Center for Security Policy President Fred Fleitz asks a question we all need to know the answer to. Evidently some of our intelligence people are ignoring direct legal orders from the President. Later, the discussion turns to the situation on our southern border.
NBC News posted an article today about the relationship between President Trump and the nation of Turkey.
The article reports:
As Trump administration officials presided over the second day of an international conference in Warsaw dominated by calls to ratchet up pressure on Iran, one longtime U.S. ally and NATO member was noticeably absent — Turkey.
Snubbing the gathering in Poland, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday attended a rival conference in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, where he planned to meet his Russian and Iranian counterparts to work out a final settlement of the war in Syria.
The dueling summits illustrate President Donald Trump’s struggle to forge a united front against Iran, and reflect Turkey’s drift away from Washington as it finds common ground with Moscow and Tehran, experts and former officials said.
These three paragraphs are totally misleading and paint a negative picture of President Trump’ foreign policy that is totally inaccurate. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became President of Turkey in 2014. He had previously served as Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014. As he moves Turkey in the direction of an Islamic State, it is only natural that his friendly relationship with America would deteriorate rapidly.
On July 28, 2014, The Jerusalem Post reported:
Harold Rhode, a senior fellow at the New-York-based Gatestone Institute and a former adviser on Islamic affairs in the office of the American secretary of defense, told The Jerusalem Post in an interview on Sunday that the real issue in the ongoing conflict is that Turkey and Qatar are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in their goals.
“[Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan has been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood long before he was prime minister,” Rhode said.
It should now be clear to all that Erdogan “is now out of the bag,” Rhode said, adding that US President Barack Obama does not speak to the Turkish leader anymore despite previously describing him as one of his closest friends among the world’s leaders.
“Erdogan is doing whatever he can to help Hamas,” he said, asserting that it will only hurt the Palestinian people in the end.
On January 7, 2019, Clare Lopez posted an article at the Center for Security Policy that stated:
As National Security Advisor John Bolton heads to Turkey today for discussions about President Trump’s announced decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syrian battle spaces, he might question Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about his expressed intent to re-establish the Ottoman Empire and how Erdogan calculates U.S. policy in the region to figure into that ambition.
He might cite from Erdogan’s February 2018 assertion that “modern Turkey is a ‘continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire,” or ask exactly what Erdogan meant when, in November 2018 he declared that “Turkey is bigger than Turkey; just know this. We cannot be trapped inside 780,000 kilometers [Turkey’s total area].” He might perhaps ask also what exactly Erdogan meant by threatening the U.S. with an “Ottoman Slap,” in reference to American support for Kurdish forces fighting against the Islamic State.
Then there was the November 2018 “International Islamic Union Congress,” held in Istanbul. Headed by Erdogan’s chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi, the event’s participants endorsed the aim of “unity of Islam” through establishing the “Confederation of Islamic Countries.” It was not entirely clear how or if such a “Confederation” would differ from a Caliphate or Islamic State.
Clearly, U.S. objectives for the region are not the same as Turkey’s.
I don’t think President Trump is the problem in our relationship with Turkey.
Yesterday CNS News posted an article that reported the following:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday reiterated that “Democrats are committed to border security” after President Donald Trump agreed to a deal to re-open the government for three weeks while the White House and Democratic congressional leaders negotiate over Trump’s proposed border wall.
“And we have no complaint,” Pelosi said on Friday.
The article continues:
“We look forward to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard [D.-Calif.] taking the lead in terms of the substance from her standpoint as Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee and commend, again, our Chair of the Appropriations Committee [Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.] for her leadership on this,” Pelosi said. “They bring knowledge, they bring perspective, they bring the enthusiasm of the consensus of our Caucus to that conference.”
So let’s take a look at Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for a minute. The Center for Security Policy put her on a list of “national security failures” – legislators who scored a total of less than 25%, based on all scored votes for which they were present. The Center’s findings indicate 149 Members of the House of Representatives and 46 Senators are national security failures based on their voting record in the 111th Congress.
It gets better. Opensecrets.org listed the details of the Congresswoman’s campaign contributions:
I am not sure that this is the most qualified person to put on the committee. California has been something of a shining example of the negative impact of unchecked immigration on a state’s finances and quality of life.
Somehow I am not looking forward to rational solutions to the problem at our southern border from the Democrats on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
President Trump made a very generous offer to the Democrats in the House of Representatives today regarding border security on our southern border. Unfortunately it is a pretty safe bet that they will turn down the offer. So exactly what is at stake?
On January 7th Christopher Holton posted an article at The Center For Security Policy about the security threat on our southern border. It is a rather detailed article, and I suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article.
Here are some of the highlights:
There is no way to estimate how many jihadists may already have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. But the time to play politics with the border issue is long past. The shallow sloganeering and race-baiting that have dominated the national debate about border controls should be recognized as what they are: hindrances to sane and sensible national defense measures.
…Mexicans trying to enter the U.S. illegally are often simply processed at the border and sent back. But Mexico won’t allow us to send citizens from other countries back through Mexico, and under U.S. law, they’re entitled to a formal deportation hearing. The immigration service lacks beds to hold them, so the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and asked to voluntarily return for their court date.
• The recent migrant caravans originating in Central America have included “several SIAs (Special Interest Aliens), and potentially” known or suspected terrorists traveling toward the U.S. border.
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues to prioritize the SIA threat as one of the top threats to the homeland because of the consistently “large number” of individuals from special interest countries that travel to the Western Hemisphere using illicit pathways.
• Written ISIS materials and publications have encouraged ISIS followers to cross the U.S. Southwest Border.
• DHS Border Patrol Agents “routinely” encounter SIAs at the border using routes controlled by transnational criminal organizations.
• Statistics on the number of known or suspected terrorists on routes to the border are often classified, but the threat posed by “the existence of illicit pathways into the United States” highlights that “border security is national security” as terrorist groups seek to exploit vulnerabilities among neighboring countries to fund, support, and commit attacks against the homeland.
• The report lists five open-source, unclassified cases representing the types of individuals and threats associated with illicit routes to the homeland. (CIS recently compiled and published a list of 15.) A number of heavily redacted cases are included in which biometric enrollment information uncovered suspected terrorists in 2013, 2015, and 2018.
• The frequency of international flights from special interest regions into Latin America and the Caribbean continues to increase due to economic and governance challenges in those countries that create an attractive environment for illicit SIA travel to the U.S. border.
• ICE Homeland Security Investigations is deeply enmeshed in investigations and operations throughout Central America to counter human smuggling organizations that move SIAs in Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Brazil.
• The United States-Canada border “is also susceptible to exploitation by SIAs.”
It’s time for the politicians in Washington to stop fooling around and secure the border. The next terrorist attack in America will be on their hands.
The following was posted at CBN recently:
As President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an apparent impasse over the border wall, the commander in chief is drawing criticism for shutting down the government. Others, however, insist the wall is necessary, saying the president must stand up for national security.
CBN News‘ Charlene Aaron spoke with Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney about why he believes it’s so important for the president to win this particular battle over immigration.
I realize that a five minute video is a lot to post on a blog, but it is worth listening to. Frank Gaffney has been involved in national security for a long time and knows what he is talking about.
This is a map showing the location of Djibouti:
Many years ago at a Marine Ball in New Orleans, I sat next to a young officer who had recently returned from Djibouti. I asked him what he had done there, and he responded very politely by telling me everything I wanted to know about Djibouti except what I had asked him. I wondered, but let it go. That was at least twelve years ago, and Djibouti is still an important place to the world’s most powerful nations. One look at its location explains why.
On Friday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article with the title, ” Arms Trafficking on the Rise in Djibouti.” So what is this about?
The article reports:
Attention was brought this week to the growing issue of arms trafficking in the East African nation of Djibouti, which has seen a spike in recent years. Driving the problem is the instability and ongoing conflict in neighboring countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. The negative attention comes as Djibouti is trying to establish itself as a developed and economic upstart nation.
…Djibouti’s lack of internal conflicts, its surge of economic investments and its resulting economic growth, have all led to increased stability not present in its neighboring countries. Driving these positive developments are its access to both the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, resulting in its labeling by some as the “most valuable real estate” in the world.
Another major component of Djibouti’s growth has been the military presence of several major world powers within its border such as the United States, France, China, and Japan. France was the first power to establish a military base there as the former colonial power in the region, although budget constraints will require them to close this in the near future. The United States has a strong military presence in Djibouti as the central location of its African-based operations known as AFRICOM. The only foreign bases of both China and Japan are in Djibouti, and India is looking to build a base there in the coming years. The main interest of these countries in Djibouti is the country’s strategic positioning near the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the Horn of Africa.
…China has the largest presence in Djibouti, given its large development and business presence, and owns a significant amount of the nation’s debt. To this point, the United States sought reassurance earlier this year by the Djiboutian Foreign Ministry that Djibouti’s relationship to China would not overshadowed their agreement with the United States. Despite these assurances, concern over China’s heavy presence in Djibouti, and its ability to remain a neutral partner, continues to increase.
As Djibouti’s economy and international profile continue to grow, interest in the strategically located African nation will continue to increase from world powers and transnational criminals alike who look to profit from the country’s exponential rise.
Stay tuned. This growing country in one of the most unsettled regions of the world is very strategically located. The military buildup by foreign interests in Djibouti is not accidental.
Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line today about the appointment of Fred Fleitz as chief-of-staff of the National Security Council. The smear campaign against a good man has begun. Yesterday the Washington Monthly posted an article calling Fred Fleitz a Neo-Nazi. He is not a neo-Nazi–but he is a man who understands the threat of radical Islam. They describe him as the anti-Muslim senior vice-president of an Islamaphobic think tank and now NSC chief of staff. The think tank they are referring to is the Center for Security Policy headed by Frank Gaffney. The Center for Security Policy has been one of the few honest sources for information on Sharia Law and the attempts to infiltrate Sharia into our government. They are described as Islamaphobic just as anyone who understands the threat of Sharia extremists in America is described.
The article at Power Line concludes:
The previous administration did not take the danger seriously. Or maybe it just couldn’t discern an Islamic radical group when it saw one.
Adam Kredo of the Washington Examiner argues that members of the Obama administration are instrumental in the slander of Fleitz. He notes that “organizations closely tied to the Obama administration” have led the charge. Kredo cites the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also includes or Anti Defamation League which is currently headed by Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama administration official.
Desperate to defend Obama’s major legacy item — the Iran nuclear deal — Team Obama has a strong interest in bringing down John Bolton and Fred Fleitz, as it brought down Michael Flynn. But CAIR, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and even the Washington Post aren’t the FBI. These outfits are just shouting into the wind. But that doesn’t make some of the shouting any less despicable.
There are many places in our government that need to be revamped after the damage done by the last presidential administration. The National Security Council is one of those places. The appointment of Fred Fleitz is definitely a step in the right direction.
The article reports:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has reportedly removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” from its website after being faced with a lawsuit.
The SPLC report, which still exists in PDF form, was first published in December 2016 and was intended to be a resource for journalists. It reads, “A shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested.”
Maajid Nawaz, who founded the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam Foundation in London, said on a podcast with Joe Rogan that the report was taken down under legal threat in the past few days.
Nawaz said, “We have retained Clare Lock, they are writing to the Southern Poverty Law Center as we speak. I think they’ve got wind of it – the Southern Poverty Law Center – and as of yesterday, or the day before, they’ve removed the entire list that’s been up there for two years.”
The problem with the SPLC’s hate map is that anyone who disagreed with the liberal agenda is listed as a hate group and anything said against the liberal agenda as hate speech. The people who have spoken out honestly against Sharia Law and the attempts to bring it to America have been charged with hate speech. Telling the truth is characterized as hate speech according to the SPLC. This is reminiscent of the purging of the Department of Homeland Security of documents related to terrorism (article here):
In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism. The letter was addressed to John Brennan, who at the time was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Days later John Brennan agreed to create a task force to address the problem by removing personnel and products that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” This move in effect allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to control the information given to the people charged with stopping the terrorism initiated by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. At this point, the 9/11 reports and other actual historic documents were altered to make them compliant with the new paradigm. (I thought only the Russians rewrote history.)
The Center for Security Policy article concludes:
America’s future security depends on an informed public. Organizations like the SPLC misinform the public about the dangers around them. Meanwhile some forces within our government work to prevent law enforcement from having the information they need to protect us. If Americans do not wake up, we will have to explain to our children and grandchildren how we lost their freedom.
Tommy Waller at the Center for Security Policy posted an article today about a recent media story that totally misinformed the public. The media story in question was a two-and-a-half-minute segment on an NPR show discussing the threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) strike from North Korea.
Exactly what is an EMP strike and how does it work? Our electrical grid, satellites, computers, etc. all depend on an even flow of electricity. If you disrupt that flow and burn out a significant amount of the equipment that distributes that electricity in the process, you can cause some serious problems to America. It could be months before food, water, gasoline, natural gas, electricity, etc., could be delivered to the people impacted by an EMP. Detonating a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere will disrupt the electronics for a large area. There is some discussion about how large that area would be, but think of the impact of wiping out the electrical power and the equipment that distributes it in a large section of America.
A website called future science details a brief history of the impact of an EMP:
On July 1962, a 1.44 megaton United States nuclear test in space, 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the mid-Pacific Ocean, called the Starfish Prime test, demonstrated to nuclear scientists that the magnitude and effects of a high altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated. The detonation time was July 9, 1962 at 09:00:09 Coordinated Universal Time, (which was 8 July, Honolulu time, at nine seconds after 11 p.m.). The coordinates of the detonation were 16 degrees, 28 minutes North latitude, 169 degrees, 38 minutes West longitude.7 The actual weapon yield was very close to the design yield, which has been described by various sources at different values in the very narrow range of 1.4 to 1.45 megatons.
The Thor missile carrying the Starfish Prime warhead actually reached a maximum height of about 1100 kilometers (just over 680 miles), and the warhead was detonated on its downward trajectory when it had fallen to the programmed altitude of 400 kilometers. The nuclear warhead detonated at 13 minutes and 41 seconds after liftoff of the Thor missile from Johnston Island.9
Starfish Prime also made EMP effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometers (898 miles) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link.7
Starfish Prime was the first successful test in the series of United States high-altitude nuclear tests in 1962 known as Operation Fishbowl. The subsequent Operation Fishbowl tests gathered more data on the high-altitude EMP phenomenon, especially the Bluegill Triple Prime and Kingfish test of October, 1962.8
The EMP damage of the Starfish Prime test was quickly repaired because of the ruggedness (compared to today) of the electrical and electronic infrastructure of Hawaii in 1962. Realization of the potential impacts of high-altitude nuclear EMP became more apparent to some scientists and engineers during the 1970s as more sensitive solid-state electronics began to come into widespread use.
The relatively small magnitude of the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii (about 5600 volts/meter) and the relatively small amount of damage done (for example, only 1 to 3 percent of streetlights extinguished)10 led some scientists to believe, in the early days of EMP research, that the problem might not be as significant as was later realized. Newer calculations7 showed that if the Starfish Prime warhead had been detonated over the northern continental United States, the magnitude of the EMP would have been much larger (22 to 30 kilovolts/meter) because of the greater strength of the Earth’s magnetic field over the United States, as well as the different orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field at high latitudes. These new calculations, combined with the accelerating reliance on EMP-sensitive microelectronics, heightened awareness that the EMP threat could be a very significant problem.
As late as the 1980s, some distinguished scientist published articles which cast doubt on the magnitude of the E1-EMP. Those scientists did not have access to some critical classified information that has subsequently been declassifed. This primary mistake that these scientists made was apparently a large underestimation of the coherence of the pulse. The initial electrons are knocked out of atmospheric molecules almost simultaneously over a large region. The electrons then spiral almost simultaneously around the Earth’s magnetic field lines. This results in a very narrow pulse of extremely high field strength, but one that last for less than a microsecond. Each high-energy electronic emits only a very weak pulse, however a typical nuclear weapon produces about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ten septillion) of these high-energy electrons all spiraling around the geomagnetic field lines simultaneously.
We have the information showing the dangers of an EMP. Although much of that information is classified, enough of it is available to scientists for them to understand the risks.
However, not all scientists are paying attention.
The Center for Security Policy article reports:
At 5:10AM ET on 27 April 2017, the Morning Edition program at National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast a segment titled “The North Korean Electromagnetic Pulse Threat, Or Lack Thereof.” An audio recording of this segment can be found here: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525833275/the-north-korean-electromagnetic-pulse-threat-or-lack-thereof
The 2 minute 26 second segment was in response to an interview of Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey from 26 April, where Ambassador Woolsey discussed the EMP threat posed by North Korea: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/525675203/former-cia-director-james-woolsey-on-trumps-first-100-days)
In the 27 April broadcast, NPR’s science editor – Geoff Brumfiel – gave prominent treatment to Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Mr. Lewis not only dismissed the North Korean EMP threat but ridiculed it by laughing out loud at the comments of a former Director of the CIA discussing a real, present, and existential threat to the nation.
Mr. Lewis, who claims to be a nuclear expert, has been denigrating EMP for the last 6 years. Aside from his brief time as an intern the Pentagon, he has never served in the DOD or intelligence community and his formal education is in policy studies and philosophy rather than engineering or nuclear weapons design. Yet NPR’s editors thought it appropriate to champion not only his “analysis” but his obtuse laughter at a sobering subject that is one of the most important of our time. It is clear by the way Geoff Brumfiel edited this broadcast that he sought to denigrate not only the topic of EMP, but also James Woolsey, the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Congress – since the Ambassador has warned for years about the EMP threat and the DOD and Congress have appropriated billions of dollars to protect America’s strategic forces against it.
This is an example of irresponsible journalism.
The article at the Center for Security Policy continues:
Evidently, National Public Radio, an organization whose operating expenses are paid in part by the U.S. taxpayer, considers it appropriate to promote ridicule of anyone concerned with the threat from Elecromagnetic Pulse, when the nation’s most informed authorities on EMP consider it to be a real, present, and existential threat to the country and it’s population.
In response to this abject failure in journalism, Center for Security Policy founder and president – Frank J. Gaffney Jr. – recently authored a formal letter to Senator Roy Blunt and Congressmen Tom Coles, who serve on their chambers’ respective Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. This letter calls on these men and these subcommittees to hold NPR accountable for dereliction of its public trust.
We encourage all Americans who are concerned about EMP to join Frank, The Center for Security Policy, and The Secure the Grid Coalition in holding to account National Public Radio. We encourage you to inform your own elected representatives of this journalistic malfeasance and to confront NPR directly through messages to its Ombudsman and Management by submitting your own comments at the following link:
The article at the Center for Security Policy reminds us that we need to beef up our missile defense programs to protect us from this threat. We also need to remember that when North Korea (or Iran) blows up a missile in mid-flight, it may not be an accident–it may be a practice run.
Tim Kaine is the Democratic candidate for Vice-President. He is a former governor of Virginia and seems to be well-liked. However, there are some elements of his background that are troubling.
The Center for Security Policy reminds us that in 2010 then Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine attended the annual fundraising banquet of the Islamic Center Dar Al Hijrah in the Washington DC suburbs.
The article reports:
The reasons the others (seven elected officials were “invited”: former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, now Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Sen. James Webb (D-VA), Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bulova, Fairfax Supervisor Penny Gross, and Virginia State Delegate Kaye Kory….Within a few days, Senator James Webb and State Delegate Kaye Kory‘s names were removed from the invitation.) should not legitimate the Dar Al-Hijrah fundraiser, we had written them, included the Islamic Center’s continued support for the Dar al-Hijrah imam in 2001, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the senior al-Qaeda recruiter for three 9/11 hijackers, imam and mentor to the accused 2009 Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 people, and online mentor to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. We described several other Dar Al-Hijrah leaders linked to terrorism and supporting violent jihad against America, including the current imam who will host the April 3 event.
This is not the kind of company American political leaders should be keeping.
The Hill posted a story about some of Tim Kaine’s background and beliefs on Friday.
Here are some excerpts:
According to the media, Tim Kaine took a life transforming “mission” trip to Latin America in 1980. Conveniently left out of these stories, are the radical reality of the Cold War in Latin America and Tim Kaine’s Soviet sympathizing mentors. In fact, whatever Kaine’s intentions, he more likely met Karl Marx than Jesus Christ while there.
Connect the dots with a little history, and an alarming picture emerges of Kaine’s adventures with radicals and revolutionaries in 1980s Latin America.
Reports indicate that in Honduras, “Mr. Kaine embraced an interpretation of the gospel, known as liberation theology…”
Liberation theology is not standard Catholic doctrine–it is more in line with the preaching of President Obama’s friend Reverend Wright.
The article reports:
Journalistic and academic research has now shown that Liberation Theology itself was quite possibly a product of a Kremlin disinformation campaign designed to undermine the Church and bring Catholic countries into the Soviet sphere. The top-ranking Soviet Bloc defector of the Cold War, Gen. Ion Pacepa admits that he was personally involved in the operation.
And contrary to the myth, this was never Pope Francis’ theology of choice.
The article concludes:
In Virginia he ran as a moderate and ruled as a liberal. Today he runs as a “Pope Francis” Catholic but on abortion and marriage, Kaine opposes Francis.
On the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Kaine sided with Obama. Francis sided with the Little Sisters, whom he visited in Washington a year ago to publicly show his support.
As in the 1980s, Kaine’s “Catholicism” serves neither his Church nor his country, but a Leftist political agenda that has proven to be on the wrong side of the Church, on the wrong side of history, and against the interests of freedom and the United States.
I struggle with people who claim to be Catholic and support abortion. The Catholic Church has been on the front lines of the abortion issue since Roe v. Wade. They have set an example that I wish the other churches in America would embrace–the idea that your faith influences your moral and political choices. Tim Kaine may call himself a Catholic, but it is obvious that he does not believe the teachings of the Catholic faith.
Newsmax reported yesterday that Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has chosen his national security team. The team includes former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy.
The article lists other members of the team:
- Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Health and Human Serves and general counsel of the National Security Agency.
- Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.
- Retired Army Lt. General William Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council.
- Fred Fleitz, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst.
- Randy Fort, who has served in senior intelligence positions in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations.
- Frank Gaffney Jr., president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.
- Nile Gardiner, a former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
- Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
- Katharine Gorka, president of the Council on Global Security.
- Steven Groves, a senior research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
- Mary Habeck, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
- Kristofer Harrison, a co-founder of the China Beige Book who once served in the George W. Bush White House.
- Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain.
- Michael Ledeen, an author who serves at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
- Clare Lopez, a vice president at the Center for Security Policy.
- Robert O’Brien, a partner at the Larson O’Brien LLP law firm in Los Angeles.
- Michael Pillsbury, who was a Reagan campaign advisor in 1980.
- Charles Stimson, the senior legal fellow and manager of National Security Law Program at the Heritage Foundation.
- Daniel Vajdich, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
- Christian Whiton, a former State Department senior advisor in the Bush administration.
There are a few of these team members I have personally met, and I am totally impressed by this team. I am impressed by the fact that this team is knowledgeable and pro-Israel. The relationship between America and Israel has been strained under President Obama, and I believe this team will work to repair that relationship. I am also impressed with the inclusion of Frank Gaffney, Jr., Clare Lopez, and Retired Army Lt. General William Boykin in this team. All of them are well-versed on the Middle East and the threat of radical Islam. This national security team would do an excellent job of handling threats to America. They are all amazing people.
I repeat. I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. I am, however, a supporter of an honest press and honest reporting. In the coverage of Donald Trump, there is no danger of either. Donald Trump is currently being drawn and quartered in the press for recent remarks about suspending Muslim immigration to America.
This is the direct quote taken from First Coast News:
“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
The Center for Security Policy has replied to criticism of this poll:
In June 2015, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a nationwide online survey among 600 Muslim adults (age 18+) living in the United States. The methodology used for this online survey instrument is consistent with international industry standards outlined in the ESOMAR Guideline for Online Research. The Center for Security Policy stands by the findings in our nationwide poll and we invite anyone to view its findings.
This is what the poll found:
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
The results of this poll are much more of a problem than any statement made by a political candidate.
I would also like to mention that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the United States unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. This is noted in a Front Page Magazine article from yesterday. The press is attempting to manipulate the American public into calling Donald Trump a racist, bigot, whatever. They have misquoted him and ignored his evidence. Again, I am not supporting him for President, but I don’t like the media thinking they can choose the Republican candidate. If the Republicans allow that, they are the stupid party and deserve to lose.
Frank Gaffney, Jr., posted an article at the Center for Security Policy today describing what a good nuclear agreement with Iran would look like. Please follow the link to the article to read the details, but here are the basic points:
1. No uranium enrichment.
2. No plutonium-producing reactors.
3. Robust verification.
4. Questions must be answered about Possible Military Dimensions (PMDs).
5. Lift sanctions in stages in response to Iranian compliance.
6. Iran must curtail and agree to limitations on its ballistic missile program.
7. Iran must agree to end its meddling in regional conflicts and sponsorship of terror.
8. Iran must cease its hostility toward Israel.
9. Iran must release all US prisoners.
If these points were included, the agreement would work. An agreement that does not include these points is not worth the paper it is written on.
Last Tuesday, the Center for Security Policy posted a story documenting a House Intelligence Committee Member’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not really news–the Obama Administration is rife with people who have family or other connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. This partially explains why the Obama Administration has provided so little assistance to Egyptian President al-Sisi in his fight to end the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (where the group began).
The article at the Center for Security Policy reports:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently appointed Rep. André Carson (D-IN) to a coveted position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This panel is charged with oversight of the United States’ most sensitive national intelligence capabilities and operations. These include any directed at Islamic supremacists seeking to impose worldwide – through violent and, where necessary, through stealthy forms of jihad – the totalitarian program they call shariah.
Preeminent among the practitioners of this jihadist agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, according to evidence introduced by the U.S. government into the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, the Brotherhood’s self-declared mission 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 [i.e., those of non-Muslims] and those of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (From the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, Government Exhibit 003-0085, 3:04-CR-240-G.)
It is, therefore, problematic and potentially detrimental to the national security that Rep. Carson has extensive and longstanding ties to organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. As established in a dossier and video released today by the Center for Security Policy, the Indiana congressman has an extensive record of involvement with, support of and support from a virtual Who’s Who of Brotherhood front organizations in America and leading figures in the jihad movement in this country. The dossier makes it clear that, as a group, they have “a documented history of serving as unregistered foreign agents, engaging in material support for terrorism and possessing direct ties to the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
If the American media were doing its job, this would be called treason.
The article reminds us:
It is wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America. At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.
If voters do not start paying attention to what their representatives do soon and voting against those that are not acting in the voters’ interests, they will find themselves in an unrecognizable country with their freedoms being taken away and replaced by the sort of legal systems the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about one aspect of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit hosted by President Obama. The Canadian Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney outlined the Canadian view on Islamic terrorism.
The article reports that view:
1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.
2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..
3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.
Our Canadian neighbors understand the threat and are ready to fight back, even as our President is still quibbling over what to call it.
On Wednesday, Investors.com posted an article about recent events in Sweden. Sweden has an open-border immigration policy which resulted in the arrive of 100,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990’s, and more recently, refugees from Iraq and other Arab countries settling there. Unfortunately, rather than rejoice in their new-found freedom, many of these refugees have brought the oppression of their former homelands with them.
The article explains what has happened:
The perils of multiculturalism and open borders have reached critical mass in Sweden. There are Muslim enclaves where postal, fire and other essential services — even police officers themselves —require police protection.
A police report released last month identifies 55 of these “no-go zones” in Sweden. These zones are similar to others that have popped up in Europe in recent years. They formed as large Muslim populations emigrating to politically correct and tolerant European states refuse to assimilate and set up virtual states within a state where the authorities fear to tread.
Soeren Kern of the Hudson Institute has documented the proliferation of these zones. They are de facto Muslim micro-states under Shariah law that reject Western values, society and legal systems. In these districts non-Muslims are expected to conform to the dictates of fundamentalist Islam or face violent consequences.
This is not an imaginary tale about a small percentage of Muslims–this is something that is actually happening with the consent of a majority of the Muslim community. There have been no-go zones in France for decades.
Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, and those Muslims who believe they are correctly following the Koran strive to set up Sharia Law in whatever country they settle. We have already had a court case where Christians were arrested for preaching near the site of a Muslim event in America (rightwinggranny). Many of our states have passed preemptive laws outlawing Sharia Law in their states. We need to aware of the fact that Islam is a conquering religion. Political correctness is not our friend in this matter.
1. NYT says Obama plans to sidestep Congress on an Iran deal. An October 19th article in the New York Times stated that the Obama administration “will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress have a vote” on a final nuclear deal with Iran.
2. Do Iran’s recent steps to dilute some of its enriched uranium mean Tehran is serious about reaching a deal on its nuclear program? This question is based on a Monday Reuters report that a new IAEA report said Iran diluted 4,100 kg of 2% enriched uranium to the natural uranium level (0.7% uranium-235). The article at the Center for Security Policy points out that a September 2014 IAEA report specified this was a separate batch from Iran’s 12,464 kg of reactor-grade uranium (enriched to 3 to 5%). Iran can still make 7-8 nuclear weapons from its reactor-grade uranium stockpile if this uranium was further enriched to weapons-grade.
3. New U.S. Concessions. The Iranian news service Mehr reported this week that the Obama administration has offered to allow Iran to operate 4,000 uranium centrifuges. Iran is using centrifuges to enrich uranium to reactor-grade and could easily adapt them to enrich to weapons-grade. Iran has 19,000 centrifuges but only about 9,000 are currently operational.
If this report is true it is consistent with previous reports of U.S. offers allowing Iran to operate 1,500-4,500 centrifuges if it converted any uranium it enriched to uranium power. As I explained in an October 2 National Review Online article, these previous concessions would do little to stop or slow Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
4. Dennis Ross Thinks There Could be a Partial Nuclear Deal with Iran. Ross thinks a partial deal which “contains” Iran’s nuclear program and prevents Tehran from moving closer to a nuclear “breakout” capability – the ability to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear weapon – would be a good outcome for the nuclear talks. Ross says this might also be achieved by a “muddling through” strategy under which Iran would agree to limit its nuclear program and the West would not impose additional sanctions. Under such a scenario, the nuclear talks would be suspended for a few months but bilateral talks with Tehran would continue….The current understandings with Iran allow Tehran to continue to enrich uranium and keep a huge stockpile of reactor-grade uranium which could be used to fuel 7-8 nuclear weapons if this uranium was enriched to weapons-grade. Iran also has been permitted during this year’s nuclear talks to install new centrifuge designs that may be four to 16 times more efficient. These are unacceptable concessions that Ross is proposing be made permanent under a partial deal with Iran or through a muddling through strategy.
America has not yet prevented a country that desires to obtain nuclear weapons from going nuclear. I suspect that we will not be able to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Unfortunately, the change in the balance of power in the Middle East that would result from Iran going nuclear is not a pleasant one.
Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Mohamed Elibiary, who has left his position as a senior member of DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Mr. Elibiary’s recent statement that about the “inevitable” return of the Muslim “caliphate” may have played a role in his departure.
In October 2013, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about Mohamed Elibiary.
The article describes Mr. Elibiary’s role at the DHS:
Elibiary’s official functions have been the focus of congressional and media attention, particularly in light of his controversial associations with leading American Islamists. These include the radical Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America and convicted Hamas fundraiser Shukri Abu Baker.
Troubling as such connections are, the implications of the policies Elibiary has espoused are even more worrying. For example, Elibiary’s promotion of the narrative that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists are “moderates” appears to have been influential in encouraging the Obama administration’s blindness to what is, in fact, an unbroken continuum between the ideology and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.
Moreover, Elibiary has insisted that even the most basic information about the doctrinal drivers of jihadist terror be purged from U.S. government training materials. Pursuant to the guidance he has helped President Obama promulgate, even quoting the Brotherhood’s own written statements can be portrayed as “Islamophobia.”
The article includes a link to an An Annotated Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary, which explores some of his connections to the Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Elibiary has done considerable damage to the security of America. His purging of government training materials of valid information about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic goals for America will take years (and a willing administration) to correct. The difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and AlQaeda is method–not goal. The Muslim Brotherhood uses the American judicial system to quietly bring the principles of Sharia Law into America; Al Qaeda simply wants to conquer by physical destruction. Sending Mr. Elibiary packing is a step in the right direction, but he should have never been allowed anywhere near the Department of Homeland Security–he has strong ties to people whose goal is the destruction of America.
Yesterday Frank Gaffney posted a short article at the Center for Security Policy website entitled, “How Wars Don’t End.” In his article he reminds us that President Obama once explained to America that unilateral withdrawals from conflicts is “how wars end in the 21st Century.”
Well. so much for that.
The article states:
Recent events in Iraq show that – in our time, as throughout history – unless both sides in a war agree to stop fighting, the conflict will continue. Such fighting generally comes at the expense of the interests or security of the party that calls it quits.
The mayhem in Iraq that has flowed from President Obama’s decision to “end the war” there unilaterally has reached the point where he felt compelled yesterday to authorize renewed U.S. airstrikes.
The trouble is that his delusional approach to ending wars is of a piece with his tendency to micromanage, limit and, thereby, make ineffectual the military operations he does approve.
I hope we don’t have to put actual boots on the ground again in Iraq, but it breaks my heart to see the gains we made with the surge thrown away. I truly believe that had we left forces there, there would have been enough pressure on Prime Minister Maliki to create a more inclusive government. Now we are faced with a radical caliphate in the Middle East that will grow to include some of the countries that in the past have supported us. Being an ally of America doesn’t mean much right now, and our abandonment of the Iraqis is an illustration of that. Hopefully air power will be enough to stop the slaughter of the innocent Christians that is currently taking place.
In 2011 the protests that would bring an end to the rule of Hosni Mubarak began in Egypt. These events became knows as part of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring turned out to be merely a vehicle for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt. After the removal of Mubarak from office, Mohamed Morsi was elected President. Morsi then began moving toward making Egypt an Islamic state, and the military then took control of the country. So where are we now?
Stephen Coughlin, a Senior Fellow of the Center for Security Policy recently joined a delegation to Egypt for a 20-day fact-finding tour.
This is the video of his briefing on his tour:
We have the documents showing the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood for America. Those documents were part of the government exhibits during the Holy Land Foundation case. They are available on line, and you can find them on this website using the search engine. We need to learn how to deal with the threat of civilization jihad just as the Egyptians have learned to do. If we don’t, we will lose our religious freedom in America, along with most of our other freedoms.
The article explains how Putin uses the price of natural gas to advance his program:
This isn’t the first time Putin has used energy as a weapon against Ukraine and others. We should be doing everything possible to make it the last time, though.
Russia’s role as a major exporter of oil and natural gas is a two-edged sword. Yes, the Kremlin can squeeze those dependent on its exports for political or strategic purposes. But the Russian economy is also critically dependent upon such energy sales.
America has the answer to both stopping the Russian blackmail of Ukraine and to collapsing the Russian economy. It’s actually very simple. Begin to develop and export our own natural gas resources. It would probably take less than a year and Russia would lose its leverage over Ukraine and much of Europe. It’s simple and would also help the American economy.
“The Muslim Brotherhood is 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 which are namely the following:
…F) The need to work on establishing the Islamic State:
G) The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia.
The above is taken from the Official Muslim Brotherhood Website on 9/7/2010. It is referenced in the book, Shariah The Threat to America published by the Center for Security Policy in 2010.
Yesterday the Washington Post posted a story stating that the military government of Egypt has declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group. The military government of Egypt is correct. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt as an antidote to the secularization of Turkey after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The stated purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood is to form a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. It is implied in their by-laws that overthrowing existing governments is an acceptable means to this end. The military government of Egypt understands that fact and chooses not to be overthrown.
The article reports:
Deputy Prime Minister Hossam Eissa said that, in response to the bombing (a bombing Tuesday in the Nile Delta city of Mansoura), the government had decided to classify the organization as a terrorist group. Eissa did not provide evidence that the Brotherhood was involved in the bombing or any other recent attacks on security forces in Egypt.
“Egypt was horrified from north to south by the hideous crime committed by the Muslim Brotherhood group,” Eissa said, according to the AP. “This was in context of a dangerous escalation to violence against Egypt and Egyptians [and] a clear declaration by the Muslim Brotherhood group that it still knows nothing but violence.”
“It’s not possible for Egypt the state nor Egypt the people to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism,” he added.
On Wednesday, a Sinai-based jihadist group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, or Ansar Jerusalem, claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s bombing, which killed 15 people, including 11 police officers, in one of the deadliest such attacks in Egypt in years.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a peaceful organization. The government of Egypt has realized that. It is time America woke up and realized the danger the Brotherhood represents to America.
Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy posted an article last Tuesday about a recent statement made on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The guests on the program were chairpersons of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI).
The article quotes Senator Feinstein’s comments on the subject of terrorism:
“There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic shariah law.”
She used some very intellectual sounding words to speak the obvious truth–the goal of Islam is a worldwide caliphate governed by Sharia Law. Unfortunately, due to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, there are many places in our government where it would be illegal to speak those words.
The article cites an example of what happens when people in government (other than Senator Feinstein) tell the truth:
For example, on May 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, used a press conference to denounce a highly decorated and up-and-coming Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, for teaching an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College using an approved curriculum. According to Gen. Dempsey, what prompted this extraordinary action was that a student – who it turns out had not actually been enrolled in Col. Dooley’s class – “was concerned that the course was objectionable and that it was counter to our values…our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.”
At the core of what was so “totally objectionable” is the fact that students were exposed to information that made plain the gravity of the threat of which Sen. Feinstein warned: the supremacist, totalitarian Islamic doctrine of shariah and the jihad or holy war it obliges adherents to perform. Col. Dooley’s promising career was cut short and the files of his institution and that of the rest of the national security community have been purged of all such information deemed by unidentified subject matters experts engaged for the purpose to be “counter to our values.”
Why isn’t the government telling us about the dangers of radical Islam? The answer to that questions can be found in a ten-part on-line series entitled, “The Muslim Brotherhood in America.” I realize that watching the entire series is time consuming, but every American should be required to watch the last part of the series–it is the part that outlines what we are Americans need to do to preserve our liberty.
Senator Feinstein spoke the truth. Is anyone out there listening?
On Monday, Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy posted an article about the recent agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Frank Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. He formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during the Reagan Administration, following four years of service as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy. Previously, he was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of the late Senator John Tower, and a national security legislative aide to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson. He is an expert on America’s national security.
Mr. Gaffney observes:
For starters, there is no reason to disbelieve the Iranian mullahs when they whip crowds into a frenzy with the phrase “Death to America.” To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that they are intent on achieving their stated goal of “a world without America.”
Among the most alarming such evidence can be found in the series of steps the Iranian regime has taken to operationalize its capability to deliver without warning a devastating, strategic electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack upon this country. Tests involving the launching of missiles off of barges in the Caspian Sea confer an ability to fire them from vessels off America’s coasts. Other experiments included the simulated delivery of a warhead to the missile’s apogee – precisely the scenario a congressional commission warned could be used to unleash EMP from high above the United States, inflicting catastrophic damage on the highly vulnerable electric grid and society below.
We are told that all that is missing is a nuclear warhead to place atop such missiles. Far from pushing that ominous day into the future, let alone foreclosing it altogether, Mr. Obama’s deal with Iran can only make its arrival more certain, and probably more near-term.
The article points out that there is nothing in the agreement reached that requires Iran to declare all of its nuclear sites and their activities. The ‘temporary’ lifting of the sanctions will probably not be temporary–in order to reimpose those sanctions, we would have to have the agreement of both Russia and China–both of which think that Iran as a nuclear power will help them in dealing with the worldwide community of nations.
The article further points out:
The deal undermines our allies by abandoning those known to be in the mullahs’ crosshairs. Topping that list is Israel. That would be the country whose population the real power in Tehran, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, vilified again just last week. He said the Jews “cannot be called humans, they are like animals, some of them” described their country as “the rabid dog of the region.” That’s a reminder, if any were actually needed, of why Israel and her friends have rejected Obama’s deal and are unmoved by his dubious promises Sunday of greater consultations as he engages Iran in the future.
The article concludes:
It is an axiom of negotiations that if you want it bad, you get it bad. President Obama’s deal with Iran is a case in point. Unfortunately, “getting it bad” in this case – like so much of the serial national security fraud being perpetrated pursuant to the Obama Doctrine – will translate into mortal peril for millions.
President Obama was desperate for some sort of political or diplomatic victory. He will claim this victory in the agreement reached with Iran. Unfortunately this agreement is not a victory for the American people and reinforces the idea that America under President Obama will not hesitate to desert her friends and strengthen her enemies for partisan political purposes.