Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government

/0 Comments/in , /by

If the news reports are correct, the latest “gun control” proposal being put forward by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a “measure that would block people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no–fly list from buying firearms,” according to ABC News.

There is one major problem with that proposal: It is potentially unconstitutional since it would take away a constitutional right—your Second Amendment right to bear arms—at the discretion of a government official in a secret, nontransparent process that has no adequate due process protections.

Let’s be clear—we don’t want terrorists buying guns in this country. Nor do we think that they have a Second Amendment right to do so. But this blunt instrument is not the right solution.

The Terrorism Screening Database is the official name for the “Terrorist Watchlist” maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. This database is the U.S.’s central repository of foreign and domestic known and suspected terrorists. How individuals get onto this list is classified, as is the process for individuals getting from that list onto the no-fly list maintained by TSA.

We don’t know what evidence is required by the government or what the standards are for the government having a “reasonable suspicion” that would place any American citizen on the no-fly list. And more than one court has held that the procedures for an American who may have mistakenly gotten onto the list to get off are inadequate. The ACLU complains that the government often fails to “provide meaningful notice“ and to explain why an individual is listed

We certainly know that the government makes mistakes. Rahinah Ibraham was a scholar and doctoral candidate at Stanford University with a valid student visa who ended up on the list through a clerical error by an FBI agent. As an alien, she would not be entitled to purchase a gun, but the mistake that landed her on the list and the ten years of litigation she went through to get off of the list shows the problem with the lack of transparency and due process involved in the maintenance of the no-fly list.

Another well-known case is that of Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a regular on Fox New (and a former Heritage intern). He also was put on the no-fly list with no notice to him; the first he knew about it is when he showed up at the airport for a trip to Minneapolis.

Or Abe Mashal, a 34-year-old Marine veteran who also got put on the no-fly list and was part of a lawsuit against the government by the ACLU, in which a federal judge said that the current redress system for getting off of the secret list was “wholly ineffective” and fell far short of the due process required by the Constitution.

No one questions that we need a no-fly list to prevent suspected terrorists from being able to take over airplanes and repeat the type of horrendous attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

But there are literally tens of thousands of individuals on that list today and the “reasonable suspicion” standard for getting on that list is not a very stringent legal test; keep in mind that apparently in many of these cases there is not enough evidence to actually arrest the individual and prosecute him for supposed terrorist activities. And while one might assume that it is suspicion of terrorist activity that will get you on the list, some reports indicate that other factors such as just traveling to certain countries or having a similar name to someone on the list can get you on the no-fly list.

If a member of Congress proposed taking away your right to criticize the federal government under the First Amendment or your right to vote in the upcoming election because you are on the government’s secret no-fly list, people would be shocked at the very idea of taking away such fundamental rights based on mere suspicion; without requiring the government to prove its case against you in a court of law; and without any of the due process rights we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as citizens of the United States.

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

If Congress truly wants to bolster our counter-terrorism efforts, they should concentrate on strengthening the investigative tools that can be used by law enforcement, as well as increasing the prosecutorial resources and war-fighting ability needed to stop the murderous acts of jihad being perpetrated against Americans.

That means focusing on the terrorists themselves, and not on measures that take away the constitutional rights of Americans at the discretion of government bureaucrats. (For more from the author of “Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NATO Sends Clear Message to Putin

/1 Comment/in , /by

Thousands of American troops have been taking part in a large-scale military exercise on NATO’s front-line state of Poland, which borders Vladimir Putin’s Russia, its close ally Belarus, and war-torn Ukraine. The message is unmistakable—letting Moscow know that the U.S. and its allies take its treaty obligation to defend Eastern Europe seriously.

The 10-day Polish led exercise, called Anakonda, ended June 16. It consisted of over 31,000 troops from 24 countries, including 14,000 American troops.

This drill began in 2006 as a lone Polish effort, and has grown to be one of the largest military exercises to occur in Poland in 25 years.

According to the U.S. Army, “This exercise further supports assurance and deterrence measures by demonstrating allied defense capabilities to deploy, mass and sustain combat power.”

That is code for assuring America’s allies that the U.S. will defend them should the Russians decide to invade.

The Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine has left many of the eastern NATO countries nervous and anxious for guarantees of NATO protection. History buttresses their anxiety.

Russia still views Eastern Europe as its backyard—as it did during Imperial times. It is estimated that, at its height, it was expanding at the rate of almost 90 square miles a day. By 1896 Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was crowned as “[Emperor] of All the Russians, Czar of Moscow”, as well as ruler of Poland, Kiev, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia, Bulgaria, and many more.

To this day Russia does not view these as sovereign countries, but as former vestiges of Russian Imperialism that belong under the influence of Moscow.

Many of these nations are members of NATO, now firmly part of the West. That is why these nations, now our treaty allies, fear the threat of invasion. Much of their history is blemished by Russian subjugation.

The Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) are small, geographically isolated from the rest of NATO, and have a significant ethnic Russian minority population. They are also facing a non-traditional threat to their security—active measures, or what is now commonly called “hybrid warfare.”

Active measures are a type of information warfare. It combines disinformation, propaganda, and manipulation of public opinion in order to influence the actions of a foreign country or people. These were used extensively by the Soviets in an effort to create instability in areas of interest.

The Baltic countries find themselves fighting Russian active measures on multiple fronts: their language and politics are being subverted. Russian media outlets are buying more space in order to push out native speaking media with a pro-Russian message. In the Baltics there is no need to translate or tailor their propaganda, because of the Russian speaking population. Because of this ethnic Russians and other Russian speakers are motivated to force their countries closer to Moscow.

There is also corruption problem. According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, Latvia scores a 55 in the category freedom from corruption. The world average is 42.6, and Latvia has shown increases in this measure since 2013. However, there is still an element of the Russian elite and professional criminals bringing money into Latvia. This brings in both unwanted attention and influence pulling Latvia ever closer to Moscow. Lastly, there is the tangible threat of Russian hard power. The Russian military has been moving to assert power over the Baltic Sea and airspace over Estonia increasingly in the past few years.

Understanding this threat, is NATO prepared to defend its front-line Eastern Allies?

Putin revived a Soviet era strategy called active measures, or “hybrid warfare”, and has successfully integrated this strategy to fit his imperialist agenda. His implementation is leading to a slow, steady corrupting influence into the Baltics. With Ukraine and Crimea, it has gone further and outright violence ensued. An expansionist policy may be the norm for Vladimir Putin, but NATO has an obligation to curb such appetites against its members.

That is why Anakonda 2016 matters. This exercise has already drawn criticism from the Russian government about escalating tensions between Moscow and NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called this exercise unjustified, as well as commenting that there is no Russian threat to any NATO member. But he did make sure to add that, “Russia’s sovereign right to ensure its security will come into force, [making use] of methods adequate to [respond to] today’s challenges.”

In light of this, it is important for our allies to feel that they are not being forgotten. The most important facet of NATO deterrence is the credible threat that aggression will be met with a resounding military response. Without showing our allies that they can believe in the U.S. commitment to their security, we might as well be paving the way for a Russian invasion. (For more from the author of “NATO Sends Clear Message to Putin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Extremely Rare Events Keep Happening All the Time

/0 Comments/in , /by

Something weird seems to be happening in the heavens. This week marks a coincidence of the full moon and the summer solstice. Some astronomers are calling this combination of maximum moonlight and the Northern Hemisphere’s longest day a rare event.

It comes close on the heels of last month’s rare passage of Mercury in front of the sun, September’s rare pairing of a lunar eclipse with a so-called supermoon, the rare 2014 “tetrad” of lunar eclipses, the rare 2012 transit of Venus, and a plethora of once-in-a-lifetime planetary alignments, one earlier this year, one in 2014 and one in the summer of 2013. Next year there will be a rare total eclipse of the sun.

If these sorts of events are so rare, why do they happen so often?

Ask a statistician. David Hand, a professor at Imperial College London makes sense of world’s abundance of rare events in his 2014 book, “The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles and Rare Events Happen Every Day” . . .

The fact that astronomers could present either the event or its absence as noteworthy makes some sense in light of what Hand calls “the close-enough effect.” This effect comes into play in news stories about people who win the lottery more than once, he said. Often one “win” is really a more commonplace second and third prize. The more you relax the definition of winning, the greater the odds it will happen twice. (Read more from “Why Extremely Rare Events Keep Happening All the Time” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Large-Scale Motion Detected Near San Andreas Fault System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Analysis of GPS data has revealed new areas of motion around the San Andreas Fault System.

Using data collected by the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory’s GPS array, researchers identified 125-mile-wide “lobes” of uplift and subsidence. Over the last several years, the lobes, which straddle the fault line, have hosted a few millimeters of annual movement . . .

Researchers used advanced statistical modeling to identify the movement among the inevitable statistical noise that comes with monitoring minute movements in the Earth’s crust.

“While the San Andreas GPS data has been publicly available for more than a decade, the vertical component of the measurements had largely been ignored in tectonic investigations because of difficulties in interpreting the noisy data,” lead author Samuel Howell, a researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, explained in a news release. “Using this technique, we were able to break down the noisy signals to isolate a simple vertical motion pattern that curiously straddled the San Andreas fault.” (Read more from “Large-Scale Motion Detected Near San Andreas Fault System” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Secret Service Agent Book: Raging Hillary Clinton Threw Bible at Agent’s Colleague

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton once threw a Bible at the back of a Secret Service agent’s head, part of a pattern of unhinged rage that the now-presumptive Democratic nominee exhibited, as exposed for the first time in former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne’s grueling insider account of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Byrne’s forthcoming book Crisis of Character—in which he details how the Clintons operated during his time in the U.S. Secret Service, where he protected the first couple for eight years in the White House in the 1990s. During three of those years, he was posted right outside the Oval Office. The book comes out next week.

“The First Lady had a different sort of liveliness,” Byrne writes in an excerpt obtained exclusively by Breitbart News. “She once threw a Bible at an agent on her detail, hitting him in the back of the head. He bluntly let her know it wasn’t acceptable. He told me that story himself.”

Byrne goes on to report that for Secret Service agents, being assigned to Hillary Clinton’s detail “was a form of punishment handed down by passive-aggressive middle management.” (Read more from “Secret Service Agent Book: Raging Hillary Clinton Threw Bible at Agent’s Colleague” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration on Monday released redacted transcripts of Omar Mateen’s 911 calls — sanitizing any and all references to ISIS made by the self-proclaimed radical Islamist terrorist.

Even though authorities have made no secret that Mateen invoked ISIS as his motive for slaughtering 49 people inside a gay nightclub in Orlando last week, 911 transcripts released by the FBI awkwardly worked around mentioning the terror group.

“In the name of God the merciful, the beneficial (in Arabic),” Mateen said during his call at about 2:35 a.m. on June 12.

“Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of (Arabic). I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.” (Read more from “Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George W. Bush Re-Enters Political Arena to Help Old Friend in Tough Fight

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In a year where outsider candidates are on the rise, members of the Washington establishment are facing new struggles to maintain their position of power.

Even longtime politicians have found themselves vulnerable and are facing significant challenges from up-and-coming new leaders.

One such example is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has served for nearly three decades and is currently in a pitched battle against Dr. Kelly Ward for his seate.

As it currently stands, the polls are split, with Gravis Marketing showing a landslide victory for Ward by a 9-point spread and PPP showing the opposite, a 13-point spread in favor of McCain.

Former President George W. Bush has decided to put down the paint brush and re-enter the political arena to support some of his old allies.

So far, Bush has headlined fundraisers for two Republican senators with plans to assist three others in the near future, and McCain has made the list.

According to new reports, Bush will begin fundraising for McCain in an attempt to run damage control for the beleaguered Arizona senator — caused in part by the Trump insurgency.

Bush and McCain will both be skipping this summer’s GOP convention, possibly as a protest of Trump’s presumptive nomination, and instead focus on winning congressional battles.

Whether a Bush endorsement will manage to secure McCain his re-election — or even prove helpful for the incumbent — has yet to be seen.

There also exists the possibility that a Bush endorsement could further fracture the party and amplify resentment among those who desire change in Washington.

Commenting on the infighting between members of the GOP, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan encouraged Republicans to vote their conscience.

“I get that this is a very strange situation. He’s a very unique nominee,” said Ryan of Trump in a yet-to-be-aired interview with NBC. “But I feel as a responsibility institutionally as the speaker of the House that I should not be leading some chasm in the middle of our party. Because you know what I know that’ll do? That’ll definitely knock us out of the White House.” (For more from the author of “George W. Bush Re-Enters Political Arena to Help Old Friend in Tough Fight” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Get out of the Bunker, Conservatives! 8 Ways to Go on Offense Post-Orlando

/0 Comments/in , /by

How is it that Democrats have succeeded, following a series of terror attacks here and in Europe, in focusing the discussion on the inanimate objects used by the Islamic terrorists instead of the Islamic terrorists themselves? How could they get away with such absurdity, especially given the fact that Europe has an even worse terrorist problem, despite having even stricter gun laws than what Democrats are promoting?

The answer, of course, is the same as with every policy and media narrative: Republicans not only let them get away with it, they help validate, legitimize, and consummate their narratives and premises. This week Republicans in the Senate plan to focus solely on gun policy, thereby solidifying the veracity of the Democratic narrative that the problem and solution of terrorism revolves around gun policy. Meanwhile, Republicans are squandering the opportunity to go on offense and cut to the source of our security problems. They have agreed to conduct votes today on two Democratic gun control measures and will respond with two gun amendments of their own. With the federal government preventing law enforcement from identifying Islamic terrorists in our communities, are Republicans not capable of ensuring that the legislative agenda reflects a truthful narrative?

Here are the top eight initiatives Republicans can push that either speak directly to the specific terror attacks that have occurred in recent years or address the long-term systemic security concerns:

1. Defund CVE: The responsibility for not catching the Orlando terrorist, as well as several of the most recent high profile Islamic terrorists, is rooted in the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Agenda. Just before the terror attack, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), which is run by Muslim Brotherhood officials, posted a CVE memo directing agents to overlook any terrorist ties to Islam. It went so far as to direct law enforcement to “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.” Preventing Islamic terror attacks begins with identifying the enemy. That cannot be done as long as there is a fifth column within our own government committed to erasing all connections to the trail of terror. It is this agenda that is ensuring that local law enforcement is not only kept in the dark concerning homegrown Islamic terror threats, they are strong-armed into ignoring those threats with their own resources.

2. Ban the Muslim Brotherhood: Following up on number one, banning the Muslim Brotherhood would change the entire discussion and redirect the national focus from the weapons to the actual terrorists. By designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, Congress would be able to audit every member of these counterterrorism councils at DHS, DOJ, and State and root out anyone with ties to their umbrella organizations. In addition to parsing out the firefighters from the arsonists within our government, banishing the Muslim Brotherhood would help stem the tide of Islamic violent extremism in our communities. ISIS has only been around for three years, yet thousands of Muslims have been radicalized in our communities for several decades. The Muslim Brotherhood is the source for much of that radicalization. They control the mosques, write the textbooks for Muslim schools, and serve as chaplains in the prisons. A complete ban of this group would go a long way towards empowering those Muslims who want to assimilate without fear of intimidation.

3. Pause Refugee Resettlement: With Obama stepping on the gas pedal of refugee resettlement, Republicans could easily change the narrative from gun control to protecting our sovereignty and security. Americans do not want more Islamic refugees from the most volatile parts of the world when there is no way to engage in short-term or long-term vetting of these families. In addition, with record numbers of migrants from the Middle East, the only way to properly assimilate those already here into patriotic assimilation is to pause, or at least reduce, immigration from those countries for at least several years.

4. Allow States to Block Refugees: As we’ve noted, Obama has not followed the legal requirement to consult with states before resettling refugees within their respective jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the broken court system has allowed Obama to get away with this violation of federal law. Imagine if Republicans would submit an amendment empowering states to veto refugee resettlement within their borders? A number of Democrats would be placed on defense, as the people always like to decide questions that pertain to the character of their localities on a local level.

5. Strip ISIS Fighters of Citizenship: Isn’t it amazing how Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), decry due process for Americans when it comes to gun rights, yet every one of them have opposed Ted Cruz’s effort to strip citizenship from ISIS fighters AFTER being convicted through full due process? There are roughly 250 known Americans who have attempted to join up with foreign terror groups. The fact that they have not been tried for treason is unconscionable. Why Mitch McConnell won’t bring Cruz’s bill (S. 247) to the floor is beyond comprehension.

6. Build the Border Fence: The southern border is not only open to Central Americans seeking jobs and welfare, it is potentially open to those fleeing the Middle East and obtaining asylum. As I’ve noted before, the asylum loophole is perhaps a bigger problem than our refugee policy. There are signs of Middle Easterners making the trip to South America for the purpose of declaring asylum at our southern border. Just last week, Judicial Watch reported that one such asylum-seeker was caught at the border carrying documents detailing the region’s gas pipelines. Isn’t it time we finally complete the 800-mile double-layered fence? Democrats would be hard pressed to oppose such an amendment at a time like this.

7. Enact Visa-Tracking: Even Democrats say they support the implementation of an Exit-Entry visa tracking system at our ports, yet they have dragged their feet on implementation since 1996. In 2015 alone, 527,000 foreign nationals overstayed their visas. A number of them are from Middle Eastern countries. We know this because in 2014, ABC News reported that DHS lost track of 58,000 foreign students (just one of the many visa categories) who have overstayed their visas, of which 6,000 presented a “heightened concern.” America admits a tremendous amount of foreign students from the Middle East. This has remained one of the most glaring holes in our security apparatus. Why won’t Republicans make Democrats go back on their word and oppose a consensus amendment to implement the first half of a visa tracking system by October?

8. Concealed Carry: Finally, if Republicans are committed to playing follow-the-leader with Democrats and focusing on guns, why not go on offense and propose concealed carry reciprocity? As witnessed by surging gun sales, Americans are embracing guns now more than ever. We need to show the American people that we are not going to disarm them in the face of global jihad. We are going to protect and promote their right to defend themselves by passing legislation that will allow them to carry their legally-owned firearms not just in their states of residence, but in whatever state or territory they may travel to. And while they are debating gun policy, what better way to embarrass Democrats than by blocking Obama’s continuous release of gun felons from prison?

It is unfathomable for Republicans to allow Democrats to bring in record numbers of dangerous terrorists, ignore their activity domestically, allow their leaders to craft our counter-terrorism policies… and then focus on the weapons used by those individuals? They should be conducting vote after vote on this week’s spending bill highlighting the pro-terrorist agenda of this administration.

For goodness sakes, this is the Justice Department spending bill we are dealing with this week. Republicans should have one hundred amendments prepared dealing with the malfeasances of Obama’s [In]Justice Department, over and beyond terrorism related amendments. They should be shutting down Obama’s war on cops, his assault on North Carolina, the rationally motivated law suits, and much more. But all they want to focus on is playing defense on gun control?

Republicans will also have an epic opportunity to provide Americans with a bold contrast during this week’s House markup of the annual funding bill for Homeland Security. Republicans can shut down Obama’s amnesty agenda, implement requisite security reforms, and ban CVE and the Muslim Brotherhood from the department. But will they?

Bunkers are the final redoubt of the defeated. They stink like fear, death, and cowardice. Real men leave the relative security of fortified walls, march through the gates and engage the enemy on the plains in decisive battle. Unfortunately, the Senate GOP is led by cowards. (For more from the author of “Get out of the Bunker, Conservatives! 8 Ways to Go on Offense Post-Orlando” please click HERE)

Listen to a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Support of Radical Islam and the Rise of ISIS

/0 Comments/in , /by

The foreign policy for dealing with radical Islam pursued by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can best be described as the intersection of ideology and incompetence.

Obama’s “amore” for radical Islam began in 2009, soon after his inauguration, when he ordered his administration not to support the Iranian Green Revolution after thousands of brave Iranian democracy protesters rose up against the brutal Khamenei regime.

According to the Wall Street Journal: “Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran-and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement,” one that would prove to be a national security disaster for the US. As it turned out, Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement only strengthen the hard-liners; since completion of the agreement, Tehran has stepped up arrests of political opponents.

In 2010, Obama ordered his advisors to produce a secret report, later known as Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-11), which concluded that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting stable but authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to one backing, what Obama Administration officials considered groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish AK Party, now led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as a so-called “moderate” alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement, whose fundamental goal remains Islam’s global domination and the implementation of Sharia. Although the Muslim Brotherhood uses political instruments more than violence, its radical goals are no different from al-Qaeda and ISIS.

It has long been suspected that Obama, not only supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but that his administration is infiltrated by the Brotherhood, including Hillary Clinton’s long-serving assistant, Huma Abedin, who has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Islamist organization for decades.

Therein rests the motivation for the policies formulated and actions taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all of which led to the growth of radical Islam in North Africa and the Middle East.

The Tunisian revolution in December 2010 and the rise of the Islamist Ennahda Movement in that country was quickly followed by the Cairo protests that began on January 25, 2011 under the direction of Egypt’s largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. The protests and associated violence led to the resignation on February 11, 2011 of long-time US ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. There are now a number of reports indicating the US cooperated with and attempted to sustain the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, including an alleged Brotherhood agent inside the US Embassy in Cairo.

Violent regime change in support of radical Islam began in earnest on February 15, 2011, when a rebellion broke out in Benghazi, Libya against the authoritarian regime of Muammar Qaddafi. Toppling Qaddafi had long been a goal of Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda and the local Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a key player in the anti-Qaddafi rebellion.

Within a few weeks of the outbreak of fighting in eastern Libya, Obama has signed a secret order authorizing a covert CIA operation to support Islamist rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Both inside and outside the Obama administration, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Qaddafi. Seven months and thousands of more unnecessary deaths later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Islamist rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead. Many will recall Hillary Clinton, on October 20, 2011, cackling to a TV news reporter over the death of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Since then, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting, no uniting leader and has provided a haven for ISIS and other Islamic terrorists; culminating in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans.

In released, but redacted emails, Hillary Clinton expressed interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors. In an April 8, 2011 email to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, Clinton wrote: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” It now appears probable that, in 2011, at Clinton’s urging, Obama secretly approved the arming of rebels in Libya and, later Syria by the same method, via a third party, likely Qatar, who had brokered the sale of more than $100 million in crude oil from rebel-held areas.

The rise of ISIS can be directly linked to the power vacuum left after the premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in December 2011 and fueled by American abdication of a foreign policy in Syria, where we sub-contracted our interests to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Not surprisingly, those countries pursued their own interests; the Saudis supporting radical Islamic Salafists, while the Turks and Qataris backed the Muslim Brotherhood.

By the summer of 2012, Turkey, together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, had constructed a fully operational secret command and control center to facilitate communications and the movement of weapons to the Syrian rebel groups. The center in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 100 km (60 miles) from the Syrian border, was set up after Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud visited Turkey and requested it. Adana is home to Incirlik, a large Turkish/U.S. air force base which Washington has used in the past for reconnaissance and military logistics operations. Adana is in close proximity to the Turkish port of Iskenderun, a major transit point for arms destined for the Syrian rebels.

It is important to note that Obama’s friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a Sunni Islamist, a vehement opponent of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and a fervent supporter of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.

Assad has placed emphasis on controlling northwest Syria, which safeguards his Shia-Alawite home region and his base of support, as well as securing the strategically critical coastal area containing the Latakia airbase used by Russian forces and the important port of Tartus – a situation that has largely left eastern Syria along the Iraq border open for Islamist exploitation.

A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report sent to Hillary Clinton and other administration officials in August 2012 and declassified in May 2015, stated that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (Al- Qaeda in Iraq, which became ISIS) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”

The report goes into detail about how the West was actively helping those opposition groups control the eastern border of Syria near the Iraqi province of Anbar and the strategic city of Mosul, both of which eventually came under control of ISIS.

The stupidity of Obama’s ideological and Muslim Brotherhood-centric policy in dealing with radical Islam is only exceeded by the galactic incompetence in which it was carried out, and has left us living in a more dangerous world. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Support of Radical Islam and the Rise of ISIS” please click HERE)

Listen to a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fears of a Hillary Clinton Presidency Is Driving Gun Sales Through the Roof

/0 Comments/in , /by

At a gun store in small town West Virginia, sales are booming in the wake of the most recent terrorist attack in Orlando.

“As dealers, we were already sitting very heavy on the AR-15s in anticipation of Hillary becoming president, and then the shooting happened and we’ve sold 16 just today. We sold 11 yesterday, we sold 6 the day before,” Tom Millay, president of Valley Guns II told Conservative Review. “We’ve also had a lot of people buying concealed carry weapons, at least a half a dozen in the last few days that are buying their gun for the first time.”

But Millay noted while the shooting has spiked sales over the last several days, what’s really driving the sales consistently is the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

“There’s the anticipation of a ban from Obama or Hillary that’s really moving people to buy the AR-15 style firearms,” he said.

The shop is even having a “Hillary Clinton Hot Buy” sale, encouraging customers to “get them before she does!”

“It was a calm before the storm waiting for Hillary to become president,” Millay told CR. “It’s building up and getting busier every day.”

So Hillary and Obama, a message from all gun shop owners: keep spewing your gun control rhetoric, it’s great for business! (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Is Driving Gun Sales” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.