What difference, at this point, does it make when the scorecard on both presidential candidates’ scandals reflects the first half of a basketball game?
Not one bit considering for all intents and purposes, Hillary Clinton’s platform is available to the highest bidder among the donor class or, in Donald Trump’s case, the classic prototypical candidate groomed to be Vladimir Putin’s puppet czar for a new American Potemkin republic.
For Mrs. Clinton, the narrative is the same: “Clinton cash,” and the polity of convenience and cronyism. For Mr. Trump, ties dating to 1986 as the Soviet Union’s last years waned during perestroika provide credence of a man guilty as hell of treason and now, open political espionage while forcing his Democrat opponent to admit her private server to be a national security risk.
Of course Mrs. Clinton will not face legal inquiries over these leaked e-mails given they were not to my knowledge involving simply her or sensitive national security details — after all, the FBI rewrote the law just to maintain her freedom from an otherwise certain indictment. But if Russian intelligence can so easily hack into the Democratic National Committee’s server to poach the damning e-mails proving Bernie Sanders would have won the election if not for the malleable scenario with superdelegates, imagine what they can through their far superior technological capacity to that of ISIS (who has hacked into American military installations). We know that Russia’s ally China continues cherry-picking blueprints for weapons technologies from the Pentagon, and much more.
The Democratic Party is historically buoyed by the Mafia operating its major political machines in towns like Chicago, New York and Boston; how the dead “voted” Democrat and did so often in 1960 and subsequent election years. In 1983 Sen. Ted Kennedy engaged in negotiations with the Soviet Union to aid the Democratic candidate (who later proved to be Walter Mondale) to a victory over Ronald Reagan. And the underlying element too few report regarding the Arab Spring involves the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly ousted Egyptian dictator Mohamed Morsi and his wife Naglaa, who donated undisclosed sums of money to Barack Obama, not to mention nearly 30 years of the Morsi family’s ties to the Clintons and Huma Abedin. For Obama’s part, several Brotherhood members are employed within the Department of Homeland Security.
In fact, reports are available as to how Hillary Clinton “mainstreamed” Al-Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, who she strategically had placed at the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.
The terrifying truth however is the Muslim Brotherhood — the root of the massive family tree sprouting other jihadist elements like Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS. Without the Brotherhood, the Obama administration would have been too impotent at the height of the Arab Spring to manufacture his “Islamic state” east of Syria through the consolidation of the Nusra Front with the Islamic State of Iraq (formerly known as late as 2007 as “Al-Qaeda of Iraq”). The matter Mrs. Clinton intentionally turned away from the week’s events leading to the attacks at Benghazi were entirely calculated: from the suddenly decision by the militant February 17 Martyrs Brigade to not provide security for Labor Day weekend, to her “inexplicable” stand down order. Given Amb. Chris Stevens’ position as the low man on the totem pole in facilitating the weapons smuggling ring between Libya, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, he was the man who knew too much — and consequently, it was supposed to be an easy task to simply have Morsi’s agents snuff him out before he could compromise the Brotherhood’s role in the U.S./NATO agenda for a Pan Islamic superstate in which they dominated the political discourse.
A four minute smartphone video of the actual Benghazi attack is available below in Arabic from Egypt. You can clearly distinguish the shout of “MORSI! MORSI!” when the militants cried out “Don’t shoot! We’re with Morsi!”
And then there is Russia and Donald Trump who, in 1986 as the Soviet Union’s collapse accelerated through perestroika which provided the Soviet population the openness to criticize the government for the first time and seeds for economic openness and capitalist endeavors, engaged in his first big splash with the Kremlin. Fortunate it is for Mr. Trump that in 1986, the Internet was a mere novelty; the Information Superhighway itself was not invented for another three years. Media coverage was only slightly more advanced than it had 20, even just 10 years earlier with the rise of cable and satellite television, meaning news was still considerably slower and even more inaccessible beyond the big three nightly news stations. There were no Fox News, MSNBC or even Newsmax, the Blaze and Democracy Now news stations; and Fox itself had only entered the television wars around this time. As late as 1993 whereupon former President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Information Act into law in order for the general public to have access to declassified files and the like, information remained slow in circulating as the new Information Superhighway was very much in its infancy and expensive to access.
Could Mr. Trump in 1986 have escaped publicly unscathed under today’s conditions had it become common knowledge during the Cold War he had established contacts with a Soviet government still micromanaging a massive centrally-controlled economy and military infrastructure? His own supporters with ties to the United States Armed Forces seem to imply their willingness to reject his pledge to serve his America through blind obedience to Mr. Trump — a candidate groomed not by the Republican National Committee, but the Kremlin — begging the question his true motive behind his repeated refusals to release his tax documents or answering why he “self-funded” without any Super PAC’s providing transparency as to his campaign’s potential transactions with Moscow.
Considering the Clintons’ ties to the Muslim Brotherhood dating back over 30 years and their role during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-89), what role might the Clintons have played in aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood’s fashioning Osama bin Laden into the world’s most notorious terrorist only a decade later is no secret. How the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorist Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi in 2014 confirmed according to Raymond Ibrahim that ISIS founder and leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a former Muslim Brother — a matter which according to the Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (Awqaf) Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a “confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.” Another former Brother in current Al-Qaeda supreme leader and fellow Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri also confirmed that bin Laden had once been a Brother in an interview dated September 27, 2012 — or just 16 days following the “Day of Rage” at Benghazi and Egypt’s capital, Cairo.
According to Zawahiri, bin Laden was charged on behalf of Muslim Brotherhood Organization with the transferral of money to Islamists in Lahore, Pakistan nearby the location it is believed Al-Qaeda was born in 1989. The Brotherhood disapproved of bin Laden’s disobedience after asking him not to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Red Army over fears that had he been captured, it will have resulted in a diplomatic schism between Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.
Coincidentally, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort (whose former partner, Roger Stone, is also tied to Trump) lobbied on behalf of Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-State Intelligence) for a sum of $700,000 by the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1995 — or among more than $4 million that federal prosecutors alleged was funneled from the ISI over a span of 20 years from “straw” American donors reimbursed from secret accounts in Pakistan according to an FBI affidavit.
British medium The Guardian provided secret files which detailed that federal authorities describe “the main Pakistani intelligence service as a terrorist organisation in secret files….” It too describes how “Recommendations to interrogators at Guantánamo Bay rank the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) alongside al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon as threats.”
“Being linked to any of these groups is an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity,” claim the documents. And the document, dated September 2007, describes that “Through associations with these … organisations, a detainee may have provided support to al-Qaida or the Taliban, or engaged in hostilities against US or coalition forces [in Afghanistan],” and that “Any links to these organizations is evidence that an individual poses a future threat.”
With both Manafort’s and the Clintons’ longtime ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, anti-Israeli organizations in the service of Saudi Arabia, not to mention knowledge that Manafort’s ties to the Soviet Union and in just one year following the conclusion of the Soviet-Afghan War, the formal formation of Al-Qaeda, is Trump now linked to a man with direct ties not only to the ISI’s illicit terrorist activities and role in establishing the Taliban’s regime in postwar Afghanistan, but to bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood, even the Clintons as early perhaps as 1990? With Trump’s numerous investments in Soviet real estate or other ventures (perhaps its vast oil industry in the Black Sea) resulting in his racking many hundreds of millions in debt and being blackballed by every major U.S. bank, it is fair to ask who our two political parties have sold America to — Moscow, or the Muslim Brotherhood. And Trump, for his part, enjoys a working personal relationship with Putin in his interview with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts in 2013 after repeated lies to the contrary.
Given Trump’s tax returns would likely clarify the gravity of his monetary and political connections to Putin, it is even fairer now to inquire if the Cold War is resurrected.