Biden 16 Cartoon

What if Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if, while she was secretary of state, she ran two secret wars, one in Libya and one in Syria? What if there already were wars in each of those countries, so she used those wars as covers for her own?
What if President Obama gave permission for her to do this? What if the president lacks the legal authority to authorize anyone to fight secret wars? What if she obtained the consent of a dozen members of Congress from both houses and from both political parties? What if those few members of Congress who approved of her wars lacked the legal authority to authorize them?
What if her goal was to overthrow two dictators, one friendly to the U.S. and one not? What if the instruments of her war did not consist of American military troops, but rather State Department intelligence assets and American-made military-grade heavy weapons?

What if Hillary Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?

What if under federal law the secretary of state and the secretary of the Treasury are permitted on their own to issue licenses to American arms dealers to sell arms to the governments of foreign countries? What if Clinton secretly authorized the sale of American-made military-grade weapons to the government of Qatar? What if Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country, the government of which is beholden to and largely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood?
What if the Muslim Brotherhood is a recognized terrorist organization? What if the U.S. has no lawful or military purpose for putting military hardware into the hands of a government that supports or is controlled by a terrorist organization?
What if the real purpose of sending military hardware to Qatar was for it to end up in the hands of rebels in Syria and Libya? What if it got there? What if some of those rebels are known Al Qaeda operatives? What if some of those operatives who received the American military hardware used it to assault Americans and American interests?
What if among those assaulted was the U.S. ambassador to Libya? What if Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated in Benghazi, Libya, by Al Qaeda operatives who were using American-made military-grade hardware that Clinton knowingly sent to them?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the government of Libya? What if Congress never declared war on Libya? What if Col. Qaddafi, the then-dictator of Libya who was reprehensible, was nevertheless an American ally whose fights against known terrorist organizations had garnered him praise from President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the dictator of Syria, President Assad? What if Congress never declared war on Syria? What if the government of Syria, though reprehensible, has been fighting a war against groups and militias, some of whom have been designated as terrorist organizations by the secretary of state? What if that secretary of state was Hillary Clinton?
What if Clinton had a political interest in deposing the governments of Libya and Syria? What if her goal in fighting these secret wars was to claim triumph for herself over Middle Eastern despots? What if it is a federal crime to fight a private war against a foreign government? What if it is a federal crime to provide material assistance to terrorist organizations? What if these are crimes no matter who consents or approves?
What if, when asked about this while testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton professed ignorance? What if it is a federal crime for a witness to lie to or mislead Congress?
What if the outcome of Clinton’s war in Libya has been the destruction of the Gadhafi government and ensuing chaos? What if that chaos has brought terror and death to many thousands of innocents in Libya? What if Clinton has failed to achieve any noticeable result with her secret war in Syria?
What if she managed these wars on an email system that was not secured in a government venue? What if she did that to keep her thoughts and actions secret from the president and from the State Department in case she failed to win the wars? What if she used a BlackBerry she bought at Walmart instead of a secure and encrypted government-issued phone?
What if her management of these wars on the private email system exposed national security secrets to anyone who could hack into her server or her router? What if the server or the router had been kept in the bathroom of an apartment of an employee of a computer company in Denver, Colo., and not under lock and key and armed guard in her home in New York as she has represented?
What if Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?
What if the American people do care about all this? What will they do about it?

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

HAIFA, Israel –  An unsettling surge in terrorism by Iranian proxies has many Israelis convinced the release to Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds is already putting the Jewish state in danger.

In recent days, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza in the south and the Golan Heights to the north, Israeli forces foiled a bomb plot at the tomb of biblical patriarch Joseph, and Gaza-based terrorist groups that also have a presence in the West Bank have openly appealed for aid on Iranian television. Israeli officials fear the terrorist activity is spiking as groups audition for funding from Tehran, which is set to receive the long-frozen funds as part of its deal to allow limited nuclear inspections. They say the international focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions has left its more conventional methods of attacking regional adversaries unaddressed.
"The nuclear context is just one aspect of the negative Iranian activities in the region," Emmanuel Nahshon, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, told FoxNews.com. "We can see the demonstration of this on a daily basis in Syria, in Yemen, and in Iraq. We see it also when we see the [Iranian] support of Hezbollah and other groups who operate against Israel."
Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year.”
- Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business - many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran's top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”
If that remains Iran's intention, terror groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are showing a renewed eagerness to continue as its proxies. Four rockets apparently fired by the PIJ from Syria into northern Israel last week – two into the Golan Heights and two more into the Upper Galilee – were the first such attacks since the start of Syria’s bloody civil war more than four years ago. Israel responded with targeted missile strikes, including one which hit a car killing “five or six PIJ terrorists.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Joseph's Tomb, in the West Bank, was the target of a recently foiled bomb plot. (Reuters)

On Aug. 18, Iranian state TV broadcast images of a new, 2.5-mile tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel. Dug by the Fatah-linked terror group the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and seemingly competing with arch-rivals Hamas for a share of the imminently unfrozen Iranian funds, the terrorists made an unabashed appeal for more cash. In a segment translated by Palestinian Media Watch, the terror group's representatives said, "This is why we are asking [for money]… especially [from] Iran, which is a known long-time supporter of the resistance and the Palestinian cause."

On Tuesday, Israeli officials revealed that a joint Israeli internal security and military operation thwarted a potentially lethal bomb attack planned by the Islamic Jihad on visitors to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, the resting place of the biblical figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The pace of attacks, as well as the diversity of their perpetrators, has prompted speculation that terrorist groups are competing for Iranian funding, and trying to show they are capable of giving Tehran bang for its buck. The terrorist groups however operate on budgets that are tiny given the scale of Iran's financing capability.

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year,” Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert on the region who writes at www.middleastanalyst.com, told FoxNews.com. “If you want to stop Iranian support of Hezbollah you would need to have inspectors on the ground in Syria and Lebanon, the most dangerous of places, checking Hezbollah’s arsenal, bank accounts, bases, and Syrian bases which Hezbollah uses. I don’t see any UN force, or anyone else volunteering to do that.”
Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website: www.paulalster.com.

Anti-abortion groups demand Portrait Gallery remove Planned Parenthood founder bust

WASHINGTON –  Anti-abortion activists held a rally Thursday outside the National Portrait Gallery to demand the Washington museum remove a bust of Margaret Sanger, a controversial eugenicist who founded the organizations that later became Planned Parenthood. 

The modern-day abortion provider has come under scrutiny following the release of undercover videos that allegedly show employees brokering the sale of fetal tissue. Days after widespread protests against the group, E.W. Jackson, a conservative Christian minister and Virginia lawyer, led the rally in Washington urging the removal of the Sanger bust.
“You must remove the bust!” Jackson said at the rally in front of the Smithsonian museum. He later added, “If Margaret Sanger had her way, MLK and Rosa Parks would never have been born.”
The event also was organized by conservative group ForAmerica and a group of black pastors.
Sanger, who died in 1966, founded two companies that eventually led to the creation of Planned Parenthood.
GOP 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has publicly supported the movement to remove Sanger’s bust from the gallery. Cruz along with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, circulated a letter to lawmakers calling the sculpture’s display “an affront broth to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.”
Sanger, born in 1879, spent much of her life working to change federal and state statutes that had criminalized contraceptives. She was at the leading edge of the birth control movement. Her bust is part of the museum’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which honors Americans who fought for the civil rights of groups that were disenfranchised.
But she was controversial because of her work in eugenics – the science of altering human population through controlled breeding and forced sterilization.
The Portrait Gallery, which has displayed the tribute to Sanger since 2010, said it would not take it down. A spokesperson for the gallery told The Associated Press that the museum’s displays include some people with “less than admirable characteristics.”
It also defended its decision to CNSNews.com and said the bust is in keeping with the museum’s goal to “see the past clearly and objectively.”
“Margaret Sanger is included in the museum’s collection, not in tribute to all her beliefs, many of which are now controversial, but because of her leading role in early efforts to distribute information about birth control and medical information to disadvantaged women, as well as her later roles associated with developing modern methods of contraception and in founding Planned Parenthood of America,” the statement read.
“Nonetheless, Sanger’s alliance with aspects of the eugenics movement raises questions about her motivations and intentions. The museum’s intent is not to honor her in an unqualified way, but rather to stimulate our audiences to reflect on the experience of Americans who struggled to improve the civil and social conditions of 20th-century America,” it added.
Earlier this month, demonstrators gathered outside the Margaret Sanger Center in New York, holding signs and demanding Planned Parenthood be defunded. The rally was part of a nationwide day of protest.

Emails show top Clinton aide discussed work for foundation, consulting firm while at State Dept.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised questions Thursday about how a top Hillary Clinton aide's fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and job at a corporate advisory firm intersected with her work at the State Department.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned whether Huma Abedin's status as a Special Government Employee (SGE), which enabled her to hold four positions simultaneously, created conflicts of interest.
"How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?" Grassley asked in a letter to Abedin and Secretary of State John Kerry. "How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?"
Grassley's letter was prompted by emails from Abedin's official State Department account obtained by Fox News that include messages sent ahead of a December 2012 visit to Dublin and Belfast by Clinton, who was then secretary of state. In those emails and others, Abedin discusses diplomatic matters as well as issues related to her work for both the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm co-founded by a longtime aide to former president Bill Clinton.
In one e-mail, dated Sept. 21, Abedin was among the recipients of a message from Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation's foreign policy director, about fundraising for a charity supporting a museum honoring former President Bill Clinton in Northern Ireland.
The message said that Hillary Clinton had instructed Stella O'Leary, the head of a pro-Clinton PAC to form a 501c3 organization that would be "flexible" enough to raise funds to be used in "whatever manner WJC and HRC wish in Ireland and Northern Ireland and not restricted to support only the current iteration of the Clinton Centre in Enniskillen."
Abedin responded, "HRC said she made no commitments to her."
O'Leary told The Washington Post that she had set up the charity, but it was currently "stagnant", and she could not recall discussing the matter with Hillary Clinton.
In another message, sent Nov. 30, Abedin attempted to arrange a get-together in Dublin for a small group of people on the evening of Dec. 6.
"Maybe we can all gather for drinks/dinner and HRC can come join for as long as she can?" Abedin asked in her e-mail. The dinner was ultimately attended by Clinton campaign donors, Clinton Foundation donors, and Teneo's CEO.
In another case, the Post reported that in July 2012, the assistant to a New York banking executive wrote to Abedin to ask for her input on whether the executive should take a job at Teneo. The paper reported that Abedin agreed to meet with the executive, who later accepted the position.
Grassley wrote that the emails, which were disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United, "raise a number of questions about the intersection of official State Department actions, private Teneo business, and Secretary Clinton’s personal interest in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and related entities."
Abedin's role as Hillary Clinton's main confidante during the Democratic presidential front-runner's time as America's top diplomat has made her a key player in the ongoing investigation into Clinton's personal server and whether classified information was sent, received, or passed through it. Earlier this week, Fox News reported that an April 2011 e-mail from Abedin contained intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which oversees aerial imagery, including satellites. That e-mail was later declassified by the State Department, in possible violation of an executive order signed by President Barack Obama.
Abedin has denied any wrongdoing related to Clinton's server or her status as a Special Government Employee. Earlier this week, Abdein's lawyer responded to another letter from Grassley with a missive of his own claiming the senator had "unfairly tarnished Ms. Abedin’s reputation by making unsubstantiated allegations that appear to flow from misinformation ... provided by an unnamed — and apparently unreliable — source."
Abedin herself issued a more diplomatic denial in a July 2013 letter to Grassley: "I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I was also not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access."
"The bottom line has always been and still is whether the taxpayers are well-served by agency practices and spending," Grassley said in his letter Thursday. "No one will know for sure until the State Department is more transparent about how it operates."

Megyn & Donald Cartoon

Pentagon watchdog probing whether anti-ISIS campaign analysis altered

The Defense Department's inspector general is investigating whether intelligence reports about the progress of the U.S.-led coalition's campaign against ISIS in Iraq have been "skewed" to be more optimistic.

The New York Times first reported that at least one civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) told authorities that officials at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) were improperly reworking intelligence assessments prepared for policymakers, including President Obama.
A senior military official confirmed to Fox News that an IG investigation has been initiated into the allegation.
The Times report did not say when the assessments were allegedly altered, nor did it say who may have been responsible. Officials told the paper the investigation was focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence reports during a review before passing them on.
Under federal law, intelligence officials can bring claims of wrongdoing to the intelligence community's inspector general. U.S. officials told the paper that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were advised of the claims within the past several weeks, as is required if officials find the claims credible. At that point, The Times reports, the Pentagon's inspector general decided to look into the matter.
Government rules state that intelligence assessments "must not be distorted" by agendas or policy views. However, The Times reports that legitimate differences of opinion are both common and encouraged among national security officials.

More on this...

• New concerns ISIS threat at home is stronger than ever

• Were U.S.-trained rebels betrayed by an ally?

Central Command spokesman Col. Patrick S. Ryder said in a statement Wednesday that they welcome the IG's "independent oversight."
"While we cannot comment on ongoing investigations, we can speak to the process and about the valued contributions of the Intelligence Community (IC)," he said, adding that intelligence community members typically are able to comment on draft security assessments. "However," he said, "it is ultimately up to the primary agency or organization whether or not they incorporate any recommended changes or additions. Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers."
The DIA is one of many intelligence agencies that has produced assessments about the progress of the Iraq campaign. According to The Times, analysts from one agency may make suggestions about another agency's draft analyses, but it is up to the authoring agency to decide whether to adopt those suggestions.
The U.S. began launching airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq in August 2014, and did the same in Syria the following month. Last month, however, U.S. intelligence concluded that the terror group was not fundamentally weaker than it was when the aerial campaign began. Officials said that while intervention by the U.S.-led coalition had prevented the collapse of the Iraqi government and resulted in the rollback of some gains made by ISIS in the summer of 2014, the extremist group remained a well-funded army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. The intelligence assessment also found that ISIS had expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.
However, earlier that month, retired Army Gen. John Allen, the White House's top envoy to other nations in the anti-ISIS coalition, told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum  that ISIS had been "checked strategically, operationally, and by and large, tactically," adding, more bluntly, "ISIS is losing."

Trump’s Planned Parenthood hedge brings risks, rewards

TRUMP’S PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEDGE BRINGS RISKS, REWARDS

One front of the ongoing feud between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush has been the question of defunding Planned Parenthood. In the wake of jarring videos of the group’s leaders discussing the value of the bodies of aborted babies, the issue has been intense among Republican voters.

Bush defunded the group in 2001 as governor of Florida and has been increasingly adamant about the need to do so nationally. Trump has said that that Bush is “terrible” about women’s health issues. The New York billionaire quickly backed off his initial support for cutting off all of the more than $500 million the group gets from federal taxpayers each year.

Trump’s position that the group “has to stop with the abortions” but provides other worthwhile services could yield long-term political benefits.

Poll results from Quinnipiac University today say that stout majorities in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania oppose efforts to cut off federal funds. That’s a help if he is facing a likely Democratic nominee who strongly supports and is supported by Planned Parenthood.

But Trump’s stance poses some serious primary problems for the GOP frontrunner. Drill down on the data from Quinnipiac and you see just how much. While 52 percent of Ohio voters overall oppose defunding the group, just 23 percent of Republicans agree. It’s 24 percent in Florida and 30 percent in Ohio.

This is a huge issue on the right. Sen. Ted Cruz hosted a conference call Tuesday with what he said were 100,000 faith leaders about shutting down the abortion provider. And other candidates have taken similarly aggressive stances. Trump’s hedging on Planned Parenthood may be good politics for the general election but poses serious peril for the primary.