 October meeting held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. that was attended by representatives of many of the groups which had signed the letter and top officials from the Justice Department. Reportedly, the Muslims lobbied for “cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”[52] By early 2012, it was reported that the FBI had “purged hundreds of bureau documents of instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism.”[53]

This is what is meant by the Brotherhood term, “by their hands,” from the Explanatory Memorandum.

U.S. Government in the Bull’s-Eye

To reach this level of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood had moved gradually, in the classical stepped process patterned after Muhammad and his early followers, and that Sayyed Qutb outlined in his seminal monograph, “Milestones.”[54] The establishment of Islamic centers, mosques, communities, and front group organizations was the first step in the “civilization jihad.” The mainstreaming of their existence—and ultimately their messaging—in American society formed the foundation of a Brotherhood campaign to target U.S. government circles in all three branches (executive, judicial, and legislative) at the federal, state, and local levels. The national security and intelligence communities were top priority, but law enforcement, military and penal institutions, the media, think tanks and policy groups, academia, and non-Muslim religious communities were also part of the overall strategy. The remainder of this paper will focus in more closely on Muslim Brotherhood penetration of U.S. government agencies, especially at the senior executive level.

The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama. The massive Muslim Brotherhood organizational network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953, eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise. Using a combination of taqiyya (deceit, dissimulation) and intimidation, the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded not only in making itself the “go-to” authority on all things related to Islam, but in suppressing those who would speak truth about Islam—again, often by persuading the U.S.’s own senior officials to do the job for them: “by their hands”. When Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, publicly excoriated, then fired, US Army LTC Matthew Dooley, an instructor at National Defense University, in April 2012 over an earlier-approved course on Islam, and then ordered Dooley’s career-ending Negative Officer Evaluation Report, the lesson was meant to serve as a stark warning to anyone else in the DoD who might be tempted to become accurately educated about Islam.[55]

The horrific violence of terror attacks such as 9/11 also played a role by softening up the intended target: Western society. As Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote in 1979, “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.”[56] By contrast with jihadis, who would fly airplanes into skyscrapers and send suicide bombers into pizza parlors full of women and children, the Muslim Brotherhood looked tame. That its ideology and ultimate objectives — re-establishment of the Caliphate and universal enforcement of Islamic Law — were identical to those of al-Qa’eda was part of the Ikhwan‘s Information Operation to control what U.S. officials are allowed to know.

The first task was to maneuver Muslim Brothers into positions of trust with key U.S. government officials. One of the most successful Brotherhood placement and influence operations discovered to date involved Abdurahman Alamoudi, who penetrated the upper echelons of both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. A naturalized American citizen who emigrated from Eritrea in 1979, Alamoudi parlayed his leadership roles with dozens of Muslim organizations all the way to the White House.[57] Despite being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who openly had declared his support for HAMAS, he was accepted as a “moderate Muslim” and became an advisor to President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. He was permitted to establish the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and then served as its nominating and certifying authority from 1993-98.[58] Deciding to hedge his bets by 1998, Alamoudi provided at least $20,000 in start-up funds to Republican activist Grover Norquist “to establish what would become a Muslim Brotherhood front organization” called the Islamic Free Market Institute, which aimed to penetrate Republican Party circles and the campaign of future President George W. Bush.[59] Along the way, Alamoudi inserted his long-time deputy, Khaled Saffuri, and eventually another prominent Ikhwan operative, Sami al-Arian, into the Bush presidential campaign. Alamoudi’s moves paid off: after Bush’s victory, another Alamoudi protégé with vast Brotherhood connections, Suhail Khan, was appointed to the White House Office of Public Liaison, from which key position he was able to manage the access of the U.S. Muslim community to the White House. This position gave the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood unprecedented opportunities to influence operations at the top levels of U.S. policymaking.[60] Grover Norquist himself escaped scrutiny for years thereafter as he continued operating within the conservative movement.[61]

Despite Alamoudi’s eventual fall from grace, arrest and imprisonment following conviction on terrorism-related charges as a senior al-Qa’eda financier, the damage was done. Even the eventual unmasking of Sami al-Arian as a senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) did not seem to jolt the counterintelligence instincts of the U.S. intelligence community. The U.S. executive branch, from the president to the NSC and key Cabinet Departments, had been effectively neutered at the very start of the Global War on Terror. This is how President Bush could stand on 17 September 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., flanked by Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR (the U.S. branch of HAMAS), and in all sincerity, declare that “Islam is peace.”[62]

The George W. Bush administration was targeted with a multifaceted, sophisticated information operation designed to deceive national security officials about the true nature of the Islamic jihadist enemy that attacked the homeland on 9/11. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood voices which told him true Islam had been “hijacked” by a “tiny minority of extremists,” President Bush responded by flinging U.S. military might against those who had physically carried out those attacks. Far more importantly, however, is that he was successfully deterred from investigating the belief system that inspired those hijackers by a blanket of Muslim Brotherhood taqiyya that successfully smothered inquiry about the very Islamic doctrine that al-Qa’eda and the hijackers themselves declared to be their motivation. Although few realize it to this day, the crippling of the Bush administration’s GWOT response marked a crucial turning point in the U.S. ability to defend itself against Islamic jihad.

Hesham Islam was a senior advisor for international affairs who worked for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in the George W. Bush administration. A native of Cairo, Egypt, Islam, who is a Muslim, acted as point man for Pentagon outreach program to the Muslim community.[63] Among the groups with which Islam brokered contacts for the Defense Department was ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), an acknowledged affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood[64] that was named by the Justice Department in the summer of 2008 an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation’s HAMAS terror-funding trial.[65] Thanks to Islam’s efforts, England forged close ties with ISNA, attended its conventions and hosted ISNA delegations at Pentagon events, even inside England’s own office.[66]

Also serving in the Bush administration, in the intelligence section of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), was Army Reserve Major Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer by training, who had become the Pentagon’s top expert in Islamic law and jihad.[67] His 2007 master’s thesis, “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,”[68] accepted at the National Defense Intelligence College, has become the standard classic on the subject of what Islamic law teaches about jihad. Coughlin conducted countless briefings on his findings for senior Defense Department officials, and in 2007 prepared an analysis on the evidence being submitted by Justice Department prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation case. That evidence, based on the Brotherhood’s own documents, demonstrated that U.S. Islamic organizations established as front groups by the Muslim Brotherhood were waging a “civilization jihad” to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” to use its own words. Among the organizations actively involved in channeling illicit funding to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, HAMAS, was ISNA, one of the largest and most prominent of such front groups — and, thanks to Mr. Islam[69], a Pentagon outreach partner. Hesham Islam moved swiftly to defend his own position, ISNA, and the Brotherhood. In March 2008,[70] as a result of Hesham Islam’s campaign to have him removed, Coughlin’s contract with the JCS was not renewed.

Louay Safi is a Syrian-American Muslim who has held official positions with the Brotherhood-affiliated ISNA and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT). As ISNA’s Executive Director of Leadership Development,[71] Safi served for a number of years in the mid-2000s as an endorsing agent for the Pentagon’s Muslim military chaplain program.[72] He also served as IIIT’s executive director (1995-97), and director of research (1999-2003);[73] IIIT is another listed Muslim Brotherhood organization.[74] Safi was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2003 trial of Sami al-Arian, who was convicted as a fundraiser for the terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).[75]

Despite this documented resume, Safi was hired by the Pentagon under a Naval Postgraduate School contract to teach Islam to U.S. troops about to depart on deployments to Afghanistan.[76] Safi was at Ft. Bliss, TX on the day in November 2007 when Army Major Nidal Hassan gunned down thirteen service members and civilian employees at Ft. Hood, TX. The Army Criminal Investigations Division subsequently opened an investigation into the Army’s use of Safi to provide seminars on Islam — and those seminars were ended.[77] Grieving family members were outraged in early December 2011 when Safi was permitted access to Ft. Hood in an attempt to present a check to them on behalf of ISNA; called “blood money” by at least one military source, the check was refused.[78]

Later, Safi’s 2011 book, “Peace and the Limits of War” (published by IIIT), openly justified violence against apostates from Islam as well as “preemptive strikes” against troops preparing to attack Muslims.[79] Apparently in search of new employment for his skills, in August 2011, Safi reappeared as a founding member and director of the political office of the Syrian National Council (SNC), a Syrian rebel group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.[80] His photo and profile appear on the SNC website[81]

As bad as these developments were, things became immeasurably worse for American national security under the administration of Barack Obama. Whereas President Bush and most of his administration insiders remained largely unaware that they had been manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and his close advisors proactively chose to reach out to the Brotherhood, its affiliates, and supporters for advice, training, and even administration appointments.

Another senior affiliate, Rashad Hussain, is the Obama administration’s envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hussain’s background is replete with Muslim Brotherhood associations, including the American Muslim Council (founded by al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood operative, Abdurahman Alamoudi); the IIIT (which is on the Brotherhood’s own list of “our friends and the organizations of our friends”); and the Muslim Students Association (MSA, the original Brotherhood front group in the U.S.).[82] In his official capacity, Hussain is responsible for providing advice on national security and Muslim outreach. He assisted in writing the President’s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which Obama announced a new approach to the Muslim world and essentially declared war on his host, then-President Hosni Mubarak, by publicly signaling his recognition of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Hussain also acts as point man for the Obama administration’s cooperation with the Istanbul Process, the OIC effort to criminalize internationally any criticism of Islam. The current administration’s weeks-long duplicity in the aftermath of the 11 September 2012 terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, when it repeatedly and mendaciously claimed that an Internet video trailer sparked a protest there that got out of hand, appears to have been carefully scripted not just with the OIC but Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S., as well.

Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA convention, appearing on a panel[83] alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj allegedly advocates the Islamic takeover of America.

Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has served her in various capacities since first coming to the White House as an intern in 1996, while a student at George Washington University in Washington DC (where she was a member of the MSA Executive Board).[84] For decades, she and members of her immediate family — mother, father, brother, and sister — have been closely associated with individuals among the top ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qa’eda financial support organizations, and the Saudi royal family. Given Abedin’s security clearance and responsibilities to advise the Secretary on Middle East policy and politics, these affiliations must raise serious questions about her suitability for this post.

To begin, Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin[85] is a senior member of the Muslim Sisterhood (the distaff side of the Muslim Brotherhood) and is on record publicly supporting female genital mutilation, child marriage, marital rape, as well as stoning and lashing for adultery because they are consistent with Islamic shariah.[86] A co-founder with Dr. Abedin of the Dar el-Hekma Women’s College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Yaseen Abdullah Kadi, is a Treasury Department “specially designated global terrorist.”[87] In February 2010, at the behest of Huma Abedin,[88] Secretary Clinton visited and spoke at Dar el-Hekma.

The most troubling associate of the Abedin family, however, is Abdullah Omar Nasseef,[89] a senior Muslim Brotherhood leadership figure and Saudi royal family insider with direct connections to financial entities implicated in pre-9/11 funding of al-Qa’eda. During his long career, Nasseef has been the President of the Muslim World Congress, Vice President of the Saudi Shura Council, President of King Abdul Azziz University, and Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL, co-founded by al-Banna son-in-law Ramadan and the parent organization of International Islamic Relief Organization [IIRO], an al-Qa’eda front tied to the 1993 World Trade Center and 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings[90]). Nasseef and his financial organizations were listed as defendants in post-9/11 legal cases[91] based on his involvement with Al-Baraka Investment and the Rabita Trust (which Nasseef founded in 1988), a subsidiary of the Muslim World League, and a Special Designated Global Entity listed by the UN Security Council for financing al-Qa’eda.

Abdullah Omar Nasseef has been a close associate and benefactor of the Abedin family for well over 30 years.[92] While President of King Abdul Azziz University in the 1970s, Nasseef named Huma Abedin’s father, Zainul Abedin (who was a visiting professor) the head of his newly-established Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) and editor of its journal (JMMA). From then through at least 2012, the Abedin family — both parents, Huma, her brother Hassan, and sister Heba A. Khalid — has been responsible for editorial production of the IMMA journal. For twelve years, from 1996-2008, Huma Abedin and Nasseef, the al-Qa’eda financier, served together on the JMMA’s editorial board.[93] This included the time when Huma Abedin was serving as a White House intern, then as assistant during and after Clinton’s Senate campaigns, and finally as Clinton’s traveling chief of staff during her 2008 presidential campaign.

During the years that Huma Abedin has been a close to Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, like the U.S. government as a whole, has undergone a drastic shift in policy direction. Free speech issues and US government support for the al-Qa’eda/Muslim Brotherhood role in the MENA region revolts certainly top the list of concerns. While no outsider can know what advice Abedin provides behind closed doors, she has given no indication that her own world view or allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood differs in any major respect from that of her family or life-long family associates.


As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the “Arab Spring,” but which in fact are more accurately termed an “Islamic Awakening.” Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa’eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more. The infiltration of individuals such as Magid, Hussain, and Abedin, to name just a few, with such close Muslim Brotherhood identifications, to positions of influence at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking must be considered, at a minimum, a contributing factor.

In June 2012, five courageous U.S. Congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State as well as the Office of the Director of National Security, requesting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence within those agencies. That their patriotic initiative in defense of the security of U.S. policymaking should have been met only with an overwhelming barrage of criticism is tragic testament to the extent of success the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved in suppressing even the duty to counterintelligence awareness that is the first defense of a free people.[94] Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

Clare M. Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert, is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund. She was formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

[1] Risen, James, Mark Mazzetti, Michael S. Schmidt, “U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” New York Times, December 5, 2012. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[2] Sparshott, Jeffrey, “Group Gets U.S. License to Fund Syria Rebels,” Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2012. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[3] Labott, Elise, “Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels, sources say,” CNN, August 1, 2012. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[4] Enders, David, “Syrian rebels say Americans, Britons helped train them in Jordan,” McClatchy Newspapers, 14 December 2012. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[5] See Robert R. Reilly’s, “The Closing of the Muslim Mind,” ISI Books, 2010 for an astute analysis of the causes of the dysfunctionality that characterizes Islamic culture.
[6] “On Jihad,” by Hasan al-Banna. Accessed online 1 January 2013 at
[7] See
[8] Ibid, Article (2) A,F, G
[9] Bylaws
[10] See “A Mosque in Munich,” by Ian Johnson. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in Boston, New York, 2010. See also Jerry Gordon’s summary of this period, “How the CIA Helped the Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate the West,” New English Review, August 2011. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[11] Johnson, pg. 117.
[12] bylaws
[13] Siddiqi, Shamim A., “The Methodology of Dawah in American Perspective.” Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[14] Ibid
[15] Stakelbeck, Erick, “Muslim Student Group a Gateway to Jihad?” CBN News, August 29, 2011. Accessed online 1 January 2013 at
[16] United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, “USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, ElBarasse Search-3.” Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[17] See the November 24, 2008 Department of Justice Press release about the convictions. Accessed online 1 January 2013 at
[18] United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, “USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development” Accessed online 1 January 2013 at
[19] “Enter the Brotherhood,” Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 25, 2008. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[20] See Tape/CD#: T-13-T-18 1Ikhwan in America. Zeid. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[21] Siddiqi
[22] Trager, Eric, “Egypt’s Looming Competitive Theocracy,” Hudson Center, December 27, 2012. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[23] ‘Explanatory Memorandum’
[24] Al-Zeid
[25] ‘Explanatory Memorandum’
[26] “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Homeland Security Advisory Council, Spring 2010.” Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[27]“Obama praises patriotism of Anthony Wiener’s wife at White House Ramadan dinner,” Daily Mail, 11 August 2012. In addition to the photos of Huma Abedin, the video embedded in this article shows Muhammed Magid, ISNA president, seated at one of the front tables next to President Obama’s podium together with Abedin. Accessed online 5 January 2012 at
[28] Guandolo, John, “CIA Hosts Training by Muslim Brotherhood Leader and HAMAS Supporter,” Breitbart Big Peace, 24 October 2012. Accessed online 5 January 2012 at
[29] The Center for Security Policy is a WDC-based think tank focused on national defense and security issues. The author serves as a Senior Fellow at CSP. Its website, accessed 3 January 2013, is at See also Frank Gaffney’s encompassing 10-part online video series on “The Muslim Brotherhood in America” at
[30] See this March 7, 2011 video from the White House website of Deputy National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, delivering remarks at the ADAMS Center. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[31] “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Homeland Security Advisory Council, Spring 2010.” Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[32] Guandolo
[33] Poole, Patrick, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ ” and “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ (Continued),” Front Page Magazine, May 11, 2006. Accessed 3 January 2013 online at and
[34] Poole
[35] Explanatory Memorandum
[36] “Shariah: The Threat to America. An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II,” Center for Security Policy, 2010. Available as a PDF online at , on Kindle, iPad, or at
[37] Siddiqi
[38] “Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,” Section r2.2. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[39] Reliance, Section o9.0
[40] The home page of the TrueSpeak online website is here: Accessed 4 January 2013.
[41] A TrueSpeak “Mini Glossary,” February 2, 2007. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[42] Spencer, Robert, “Stealth Jihad,” Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2008 (pgs. 66-70).
[43] Federal Bureau of Investigation Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon, accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[44] “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” Department of Homeland Security. Accessed online 5 January 2012 at
[45] “Words That Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,” National Counterterrorism Center, March 14, 2008. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[46] Lee, Matthew, “‘Jihadist’ booted from government lexicon,” Fox News, December 31, 2008. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at,4670,JihadLingo,00.html
[47] The National Intelligence Strategy, August 2009. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[48] National Security Strategy, May 2010. Accessed online 5 January 2013 at
[49] Picket, Kerry, “Muslim advocacy groups influence heavily on U.S. national security protocol and lexicon,” The Washington Times, 24 September 2012. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[50] Al-Marayati, Salam, “The wrong way to fight terrorism,” Los Angeles Times, 19 October 2011. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[51] Poole, Patrick, “57 Top U.S. Muslim Groups Demanded Government-Wide ‘Islamophobia purge’ in Letter to White House,” PJ Media, 25 September 2012. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[52] Munro, Neil, “Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department,” The Daily Caller, 21 October 2011. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[53] Ackerman, Spencer, “FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia Probe,” Wired Magazine, 15 February 2012. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[54] Available at
[55] “Bombshell—Pentagon Buries the Truth—Newly Revealed Document Vindicates Army Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley In Anti-Islam Controversy,” The Thomas More Law Center, December 2012. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[56] Brigadier S.K. Malik, “The Quranic Concept of War,” reprinted by Himalayan Books, New Delhi, India, 1986 (pg. 59).
[57] Shariah the Threat, pg.127
[58] Ibid
[59] Ibid, pg. 128
[60] Shariah the Threat, pg. 128
[61] The Muslim Brotherhood in America online course by Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy. Accessed online 4 January 2013 at
[62] “Islam is Peace” says the President,” Remarks by the President at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., 17 September 2001. Accessed online 3 January 2013 at
[63] Rosett, Claudia, “Questions for the Pentagon,” National Review Online, January 25, 2008. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[64] Explanatory Memorandum
[65] USA v. Holy Land Foundation
[66] Rosett
[67] Poole, Patrick, “10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat,” Center for Security Policy, 2010. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[68] Coughlin, Stephen Collins, “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” National Defense Intelligence College, July 2007. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[69] Poole, 10 Failures
[70] Ibid
[71] Louay M. Safi’s online bio at the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, WDC. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[72] Winter, Jana, “EXCLUSIVE: Former Defense IG Raises Concerns About Military Chaplain Vetting,” Fox News, 1 December 2010. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
Read more:
[73] Georgetown bio
[74] Explanatory Memorandum
[75] Ibid
[76] Poole, 10 Failures
[77] Poole, 10 Failures
[78] McCarthy, Andrew, “Somebody at Ft. Hood Should be Walking the Plank,” National Review Online, 3 December 2011. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[79] Safi, Louay, “Peace and the Limits of War,” International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2011 (pg.35).
[80] “Dissidents Unite to Topple Assad,” August 24, 2011. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at; see also “EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Brotherhood Leader Central Figure in Newly Formed Syrian Opposition Council,” Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, September 18, 2011. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at; and Barnard, Anne, “Syrian Opposition Group is Routed and Divided,” New York Times, March 14, 2012. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[81] Syrian National Council, accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[82] “Muslim Students Association: The Investigative Project on Terrorism, A Dossier,” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[83] Klein, Aaron, “Obama Adviser Eboo Patel Speaks Alongside Defender of WTC Bombers [incl. Tariq Ramadan], World Net Daily, 5 July 2011. Online at
[84] For a screen shot of the GWU MSA Executive Board listings, see Preston, Byron, “So, Hillary Clinton Adviser Huma Abedin was on the Board of a Muslim Brotherhood Front?,” PJMedia August 16, 2012. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[85]Revealed: Weiner’s In-Laws’ Secret Muslim Brotherhood Connections,” PJ Media, June 16, 2011. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[86] Dr. Saleha Abedin helped to edit, translate, and publish “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,” by Fatima Umar Naseef, New Dawn Books, 1999, which extols Islam and shariah on these issues.
[87] Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control. Accessed 4 January 2013 at
[88] For a transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks at Dar Al Hekma, see For photos of the visit, see
[89] Dr. Omar Abdullah Nasseef’s website, accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[90] See United States District Court Southern District of New York, “IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 01, 2001 at
[91] John P. O’Neill, Sr. et al. v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation, et. al., 04 CV 01923 (RCC). Accessed online 4 January 2012 at
[92] McCarthy, Andrew, “Huma Abedin’s Brotherhood Ties Are Not Just a Family Affair,” PJMedia, July 27, 2012. Accessed online 9 January 2013 at
[93] Ibid
See copies of the letters at the official website of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-R), accessed 4 January 2012 at



Article here




From our friends Tom Trento and Clare Lopez:




From Benghazi to Right here…right now…








Editors note: See related article:


Obama visits Mosque; Spreads Lies and Skews History

Article here



Constitution - Copy


America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up here





Ra and The Amicus Brief June 10, 2016



Editor: From our friends at The American Center for Democracy:

Amicus Brief in Support of the FBI’s Clintons’ Investigations

By Thomas Lambert Cranmer
Wednesday, June 8th, 2016 @ 8:10PM

James B. Comey, Esq., Director

Re: Corruption of Public Officials: The Clinton Family, Foundation & Affiliates, and State Department Employees                                 

Dear Director Comey:

The FBI’s recent radio ads asked public assistance in identifying public corruption.  This amicus brief is in response to your request, based on my experience as a State Department employee with a top secret clearance and decades of work in corrupt countries from Albania to Zimbabwe. Therefore, I am alarmed by the steady decline of integrity among U.S. government and public official.

I studied law at Yale, Columbia, and New York University, but I am not a practicing lawyer. I worked as an international planner and a treasurer in Mobil Oil Corporation, a manager in the State Department, with a Top Secret clearance, and an international consultant, evaluating legal issues, studying corruption, proposing remedies and negotiating solutions. I am a fellow at the American Center for Democracy.

My letter is based on publicly available sources concerning what I believe to be one of the most astounding corruption cases involving a politician who wishes to lead my beloved country.

I understand that a large number of your agents are carrying out a criminal investigation of these cases, and I hope my enclosed analysis would help your efforts.

Public statements by federal government officials, and journalists indicate that either they do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge that serious laws were broken, not just a bunch of silly rules.

But the Rasmussen Report on a February 3, 2016, survey of 1,000 likely voters showed 81% “strongly believe the federal government is crooked.”  Gallup reported on September 19, 2015, in a survey of 1,000 adults, 75% “perceived corruption as widespread in the country’s government.”  In 2007, 67% responded the same way.

The U.S. international reputation is similarly appalling. Freedom House listed the U.S. as being perceived by 75% of respondents as one of the most corrupt countries of the world.  Only 12 countries of the world were regarded as worse.

Transparency International (TI) says on their website that 72% of people surveyed believe the U.S. government’s efforts to fight corruption are ineffective.  Other TI ratings for the U.S. are:

– 16th for corruption index out of 168 countries in 2015;

– 10th in bribe payers’ index out of 28 countries in 2011;

– 5% reported paying a bribe in 2010;

– 86th percentile in control of corruption;

– 5th in financial secrecy index out of 71 countries.

These perceptions are most disturbing. I hope you and the DOJ would not further this corrupt image by allowing political pressure to cover up and obfuscate the facts of your investigations. Our law enforcement agencies must show that politically powerful famous current and former officials are treated as ordinary citizens when they break the law. A failure to indict and prosecute the Clintons and their enterprise will encourage more corruption and the disclosure of more classified information, further endangering the U.S.

You have the reputation of being honest, competent and diligent, and I hope you will soon refer recommendations and backup research for criminal prosecution of the Clintons and their staff to the DOJ. That would ameliorate the decline in the public’s respect for the rule of law. If the DOJ refuses to impanel a grand jury or to prosecute, I hope you and many FBI agents resign in protest.  The integrity of the U.S. government and America’s national security are at stake.

Sources for Comments

Most of my comments are not original.  Many experts have done an excellent job of describing many of the violations of laws, including, but not limited to:  Judge and former AG Michael Mukasey, Joseph E. diGenova, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sharyl Attkisson, Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Darrell Issa, Tom Fitton, Larry Klayman and Peter Schweizer. The State Department’s Office of the Inspector General provided valuable support for my comments on former Secretary Clinton’s and her staff’s corruption. This begs the question, why no Inspector General was appointed to the State Department for most, if not all of Hillary Clinton’s time at State?

The Clinton’s syndicate has been protected by many people.

Hillary and Bill Clinton, their lawyer, David Kendall, their aides Huma Abedin, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s 2016 election top foreign policy advisor and her Deputy Chief of Staff, at the State, appear to have committed illegal acts including inter alia bribery, racketeering, and handling over 2,100 classified documents in an unsecured manner, thus violating multiple sections of the Espionage Act.  Numerous State employees, especially Patrick Kennedy, Daniel Smith and Lewis Lukens approved or ignored Hillary Clinton’s and her staff’s use of unsecured computers, cell phones and emails at State.  The Clintons and their Foundation employees have contributed to increased public mistrust, blatantly flouting U.S. laws by allegedly accepting illegal donations (bribes), and by not reporting them.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of State (State) did a comprehensive “Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements” dated May 2016.  Secretary Clinton and her aides have boosted the distrust by refusing to answer the IG’s questions about her email system and retention and destruction of records during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Declining OIG’s requests for interviews (OIG, pp 2&5),  were:

  1. Secretary Clinton;
  2. The Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  3. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  4. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  5. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Communication (2009-13);
  6. The Director of the Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat (S/ES) Office of Information Resources (IR) Management (2008-13);
  7. A Special Advisor to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (2009-13) who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system;
  8. A Senior Advisor to the Department, who supervised responses to Congressional inquiries (2014-15);
  9. The Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources (2011-13); and
  10.  An individual based in New York who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system, but who State never employed.

Their refusal to voluntarily testify to the OIG, suggests that they should be charged with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Public Law 91-452, 18 U.S.C. violations and conspiracy to subvert the law and justice. So I hope you subpoena them and their relevant records.

Violations of the Espionage Act regarding Clinton’s emails are the focus of many people. The focus also should be RICO’s broad definition of 35 crimes and includes the activities of the Clintons and their associates.  Penalties under this law, for each count, range between a fine of $25,000 to 20 years in prison.

The OIG noted, “A March 17, 2009, memorandum prepared by S/ES-IR staff regarding communications equipment in the Secretary’s New York residence identified a server located in the basement.” She used personal email “predominately through mobile devices.” (OIG p. 3) This server and the mobile devices containing classified email records were unsecured, a violation of the Espionage Act and State policy rules.  The OIG reported on p. 23 “Former Secretary Clinton did not use a Department email account and has acknowledged using an email account maintained on a private server for official business.”

The OIG commented further on p. 23:

“…sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record.  Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.  At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service, and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” And the OIG added on p. 23:

“Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete.  For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure… OIG discovered multiple instances in which Secretary Clinton’s personal email account sent and received official business email during this period. For instance, the Department of Defense (DOD) provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus on his official DOD email account; these 19 emails were not in the Secretary’s 55,000-page production.”

The OIG reported on p. 27:

“The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which ‘has the proper level of security control to…ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information…Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.”

Hillary Clinton and her staff utterly failed in meeting any of these requirements, especially protection of communications.  This endangered the people of the U.S.

By court order, Judicial Watch deposed Lewis A. Lukens on May 18, 2016, in the Justice Department offices.  He was manager of logistics at State for the Secretary, with 110 people reporting to him.  Lukens testified that although he had a security officer in his department, nobody questioned Secretary Clinton about her email use, even though she did not have a secure means of communicating.  It was forbidden to use a wireless computer communication system in her office area, but Lukens saw her using a Blackberry in the hallways and in foreign areas.  This potentially exposed classified data to our enemies, who routinely attempt to hack government sites daily.  He testified that he did not believe State set up a State email address for Mrs. Clinton.  Lukens wrote in an email Cheryl Mills “says the problem is HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] does not know how to use a computer to do email, only BB [Blackberry].” If Clinton knew how to use a BB to send email why couldn’t she use a desktop?  What difference is there?  State set up my email address easily and it was simple to maintain.

The OIG reported on p. 29 State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) in 2009 “prohibits use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) in Department facilities, except for strictly unclassified areas.”  An example the OIG cited as an unclassified area is the cafeteria.  PDAs “could not connect with a Department network except via a Department approved remote-access program, such as Global OpenNet.” (OIG, p. 30) Clinton did not have any approvals for her Blackberry (OIG, p. 36) or use of Global OpenNet.

The Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security (DS) “…sent a classified memorandum to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of Blackberry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive areas.  According to a DS official “Secretary Clinton approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she ‘gets it.’” (OIG, p. 33)

On June 28, 2011, the Department sent a cable “recently, Google asserted that online adversaries are targeting the personal Gmail accounts of U.S. government employees.”  The cable recommended Department users and their family members “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” (OIG, p. 34)

The U.S. government Office of Personnel Management (OPM) notified me my State Department records were hacked and probably copied. OPM offered to pay for my personal accounts to be monitored by a security service.  Over 20 million U.S. government employees and former employees had this experience.  Hacking of many other government departments, including DOD, has been reported extensively in the press.

Hacking of corporate data is widespread.  The Ponemon Institute Research Report published in January 2015 said: “Forty-five percent of respondents report their company had one or more data breaches in the past 24 months.” (p. 8) The Business Institute reported on October 6, 2014, that you said: “There are two kinds of big companies in the U.S.  There are those who’ve been hacked … and there are those who don’t know they’ve been hacked.”

One does not have to be famous to be hacked. My and my wife’s Yahoo accounts were hacked separately by people who used them to send out bogus emails.  The hackers eliminated most of 15 years of my personal emails and many of my contacts.  We reported this to Yahoo security people and arranged for our email addresses and the accounts to be eliminated.

Hacking of Clinton’s email was reported on January 9, 2011 to the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Operations.  Clinton’s server was shut down.  But contrary to Department regulations and common sense, no report went “to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department” (OIG, p. 40).  I hope your computer forensic experts can trace how many times Clinton’s unsecured email system was hacked and by whom.

On May 23, 2016, Julian Hattem of The Hill wrote that Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka Guccifer,” who had “access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account, first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office.”  Lazar has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials and plans to plead guilty. Lazar, a Romanian, claims he broke into Clinton’s unsecured personal email server. Why hasn’t Clinton been indicted for any of the counts cited in this letter?

State intimidated employees from reporting Clinton’s violations of law and State rules.  The Director of Clinton’s staff group stated their mission “is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”  (OIG, p. 40)

Secretary Clinton has said that others did what she did.  The OIG report makes it clear no other Secretary of State used their own server or transmitted or stored classified information in an unclassified environment.  Departmental regulations stated a stand-alone information network, such as a local network or server “were not to be used to carry out Department business or to transmit sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information.” (5 FAM 874.2 of May 4, 2004)

Only two others used non-Departmental email systems (not servers) on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations:  Colin Powell and Scott Gration. Gration, an ambassador to Kenya, resigned when the Department was considering disciplinary proceedings against him for using of unclassified email systems. (OIG, p. 41)

A violation of a law is still a violation and what others may have done is not an acceptable legal defense.  Being caught driving at 80 miles an hour in a 55 miles an hour zone is not excusable by saying others were driving at 80 miles an hour also.

It was considered illegal for me to take an unapproved computer, cell phone or thumb drive into State and an embassy, even though I had a top secret clearance.  Sensitive information by its nature is classified, even if I or someone else does not write the words “confidential, secret, top secret” and similar designations on a document with classified information.  Anyone removing those designations on a document does not declassify the information.  The intent is immaterial, the act of mishandling documents is a violation of laws.

Laws Violated

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Esq. of Giuliani Partners LLC summarized the following laws violated, according to Sean Hannity on November 13, 2015:

  • 18USC§201   Bribery
  • 18USC§208   Acts Affecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)
  • 18USC§371   Conspiracy
  • 18USC§1001  False Statements
  • 18USC§1341  Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
  • 18USC§1343  Fraud By Wire
  • 18USC§1349  Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)
  • 18USC§1505  Obstruction Of Justice
  • 18USC§1519  Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation
  • 18USC§1621  Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)
  • 18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information
  • 18USC§1924  Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
  • 18USC§2071  Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records
  • 18USC§7201  Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
  • 18USC§7212  Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)
  • 18USC1001 Making false statements

The Espionage Act specifies a ten-year jail term for grossly negligent loss or destruction of information relating to national defense, especially in impeding an investigation.  The Clintons’ illegal acts and the lack of prosecution encourage government employees to take bribes, disregard secrecy laws and endanger the security of the U.S. and individual citizens.

Clinton, as Secretary of State, violated The Federal Records Act of 1950. The law requires that “The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”  (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Section 3101).

Secretary Clinton did not preserve records as required under the law and State rules. There are criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal records (18 U.S.C. 2071 and 36 CFR 1228.102) and the unlawful disclosure of national security information (18 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798). The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in a December 2004 bulletin stated when officials intermingle their personal and official files they all should be available for review. But Secretary Clinton claimed she deleted roughly 30,000 of her personal files, which she did not submit for review. Each record deletion qualifies as a criminal act.

In 2009 the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) added, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” (OIG p. 5) None of Hillary’s records were preserved in State’s record keeping system until two years after she left State and was compelled to surrender copies, but she surrendered only paper copies of only records she deemed official business.

The Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH) “specifies that departing officials who wish to remove any documents (emphasis added) must prepare an inventory of these personal papers and any non-record materials for review by Department officials.” (OIG p. 17) No inventory was prepared, apparently.

Over ten thousand individual legal criminal counts appear applicable, so the grand jury’s review would take a long time.  This relates not only to multiple violations for the handling of each of over 2,100 classified emails but also for the counts of bribery, racketeering, perjury, lying to law enforcement officials, violations of the Federal Records Act, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.  The Freedom of Information Act was clearly violated.  Most people and journalists forget that Bill Clinton already has been convicted of perjury and had his law license revoked, and participated with Hillary Clinton in multiple illegal events.

Proof of intent to violate the laws is not a requirement for prosecution.  Claiming ignorance of laws is also not an acceptable defense. The violations should be prima facie evidence sufficient to obtain indictments.

Journalists and even most politicians seem too stupid and lazy to look at the wording of applicable laws since they don’t cite or quote the laws.  U.S. Code Title 18 defines (a) Classified information “any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security and any restricted data…” and (b) National security “means the national defense and foreign relations of the United States” (emphasis added).

The Espionage Act 18 U.S. Code section 793, for example, is very clear as it applies to Hillary Clinton:

“(c) Whoever…receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing,. Or note of anything connected with the national defense…;

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing…or note relating to the national defense…willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated…to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; (emphasis added)

(f) Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, …note, or information relating to the national defense:

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed (emphasis added); or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction or destruction to his superior officer – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (emphasis added).

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.”

It is clear at least 2,100 classified documents illegally in her possession for over two years, and the balance of unclassified emails was not produced as required by the Freedom of Information Act.  Clinton said she turned over her documents on a thumb drive to her lawyers.  Her lawyers were not authorized to receive the documents.  Clinton also destroyed half of the documents in her possession, roughly 30,000 that were co-mingled with documents she deemed official.  All of the documents should have been turned over to State.  She claimed the classified documents were not marked classified, but it is clear they were “abstracted” within the meaning of the Espionage Act.


It is essential to subpoena internal records of U.S. and foreign corporations on why they agreed to give large speaking fees totaling about $115 million to the Clintons and “donations” to the Clinton Foundation and affiliates.  Corporations document who approved these gifts and why.

It appears many of Bill and Hillary’s actions violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. (“FCPA”).  This involves

“authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act… to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.” “With the enactment of certain amendments in 1998, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA now also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States.” (DOJ Overview of the FCPA)

In addition, bribery of any sort is a crime:

“Section 201 of Title 18 is entitled “Bribery of public officials and witnesses.” The statute comprises two distinct offenses, however, and in common parlance only the first of these is true “bribery.” The first offense, codified in section 201(b), prohibits the giving or accepting of anything of value to or by a public official, if the thing is given “with intent to influence” an official act, or if it is received by the official “in return for being influenced.” The second offense, codified in section 201(c), concerns what are commonly known as “gratuities,” although that word does not appear anywhere in the statute. Section 201(c) prohibits that same public official from accepting the same thing of value, if he does so “for or because of” any official act, and prohibits anyone from giving any such thing to him for such a reason.”  (U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, Criminal Resource Manual 2000-2500)

The gratuities are large speaking fees given Bill and Hillary Clinton and payments to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative and other affiliates by foreign governments, foreign individuals, multi-national organizations and banks, public charities and public universities, in return for access and favors.

The criminal penalties differ between a bribe and a gratuity:

“A § 201(b) “bribe” conviction is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while a § 201(c) “gratuity” conviction permits only a maximum 2-year sentence. Also, with a “bribe” the payment may go to anyone or anything and may include campaign contributions, while with a “gratuity” the payment must inure to the personal benefit of the public official and cannot include campaign contributions.” (Ibid)

The Clinton Foundation website presents one page of financial statements, but it does not disclose who did the audit or presentation details required for audits by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for non-profits.  I am familiar with these requirements because I was the V.P. for finance of the 501(c)(3) Student Conservation Association.

According to an analysis on 27 April 2015 by Sean Davis of the Federalist Society, based on IRS form 990 filings “Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.” “The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.”

The book Clinton Cash provides more comprehensive documentation of bribes accepted by and given by the Clintons.  However, the following is one matter in which I have some expertise.

Bribery to give the Russians 20% of U.S. uranium.

One of the most blatant incidents of bribery to the Clintons is the sale of about 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russians through Uranium One.  See Schweizer, Clinton Cash, p. 41. He provides excellent details in his book, of the sordid sell-out of U.S. uranium. The Russians’ speaking fee of $500,000 to Bill Clinton and millions of dollars of contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Canadian affiliate are beyond all reason and precedent.  Clearly the Russian, Kazakhstan and U.S. governments, Frank Giustra and the Clintons conspired through bribery illegally to turn over the Wyoming property and other uranium properties ultimately to the Russians and to export uranium ore (carnotite) illegally out of the U.S.

“Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million” (Schweizer, p. 31).  Also, “Giustra announced a multiyear commitment to donate $100 million, and half of his future profits, to the Clinton Foundation…” (ibid, p. 34).  “The collective commitments and donations from investors who profited from the deal would ultimately exceed $145 million.” (ibid, p. 35)

Years ago I staked some claims on the 293,000 acres of the Uranium One Wyoming property.  My work in Wyoming as a geologist with others led to the conviction and imprisonment of at least two Atomic Energy Commission employees. They falsified data to be able to buy nearby properties at a deeply discounted price.

I dealt with Russia and Russian companies for many years and complained to State about money laundering through Cyprus to no avail.  I was very familiar with the wide-spread corruption in the Kazakh tyranny while I was with Mobil Oil.

Judicial Watch filed on October 21, 2015, a FOIA lawsuit seeking information on the Uranium One deal “seeking communications between the U.S. Department of the Treasury” and Hillary Clinton.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:15-cv-01776).  It appears the Committee on Foreign Investments (CFIUS) was not informed of the fees and donations the Clintons and their foundations received, and approved the deal in 52 days, instead of the required 72-day review and approval period.  I also filed a FOIA request for information relating to this uranium deal with CFIUS.

State conflict of interest rules and security laws.

As a State employee, I would have been punished if I even accepted a lunch from someone with a financial interest in what I was doing.  The punishment would have been severe if I even wrote by hand on a pad even a paragraph from a classified document because the impression of the paragraph was not properly secured in a safe or destroyed. Indeed, the writing on the paper would not have needed to have any words such as confidential, secret, or top secret.

The word “classified” alone on a document has no meaning, contrary to Hillary Clinton’s statements that none of the documents used the word “classified.”  The words “confidential, secret and top secret” are used to indicate the classification of a document.   If someone on Hillary Clinton’s staff wanted to copy parts of a secure document, it would have been easy to type or scan excerpts and illegally distribute them unsecured without the appropriate secrecy designation.  Such copying would not have changed the secrecy rating, but would have been illegal.

The State Department lies about unsecured emails

When State officials lied to Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras about not having copies of emails from Hillary Clinton and her aides, it was perjury and lying to public officials.  The emails that have finally been made public show that many State employees received emails from Hillary Clinton, including her staff using the address “” as well as other addresses.  State apparently made no effort to have employees search for any emails sent from

Apparent bribery through the Clinton Foundation et al.,

Judicial Watch reported one of their: “…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.”

Thank you for considering my comments.


Thomas Lambert Cranmer

Article here



America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up here


Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system. June 8, 2016

Editors note:
From our friends at Breitbart.

Next victims.

Criminal Investigations involving dead victims are usually…


Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.

The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”

“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.

The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”

The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.

Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;

Naming the defense attaché in Malta

On October 16, 2011, recent U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec sent an email to Cheryl Mills with the subject line “TIME SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Malta Trip Backgrounder for the Secretary – Confidential.”

Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”

In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.

Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at with the note “Fyi background.”

Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”

When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.

Naming the guest in her office 

On December 15, 2011, Clinton’s office manager Claire Coleman sent out Clinton’s daily schedule to Clinton’s private email account and to Abedin and others.

The schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.

“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.

Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.

Petraeus’ chief of staff

On March 14, 2012, a redacted name sent Cheryl Mills an email with the subject line “URGENT — From Dave Petraeus’s Chief of Staff…”

The sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.

“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.

“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

On September 15, 2012, a B3 redacted name sent an email to Jake Sullivan numerous redacted names with a redacted subject line, most of text redacted, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for HPSCI [The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence].”

The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”

“Iran Insights”

On September 2, 2009, Jackie Newmyer of Long Term Strategy Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts sent an email directly to Clinton’s private account with the subject line “Iran Insights From [Redacted]” that included the B3 redaction code:

Secretary Clinton,

Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.

The email included sensitive information including the following:

If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.

Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.

Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.

Jackie replied:

I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.

Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.

Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’

On November 11, 2011, Clinton’s special assistant Lona J. Valmoro sent an email directly to Clinton’s private email address with the subject line “Pre-Brief.”

Valmoro wrote:

“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.

The manifest for the meeting will be:

Kurt Campbell

Jake Sullivan

Evan Mederios, NSS

Admiral Willard

Kin Moy

Toria Nuland

[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”

That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.

‘See Traffic’

On March 14, 2012, Mills sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Algeria Henry Ensher with the subject line “Connecting.”

“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”

Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”

Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.

After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”

The departing diplomat

On December 12, 2011, Mills sent an email to Clinton’s private email account with the subject line “FW: Thank you for your time today.”

“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.

The Taliban

On March 25, 2012, Jake Sullivan forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a chain involving a meeting involving Pakistan and the Taliban that had a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction in it. The subject line was “Fw: MG-Z in Dushanbe.”

Hill testimony

On January 23, 2013, Mills forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a transcript of Clinton’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the subject line “Fw: Testimony as Prepared for Delivery to SFRC & HFAC.”

The chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”

The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.


On July 25, 2010, Jake Sullivan forwarded Clinton a long email chain with the subject line “Fw: Digest from NyTimes and Guardian [Full E-Mail List].”

The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

See article here


13 hrs.






America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up here