How Barcelona Became a Victim of the Barcelona Process


This brief Fjordman essay focusing on Islamic terrorism in Spain then expanding his understanding to all the European Union (EU) is something concerned Americans should understand the implications that are applicable to the USA thanks to eight years of Obama/Dem immigration policies.

 

JRH 10/16/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

How Barcelona Became a Victim of the Barcelona Process

 

By Fjordman

October 12, 2017 4:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • The Barcelona Process, promoted by the EU, has helped to facilitate a greater presence of Islam and Muslim immigrants in Western Europe — thereby also increasing the Islamic terror threat there. That result was perfectly foreseeable.

 

  • When the number of people who believe in Islamic Jihad doctrines rises, the likelihood of experiencing jihadist attacks increases as well.

 

  • It is unlikely, though, that European political leaders will point to this connection. Doing so would be an indirect admission that Europe’s leaders have actively increased the Islamic terror threat against European citizens. This is the brutal truth they do not want exposed.

 

The murders on the pedestrian street of La Rambla in Barcelona on August 17, 2017 were not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Spain. On March 11, 2004, 192 people were killed, and around two thousand injured, in the Madrid train bombings.

 

In hindsight, that attack marked a new phase in the modern Islamic Jihad against Europe. After the Madrid bombings, London was hit with deadly bombings on July 7, 2005. In recent years, the frequency of jihadist attacks on European soil has increased dramatically.

 

It is probably not a coincidence that Spain was an early target of Islamic terror. The Iberian Peninsula, present-day Portugal and Spain, was for centuries under Islamic rule. Militant Muslims have repeatedly made it clear that for them, reconquering Spain is a priority.

 

The murders on the pedestrian street of La Rambla in Barcelona on August 17, 2017 were not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Spain. (Image source: JT Curses/Wikimedia Commons)

 

Ironically, some people in Barcelona seem to view tourists who pay for short-term visits as a greater threat than Muslim immigrants who come to stay permanently. One can hear similar reactions among some radical left-wing activists, for instance, in Greece.

 

Mass tourism can potentially cause problems such as overcrowding and local pollution. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that only a few days before the terror attack in Barcelona, some locals were complaining about an invasion of tourists. One radical left-wing group, Arran, published footage of tourist bikes in the city having their tires punctured in acts of deliberate sabotage. Of course, the problem might be even greater if there were too few tourists.

 

Meanwhile, a real invasion of Spain and Europe is taking place. For years, huge numbers of illegal immigrants from the Islamic world and Africa have been entering, especially through Greece or Italy. Spain, too, has seen a spike in the number of illegal immigrants. The Spanish-controlled enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa are under increasing pressure as points of departure for migrants.

 

The Madrid bombings in 2004 were immediately followed by the election in Spain of the Socialist politician José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. His policy of appeasement of Islam and the Islamic world was, sadly, not the first. Western Europe’s appeasement of Islam stretches back at least to the 1970s.

 

With the 1973 oil embargo, Arab countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used oil as a weapon and tool for blackmail. European countries started giving concessions to Arabs to ensure their oil supply and, they doubtless hoped, avoid terrorism. These concessions were not just limited to economic affairs. They also included opening Western Europe up to Islamic culture and Muslim immigration. The author Bat Ye’or has written extensively on this subject.

 

As part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, a Euro-Mediterranean Partnership between the EU and the Arabic-Islamic world was launched in 1995 with the so-called Barcelona Process. Its purpose was to strengthen the ties between Europe and the Arab world in the fields of trade, economy, environment, energy, health, migration, education, social affairs and cultural cooperation.

 

This Process has been in force for decades. Despite it, the increasingly stronger ties between the EU and Arab Muslim countries rarely receive critical scrutiny from the European mass media. There is even a Union for the Mediterranean, which most Europeans have never heard of.

 

As the official website of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the diplomatic service of the European Union (EU), stated in October 2017:

 

The Union for the Mediterranean promotes economic integration across 15 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans region. Formerly known as the Barcelona Process, cooperation was re-launched in 2008 as the Union for the Mediterranean…. Projects address areas such as economy, environment, energy, health, migration, education and social affairs. Along with the 28 EU member states, 15 Southern Mediterranean countries are members of the UfM: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Syria (suspended), Tunisia and Turkey. Libya is an observer.”

 

The Islamic Republic of Mauritania in western Africa, a full member of the Union for the Mediterranean, has the same formal status there as Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy and Poland. Although Mauritania was the last country officially to ban slavery, it is still widely practiced there to this day. Yet the country regularly cooperates with the EU on matters of importance to the future of the EU.

 

The Barcelona Process, promoted by the EU, has helped to facilitate a greater presence of Islam and Muslim immigrants in Western Europe — thereby also increasing the Islamic terror threat there. That result was perfectly foreseeable. When the number of people who believe in Islamic Jihad doctrines rises, the likelihood of experiencing Jihadist attacks increases as well.

 

It is unlikely, though, that European political leaders will point to this connection. Doing so would be an indirect admission that Europe’s leaders have actively increased the Islamic terror threat against European citizens. This is the brutal truth they do not want exposed.

__________________

Fjordman, a Norwegian historian, is an expert on Europe, Islam and multiculturalism.

 

Copyright © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.

 

Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565. Donate to Gatestone Institute.

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily READ THE REST

 

Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For…


President Trump’s 70-Point plan on immigration reform pretty much hits the head of the nail on accomplishing his campaign promise. He even offers a compromise bone on DACA to the Leftist Dems if they go along with funding The Wall and strengthening border security. But let’s be clear! The only way this plan doesn’t get through Congress is will be due to RINO members joining the Dem hysterical lies.

 

JRH 10/10/17 (H/T: Freedom Outpost email alert 10/9/2017 4:09 PM)

Please Support NCCR

***************

Trump’s New 70-Point Immigration Plan Is Bad News For DACA, Sanctuary Cities And Violent Gang Members

“…restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness.”

 

By Jack Davis

October 9, 2017 at 7:27am

Western Journalism

 

President Donald Trump unveiled a vast overhaul of America’s immigration policies Sunday night.

 

The package would require that in exchange for any legislation to allow children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, Congress must approve funding a wall along the southern border, approve curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities and fix the leaky border to stop potential gang members from crossing into the U.S.

 

Trump’s package of proposals would also give federal agents more ability to stop illegal immigrants at the border, detain them if they slip into the country and deport them faster.

 

“These findings outline reforms that must be included as part of any legislation addressing the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients,” Trump wrote in a letter to Congress. “Without these reforms, illegal immigration and chain migration, which severely and unfairly burden American workers and taxpayers, will continue without end.”

 

The proposals received support of many lawmakers and officials.

 

“President Trump has put forth a series of proposals that will restore the rule of law to our immigration system, prioritize America’s safety and security, and end the lawlessness. These are reasonable proposals that will build on the early success of President Trump’s leadership. This plan will work. If followed it will produce an immigration system with integrity and one in which we can take pride. Perhaps the best result will be that unlawful attempts to enter will continue their dramatic decline,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., praised the administration for “a serious proposal” and said that “we cannot fix the DACA problem without fixing all of the issues that led to the underlying problem of illegal immigration in the first place.”

 

When Trump announced that he wanted to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, he said he was open to a deal with Congress to allow the estimated 800,000 DACA participants to remain.

 

“Anything that is done addressing the status of DACA recipients needs to include these three reforms and solve these three problems,” a senior White House official told The Washington Times. “If you don’t solve these problems then you’re not going to have a secure border, you’re not going to have a lawful immigration system and you’re not going to be able to protect American workers.”

 

“We would expect Congress to include all the reforms in any package that addresses the status of the DACA recipients,” one White House aide said on the conference call with reporters. “Other views had their fair day in the democratic process.”

 

But Democrats were outraged and accused Trump of racism.

 

“The administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant community and to the vast majority of Americans,” Senate Minority Leader Church Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement Sunday evening, according to The Washington Post. “We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures … but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.”

 

Others were not so restrained in their opinions of Trump.

 

“Congress should reject this warped, anti-immigrant policy wish list. The White House wants to use dreamers as bargaining chips to achieve the administration’s deportation and detention goals,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), vice chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called the package of reforms “an extension of the white supremacist agenda.”

 

He said it is “fanciful thinking that you can sit down with a man who has based his presidential aspirations and has never wavered from his xenophobic positions. I never understood — I just never got it, how you go from Charlottesville and white supremacists to reaching an agreement with him.”

________________

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping readers with truth. Every day, WesternJournalism.com publishes conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

 

As Americans — and indeed, readers around the world — continue to lose trust in traditional newspapers and broadcast networks and their claims of objectivity and impartiality, Western Journalism is rapidly filling the gap as a trusted source of news and information. Western Journalism is staffed by an experienced team of editors, journalists and media experts who both recognize the stories that matter to everyday readers and provide a truthful and unfiltered view of current events.

 

Over 35 million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, putting the site securely among the Top 200 most-visited websites in the United States, according to global traffic analysis by Alexa. Western Journalism continues to break new records in engagement and trust in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

 

Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles: truth, honesty, integrity and accountability. These values are demonstrated through accurate, insightful reporting of information and events happening around the world.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

 

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com.

 

U.S. Amb. to Israel: Trump Will Absolutely Move Embassy to Jerusalem


Thanks to Ali Hoppe on the G+ Community United We Stand One Nation Under God, I have found out that the U.S, Ambassador to Israel – David Friedman – is publicly taking the stand that U.S. Embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to the Eternal Capital of the Land of Israel is just a matter of when.

Since the Ambassador supposed to represent the agenda of the U.S. government, it warms my heart that President Trump has not given up on this campaign promise that has actually been mandated by the U.S. Congress.

 

JRH 10/6/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

U.S. Amb. to Israel: Trump Will Absolutely Move Embassy to Jerusalem

‘It’s not if, but when’

 

By Adam Kredo

October 4, 2017 12:43 pm

Washington Free Beacon

 

Thousands of Israelis at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s old city for Passover in 2011 / Getty Images

 

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said the Trump administration will move the American embassy in the country to Jerusalem, saying it is not a matter of “if, but when,” according to remarks offered in a new interview.

 

President Donald Trump promised early on in his campaign for office that he would finally move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Israel considers its capital.

 

The issue has been shrouded in controversy since it is longstanding U.S. policy not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital so as not to prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

Trump has promised to move the embassy as one of his first declarations in office, but that was derailed following opposition by the State Department and a renewed push to get the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

 

While Trump administration officials have said the embassy move is still being reviewed, Friedman told Erick Stakelbeck, director of Christians United for Israel’s Watchman Project, in an exclusive interview that the U.S. embassy is certain to be relocated during Trump’s tenure in office.

 

“The embassy will move. It’s not if, but when,” Friedman told Stakelbeck in an interview set to be broadcast on the TBN network. “I am convinced that during his term, the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of Israel.”

 

VIDEO: The Watchman Episode 69 Preview: Ambassador David Friedman Says U.S. Embassy Will Move to Jerusalem

 

Posted by The Watchman

Published on Oct 3, 2017

 

Host Erick Stakelbeck sits down with the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, at his residence in Herziliya to discuss strengthening U.S./Israel relations, Jerusalem, Iran and more. Plus, the harrowing story of the forgotten Jewish refugees of the Middle East is recounted.

 

LIVE on TBN, Fridays at 10:30pm ET (9:30pm CT, 8:30pm MT, 7:30pm PT)

_______________

Adam Kredo   Email Adam Full Bio

 

Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address is kredo@freebeacon.com.

 

©2017 All Rights Reserved.

 

About Washington Free Beacon

 

“How stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

—Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

 

The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

 

The Beacon’s chairman is Michael Goldfarb. Its editor in chief is Matthew Continetti. Sonny Bunch is the executive editor. Bill Gertz is senior editor.

 

READ THE REST

 

U.N. Heads Turn in Stunned Disbelief as PLO Lies Exposed by Palestinian Hero


UN Watch lets the world know that not all Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are pleased with the government operations of the Palestinian Authority (PA) put into place under the idiotic Oslo Accords. The thing is, the PA for all intents and purposes is the functionary of the Islamic terrorists known as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

 

The displeased Palestinian in this case is Mosab Hassan Yousef. Here is some background I found on him:

 

 

Mosab Hassan Yousef (Arabic: مصعب حسن يوسف‎‎; born May 5, 1978)[3] is a Palestinian who worked undercover for Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet from 1997 to 2007.

 

Shin Bet considered him its most valuable source within the Hamas leadership: the information Yousef supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks and assassinations of Israelis, exposed numerous Hamas cells,[1] and assisted Israel in hunting down many militants, including the incarceration of his own father, a Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef.[4] In March 2010, he published his autobiography titled Son of Hamas.[5]

 

In 1999, Yousef converted to Christianity, and in 2007 moved to the United States.[2] His request for political asylum in the United States was granted pending a routine background check on June 30, 2010.[6]

 

READ THE REST (Mosab Hassan Yousef; Wikipedia; page was last edited on 9/27/17 04:23)

 

JRH 9/29/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

U.N. Heads Turn in Stunned Disbelief as PLO Lies Exposed by Palestinian Hero

 

Sara Lynn Church links to IsraellyCool.com

That post is dated: 9/28/17

 

Sara Lynn Church posted link to video of UN Watch & Mosab Hassan Yousef exposing lies of the PA/PLO at the United Nations Human Rights Council. I’ll be cross posting this on my blogs.

 

Facebook Group: No Palestinian State!

Moderation Approved: 9/28/17 5:01 PM

 

Sara’s only intro: “Priceless”

 

VIDEO: AMBUSHED: U.N. Heads Turn in Stunned Disbelief as PLO Lies Exposed by Palestinian Hero

 

Posted by unwatch

Published on Sep 27, 2017

 

EPIC MOMENT: U.N. stunned, Palestinian delegates in shock, as UN Watch brings surprise guest speaker—Palestinian Mosab Hassan Yousef—to expose PLO lies. Watch heads turn & eyes bulge!

 

Sign up: www.unwatch.org

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unwatch/videos/10154800858516561/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/UNWatch/status/913162716768071680

 

Transcript: https://www.unwatch.org/u-n-shock-heads-turn-stunned-disbelief-palestinian-exposes-plo-lies/

 

YouTube: https://youtu.be/c2NaiX-hvVQ

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released an open letter that was also sent to President Trump pertaining to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For clarity’s sake, the JCPOA was not a treaty confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Constitution stipulates for binding international agreements. Rather Obama chose to by-pass the Senate and made largely Classified undisclosed agreement components (AIM – 9/8/16 and Fox News 2/7/17) with Iran allegedly to prevent militarization of nuclear power for – GET THIS – only ten years.

 

Obama’s JCPOA is a classic 21st century version of pre-WWII agreements between Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Germany’s Fuehrer Adolf Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain declared he negotiated a successful peace for our time. That peace was delusional as Hitler was permitted to carve up Czechoslovakia in the name of peace which emboldened Hitler to invade Poland which began WWII.

 

Bolton’s alternative to the JCPOA is not a renegotiation with Iran, rather it’s a strategic alternative to check Iranian expansionism and nuclear militarization.

 

Trump has been falling for the lie Iran has been complying to the JCPOA and thus has recertified that idiotic agreement contrary to the campaign promises. I pray the President listens to the signatories of this letter.

 

JRH 9/23/17

Please Support NCCR

************

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

Email sent by Center for Security Policy

Email Contact Maya Carlin

Email Sent 9/21/2017 11:13 AM

PDF Version

 

(Washington, D.C.):  Today 45 national security experts, many of whom held senior positions in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw the United States from the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) using a comprehensive plan drafted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

 

The signatories believe President Trump was exactly right during the campaign when he said the JCPOA is one of the worst agreements ever negotiated.  They believe this agreement is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons while the deal is in effect, has extremely weak verification provisions, and ignores Iran’s increasingly destabilizing behavior.  Because of the enormous risks the JCPOA poses to American and international security and the impossibility of convincing Iran to amend the agreement, the signers believe the only option is for the United States to withdraw and initiate a new, more comprehensive approach that addresses all of the threats posed by Iran – including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism – with a broad alliance that includes Israel and America’s Gulf State allies.

 

The signatories endorse Ambassador Bolton’s plan to implement this approach by withdrawing from the JCPOA in coordination with America’s allies.  The signers believe the Bolton plan is the best way to reverse the damage done by the reckless concessions that Obama officials made to Iran to negotiate the JCPOA and to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from spinning out of control as North Korea’s nuclear effort has.

 

Some of the eminent individuals who signed the letter include:

 

  • Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

  • Ambassador Henry F. “Hank” Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

  • Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

  • Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

  • William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

 

  • Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

 

  • Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories

 

  • Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

The full text of the letter is below.

 

September 21, 2017

 

The Honorable Donald J. Trump

President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC

 

Dear President Trump:

 

We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.

 

We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.

 

We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal.  Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor.  Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years.  In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.

 

We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.

 

In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement.  This has not happened.  To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened.  Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches.  There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget.  Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria.  Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.

 

Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.

 

We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA.  The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.  Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.

 

Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years.  A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it.  Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic.  Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation.  The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.

 

Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran.  This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran.  He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

 

Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.

 

We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.

 

As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month.  It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.

 

ATTACHMENT: “Abrogating The Iran Deal: The Way Forward” By Ambassador John Bolton [Blog Editor: The “ATTACHMENT” at the end of the signatures in this CSP email. But if you are impatient, here is the National Review version by John Bolton]

 

Sincerely,

 

Winston Lewis Amselem

U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)

 

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.)

Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

Stephen Coughlin

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst

 

Jack David

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy

 

Paula A. DeSutter

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance

 

Joseph E. diGenova

Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia

 

Jessie Jane Duff

Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.)

Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research

 

Dr. Manfred Eimer

Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

Fritz Ermarth

Retired CIA officer.  Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council

 

Douglas J. Feith

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

Frederick Fleitz

Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 

Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

 

Daniel J. Gallington

Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks

 

D. Scott George

Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.

 

Dr. William R. Graham

Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Larry K. Grundhauser

Brigadier General, USAF Retired

 

Philip Haney

Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer

 

George William Heiser II

Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff

 

Richard T. Higgins

Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council

 

Peter Huessy

President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security

 

Ambassador Eric M. Javits

Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

 

Ambassador Robert G. Joseph

Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission

 

Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President

 

Dr. Charles M. Kupperman

Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Herbert I. London

President, London Center for Policy Research

 

Robert L. Luaces

Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs

 

Admiral James A. Lyons

U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.)

Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review

 

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

 

Daniel Pollak

Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

 

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA

 

George Rasley

Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant

 

Major General Edward M. Reeder

U.S. Army (Ret.)

 

Ambassador C. Paul Robinson

Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories.  Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks

 

Nina Rosenwald

Founder and President, Gatestone Institute

 

Mark Schneider

Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy.  Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense.  Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.

 

Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret)

Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research.  Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative

 

Sarah Stern

Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman

President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

 

Victoria Toensing

Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee

 

Adam Turner

General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

J. Michael Waller

Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications

 

David Wurmser

Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney

 

 

 

ABROGATING THE IRAN DEAL: THE WAY FORWARD

By Ambassador John Bolton

 

I. Background:

 

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.

 

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:

 

(i)  Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;

 

(ii)  Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;

 

(iii)  Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and

 

(iv)  Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –

 

(I)  appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and

 

(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.

 

U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.

 

Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

 

But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.

 

The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

 

Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.

 

We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

 

II. Campaign Plan Components

 

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.

 

  1. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

 

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players

 

It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.

 

This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.

 

The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case

 

The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.

 

Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.

 

A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.

 

  1. Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement

 

The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.

 

Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.

 

After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.

 

Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.

 

Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.

 

In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts

 

The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.

 

Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.

 

The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:

 

  • End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;

 

  • End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;

 

  • Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
    • Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;

 

  • Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;

 

  • Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

 

IV. Conclusion

 

This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

 

  1. Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.

 

[CLICK HERE FOR PDF COPY OF THIS RELEASE]

______________

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

______________

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

About The Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

 

Rocket Man Verbally Spanked at UN


John R. Houk

© September 21, 2017

 

VIDEO: Trump on Kim Jong-un: “Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself”

 

Posted by The Telegraph

Published on Sep 19, 2017

 

On Monday, President Donald Trump gave one of the best speeches at the United Nations I have ever heard from an American since President Reagan. President Trump verbally spanked North Korea, Iran, the UN over sovereignty issues and members paying their fair share, Radical Islamic terrorism, the Maduro Socialist dictatorship in Venezuela, spanked Cuba over its Marxist dictatorship, International Multi-national trade agreements that place an undue financial burden on American taxpayers and in relation to those Multi-national deals, the President spanked unaccountable globalist bureaucracies that impose rules/laws that sovereign nation legislatures have not agreed to.

 

I felt like I was watching football team score touchdown after touchdown. I cheered and shouted throughout the roughly 40-minute speech.

 

Unsurprisingly, the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) acted as the opposing football team going hysterical with each point scored by Trump. Especially the President’s classic branding acumen in giving Kim Jong-un a new nickname: ROCKET MAN. I know of the ballistic Leftist MSM reaction not by observation but thanks to Fox News exposing Leftist propaganda of their competitors. I saw a clip on Fox News of George Stephanopoulos berating UN Ambassador Nikki Haley over the Rocket Man branding. Here’s the quote I heard from Ambassador Haley defending the NoKo branding to Stephanopoulos that I found on Business Insider:

 

Nikki Haley responds to Stephanopoulos Rocket Man quip 9-20-17

 

“I was talking to a president of an African country, and he actually cited ‘Rocket Man’ back to me. So, I will tell you that look — this is a way of getting people to talk about him, but every other international community is referring to him as Rocket Man.”

 

Here’s a little Rocket Man fun that the American Left and Kim Jong-un will not appreciate – eh, so what.

 

VIDEO: Kim Jong Un sings “Rocket Man” at North Korean Karaoke Bar

 

Posted by Kenneth Webster

Published on Sep 20, 2017

 

Below is the entire Trump/UN speech courtesy of Global News on Youtube and below that is President Trump’s speech transcript at Breaking Christian News (BCN) but borrowed from the Leftist Vox news.

 

JRH 9/21/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

VIDEO: Donald Trump delivers first speech to U.N. General Assembly


Posted by Global News

Streamed live on Sep 19, 2017

 

Donald Trump delivers his first speech as president in front of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

 

For more info, please go to http://www.globalnews.ca

 

Subscribe to Global News Channel HERE: http://bit.ly/20fcXDc

 

Like Global News on Facebook HERE: http://bit.ly/255GMJQ

 

Follow Global News on Twitter HERE: http://bit.ly/1Toz8mt

___________

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S HISTORIC FIRST SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (FULL TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO)

 

Transcript of Donald J Trump

Sep 19, 2017

Transcript from Vox.com

Breaking Christian News

 

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil, also fought for the nations that they love. Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain. Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, our minds, and our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

 

This transcript is provided by Vox.com; you can also watch President Trump’s speech via YouTube, here. (Screengrab: YouTube/via Global News)

 

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates, welcome to New York. It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city as a representative of the American people to address the people of the world. As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid. The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

 

Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8. The stock market is at an all-time high, a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth, the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time, and it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly.

 

Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today, but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed. We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity.

Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve. But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terror but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

 

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances, that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II. International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people, force dislocation and mass migration, threaten our borders and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens. To put it simply, we meet at a time of both immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair. We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

 

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars, to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity. It was in the same period exactly 70 years ago that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those beautiful pillars, they are pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity. The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As president, Truman said in his message to congress at that time, our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations.

 

The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members. To overcome the perils of the present, and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity, and peace, for themselves and for the world. We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government, but we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.

 

This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success. Strong sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect. Strong sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God. In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.

 

This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example. We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution, the oldest constitution still in use in the world today. This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law. The greatest in the united States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are “We the people.” Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country and of our great history.

 

In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people where it belongs. In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.

 

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition. But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity, to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

 

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else, but in fulfilling our obligations to our nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interests to seek the future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

 

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations charter. Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall. America’s devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies. From the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia, it is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerge victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others. Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all. For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope.

 

We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideologies. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values. That realism forces us to confront the question facing every leader and nation in this room, it is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face, or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow.

 

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.

 

And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The scourge of our planet today are small regimes that violate every principle [on which] the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

 

No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans. And for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more. We were all witness to the regime’s deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America, only to die a few days later.

 

We saw it in the assassination of the dictator’s brother, using banned nerve agents in an international airport. We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country, to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea’s spies. If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life. It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.

 

No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles. The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about. That’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.

 

It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future. The United Nations Security Council recently held two unanimous 15-0 votes adopting hard-hitting resolutions against North Korea, and I want to thank China and Russia for joining the vote to impose sanctions, along with all of the other members of the Security Council. Thank you to all involved. But we must do much more.

 

It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior. We face this decision not only in North Korea; it is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime, one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

 

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people. Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian live, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.

 

This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East. We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it. Believe me.

 

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. Above all, Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors. The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most. This is what causes the regime to restrict internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protesters, and imprison political reformers.

 

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the people will face a choice. Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror, or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth, where their people can be happy and prosperous once again? The Iranian regime’s support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its finance, and in Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations. We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamic extremism that inspires them.

 

We will stop radical islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation and, indeed, to tear up the entire world. We must deny the terrorists’ safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology. We must drive them out of our nation. It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries … who support and finance terror groups like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and others that slaughter innocent people.

 

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people. Last month I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

 

In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined. We seek the deescalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

 

We appreciate the efforts of the United Nations’ agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict. The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort. We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people and which enables their eventual return to their home countries to be part of the rebuilding process. For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.

Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible. This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach. For decades the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere.

 

We have learned that over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries. For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms. For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are born overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

 

I want to salute the work of the United Nations in seeking to address the problems that cause people to flee from their home. The United Nations and African Union led peacekeeping missions to have invaluable contributions in stabilizing conflict in Africa. The United States continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief, in South Sudan, Somalia, and northern Nigeria and Yemen.

 

We have invested in better health and opportunity all over the world through programs like PEPFAR, which funds AIDS relief, the President’s Malaria Initiative, the Global Health Security Agenda, the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery, and the Women Entrepreneur’s Finance Initiative, part of our commitment to empowering women all across the globe.

 

We also thank—we also thank the secretary general for recognizing that the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity. Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process. In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble end have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the UN Human Rights Council.

 

The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes. The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it. Major portions of the world are in conflict, and some, in fact, are going to Hell, but the powerful people in this room, under the guidance and auspices of the United Nations, can solve many of these vicious and complex problems. The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world.

 

In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own region. That is why in the Western Hemisphere the United States has stood against the corrupt, destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. (Screengrab: YouTube/via Global News)

 

My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms. We have also imposed tough calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse. The socialist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country.

 

This corrupt regime destroyed a prosperous nation—prosperous nation, by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. To make matters worse, Maduro has defied his own people, stealing power from their elected representatives, to preserve his disastrous rule. The Venezuelan people are starving, and their country is collapsing. Their democratic institutions are being destroyed. The situation is completely unacceptable, and we cannot stand by and watch.

 

As a responsible neighbor and friend, we and all others have a goal—that goal is to help them regain their freedom, recover their country, and restore their democracy. I would like to thank leaders in this room for condemning the regime and providing vital support to the Venezuelan people. The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable. We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

 

We are fortunate to have incredibly strong and healthy trade relationships with many of the Latin American countries gathered here today. Our economic bond forms a critical foundation for advancing peace and prosperity for all of our people and all of our neighbors. I ask every country represented here today to be prepared to do more to address this very real crisis. We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.

 

From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity. In America, we seek stronger ties of business and trade with all nations of goodwill, but this trade must be fair and it must be reciprocal.

 

For too long the American people were told that mammoth, multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success. But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules, and our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.

 

While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government, the duty of our citizens. This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today. If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the independent strength of its members. If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substantive for strong, sovereign, and independent nations, nations that are rooted in the histories and invested in their destiny, nations that seek allies to befriend, not enemies to conquer, and most important of all, nations that are home to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countries, their fellow citizens, and for all that is best in the human spirit.

 

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil, also fought for the nations that they love. Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain. Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, our minds, and our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

 

This is the ancient wish of every people and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul. So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world. We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all. Thank you, God bless you, God bless the nations of the world, and God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much.

______________

Rocket Man Verbally Spanked at UN

John R. Houk

© September 21, 2017

_____________

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S HISTORIC FIRST SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (FULL TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO)

 

All articles on this site and emails from BCN are copyrighted property of Breaking Christian News. Permission is given to link to, or share a BCN story if proper attribution is given to both the original writer and summarizer of the story. Breaking Christian News 2005-2012. All Rights Reserved.

 

Disclaimer: Articles and links, as well as the source articles linked to; do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Breaking Christian News.

541-924-3906

 

An Intro to … Reassign McMaster


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © August 30, 2017

 

Yesterday I posted Justin Smith’s critique of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster entitled “A Bitter Struggle”. Justin’s theme is the obvious purge of Trump loyalists from the Trump National Security teams and the incomprehensible protection of Obama holdovers.

 

If you read Justin’s submission, and you should, you must have come away wondering: Why in the world would President Trump allow people supportive of Obama’s destructive to the USA agenda to remain when the President promised to drain the swamp?

 

After you read Ryan Mauro’s “25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster,” the question should be a question you cannot get out of your head.

 

I need to stipulate my position for clarity to show you where I stand. I’m a Conservative that subscribes to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda and to be honest, I have some of the Neocon tendencies that lead to American Exceptionalism in foreign policy but have abandoned the concept of nation building in the Muslim world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that Western Concepts of Liberty and Islamic culture are totally inimical to each other. Yet a strong America needs a strong-superior military to enforce American National Interests.

 

Also, years of a cursory study of Islam has not on has shown that American Constitutional Liberty and Islamic theopolitical ideology are incompatible, but as a Christian I can say Islam revered writings are deceptively as well as completely immersed in Antichrist ideology. I’m a Christian but every single Jew should be aware the Islamic revered writings even have more hate for Jews than for Christians.

 

AND pertaining to Israel, I am a Christian Zionist that believes the entirety of the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are to their descendants which today embodies the Jews. A term applied to all twelve tribes of the Hebrews that King David ruled as Israel. There NEVER has been a nation or national people called Palestinians.

 

Every single thing I mentioned – as you will soon discover – is something H.R. McMaster is diametrically opposed to!

 

JRH 8/30/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

 

By RYAN MAURO 

August 27, 2017 

Clarion Project

 

National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster is moving aggressively—and successfully—to maximize his power in the Trump Administration. President Trump is standing by his side as anti-Islamist writers and think-tanks like the Center for Security Policy call for his termination or reassignment.

 

McMaster’s ascent is a sudden change in the balance of power in the White House. President Trump was widely reported to be so disappointed with McMaster that Trump met with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to discuss replacing him. Trump and Bolton concluded it was not the right move.

 

Then, Secretary of Homeland Security General John Kelly became the new chief of staff. He told McMaster that he wanted him to stay. McMaster’s chief rivals, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, were then pressured into resigning.

 

The criticisms of McMaster are well-warranted and are not the fruits of overactive imaginations among bigoted “alt-right” smear-merchants, like Senator McCain characterizes them.

 

Here are 25 reasons that President Trump should fire National Security Adviser McMaster or, if he’s willing to, reassign him to a military position where he can excel on the battlefield as he did before.

 

  1. He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).

 

You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.

 

In 2014, McMaster said that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.” He went so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.”

 

In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”

 

In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”

 

A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”

 

In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”

 

Here’s the Clarion take:

 

VIDEO: The Politically Incorrect Raheel Raza

 

Posted by Clarion Project

Published on Mar 21, 2017

 

Raheel Raza says it like it is. If calling out radical Islam is politically incorrect then so be it. Raheel is bold enough to criticize and challenge radical Islam, are you?

 

  1. Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists

In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”

 

The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.

 

McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.

 

 

  1. Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

 

Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

  1. Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism

 

McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

 

McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.

 

This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S. policies.

 

The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.

 

  1. The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas

 

Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”

 

“The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.

 

He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.

 

Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.

 

The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”

 

If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.

 

There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.

 

  1. McMaster believes terrorism is caused by disenfranchisement and lack of education

 

In his endorsement of the book, McMaster said, “Terrorist organizations use a narrow and irreligious ideology to recruit undereducated and disenfranchised people to their cause.”

 

Remember when the Obama Administration’s State Department spokeswoman was mocked by the left and the right for suggesting that ISIS needs to be countered by reducing unemployment and poverty?

 

That same view is held by our current national security adviser.

 

  1. Preserving the Iran deal

 

McMaster is in favor of keeping the nuclear deal with Iran. His position resulted in the U.S. certifying that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the agreement. By claiming that Iran has been obedient, it bolsters the regime’s credibility and makes America look worse if we leave the deal later.

 

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz was on a conference call with McMaster before it was certified and explained to McMaster how Iran is violating the deal. When Fleitz asked why the administration would certify Iranian compliance despite evidence of non-compliance, McMaster failed to give a direct answer.

 

  1. Failure to understand the Israeli-Palestinian theater of the war with Islamism

 

The ideological war against Islamism requires us to debunk Islamist propaganda against our allies.

 

It is now known that McMaster declined to defend our best ally in the Middle East when questioned about Israel’s conduct in its 2014 war with Hamas.

 

Israel’s extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties in the war have been well-documented. When McMaster was asked whether he would agree that the Israeli military fought ethically, he gave an incoherent answer and then admitted, “that’s kind of a non-answer, sorry, to your first question.”

 

McMaster tried to stop Trump from visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem and, when he realized he couldn’t win that argument, pressured Trump not to go with any Israeli official. McMaster twice refused to answer whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, saying, “That’s a policy decision.”

 

The Conservative Review reported that McMaster refers to Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power,” according to three current and former officials from Trump’s inner circle.

 

Senior Middle East Annalyst [sic] Caroline Glick substantiates the accounts with her own sources who describe McMaster as “deeply hostile” to Israel.

 

According to these reports, McMaster has characterized Israeli security measures as “excuses” to oppress Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs. These sources also claim that he is not supportive of U.S. support for Israeli counter-terrorism efforts and shut down a joint initiative aimed at Hezbollah.

 

The initiative was led by Derek Harvey, who McMaster fired (more on that later).

 

McMaster is a big reason why there are increasing danger signs for Israel from parts of the Trump Administration. This has been recognized by the Zionist Organization of America, which is asking for McMaster’s reassignment.

 

9.Appointing Kris Bauman as top National Security Council adviser on Israel.

 

Kris Bauman was chosen in May as the top adviser on Israel for the National Security Council. Journalist Daniel Greenfield reviewed Bauman’s 2009 dissertation and found highly disturbing content.

 

As Clarion reported earlier this month, Bauman blamed Israel and the West for failing to see “Hamas’s signals of willingness to moderate” and turning Gaza “into an open-air prison.” He advocated a policy that includes “Hamas in a solution,” dismissing Hamas’ oft-stated pledge to destroy Israel and kill Jews until the end of time.

 

In his dissertation, Bauman cites The Israel Lobby, a book that purports to disclose how Israel secretly manipulates the U.S. institutions of power from behind-the-scenes. He says the “Israel Lobby” “is a force that must be reckoned with, but it is a force that can be reckoned with.”

 

Bauman clearly depicts Israel as the aggressor in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and, as Greenfield points out, equates Jewish settlers in the West Bank with Palestinian terrorists.

 

“It is true that one could make an analogous argument regarding Palestinian terrorism, but there is one major difference between the two. Israeli government control over settlement expansion is far greater than Palestinian Authority control over terrorism,” Bauman writes.

 

As to the failure of the “peace process,” he blames Israel as well as the West for its “overwhelmingly favored Israeli interests.” Prime Minister Netanyahu is blamed for “inciting Palestinian violence” and deliberately undermining the prospects for peace.

 

A consistent theme appears in Bauman’s thesis: Israel is the instigator of terrorism. To defeat terrorism, stop Israel. And now he is in a strong position in the National Security Council to try to make that happen.

 

  1. Insubordination and constant drama

 

McMaster goes beyond honestly expressing himself to the president and crosses into insubordination, undermining the president’s agenda and contributing to dysfunction.

 

A strong example of McMaster’s well-known temper and ego was published in May by a prominent author who recalled how McMaster “went a bit batshit” because of an article he wrote where 95% of the content celebrated McMaster’s remarkable success in Iraq.

 

The other five percent focused on his forces’ initial mistakes and “mediocre” performance before adapting to the situation. And that set McMaster off.  The author even quoted an expert who said McMaster’s success would become a “case study in classic counterinsurgency, the way it is supposed to be done.”

 

Even major supporters of McMaster who know him personally admit “he can be very intense.” The left-leaning Politico, which is more inclined to favor McMaster than his rivals, reports that his “temper is legendary” and he “frequently blows his top in high-level meetings.”

 

Politico described McMaster as an “increasingly volatile presence in the West Wing.” Three administration officials told the Daily Caller the same thing, with one describing the National Security Council as having a “poisonous environment.”

 

In addition to targeting Bannon and Gorka and anyone he sees as being in their camp, McMaster reportedly couldn’t even get along with Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who should be on his team. (The relationship is said to have improved, though.)

 

He also clashes with Secretary of Defense Mattis over military matters and Afghanistan. Mattis gave a dismissive response to these charges, however.

 

At his very first National Security Council meeting, McMaster immediately told those under him that President Trump is wrong to use the term “radical Islam” because the terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

 

Right away, he got to work building a coalition to wage internal battles.

 

When it came time for Trump’s Joint Address to Congress, McMaster fought tooth and nail to stop him from using the “radical Islam” terminology. He wrote and widely distributed throughout the government a memo criticizing the president.

 

Trump was very open that this would be his view. If McMaster couldn’t stand it, then he shouldn’t have accepted the appointment.

 

When President Trump and Chief Strategist Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers from the Obama Administration that may be leaking inappropriate information to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.

 

When President Trump said South Korea would have to help cover the cost of a missile defense system to defend them from North Korea, McMaster immediately told the South Koreans that Trump’s words weren’t actual policy. Trump was furious and screamed at him on the phone.

 

Trump is said to have confronted McMaster about the “general undermining of my policy.”

 

McMaster has worked hard to expand his fan club in the Trump Administration at the expense of those he disagrees with, particularly those closest to the president’s views.

 

The Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month, “A White House official said McMaster appears to be trying to clear out anyone from the NSC staff who is outspokenly pro-Trump and has been slow-rolling the president’s directives that he disagrees with.”

 

In his resignation letter, Dr. Gorka wrote to Trump, “Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months.”

 

As these internal battles have been waged, a steady stream of derogatory leaks have appeared in the media. Bannon has been blamed for anti-McMaster coverage at Breitbart, but McMaster somehow isn’t blamed for the leaks favorable to his side that appeared in the mainstream media. The pro-McMaster leaks substantiate why top generals saw him as a “publicity hound” in the military who advanced because of his closeness to General Petraeus.

 

  1. Pushing out Chief Strategist Steve Bannon

 

On issues related to Islamism, Bannon was an important voice to have in the White House. He was a main proponent of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and of waging an ideological war on Islamism.

 

Bannon understood the need to promote Muslim reform versus McMaster’s promotion of “non-Militant” Islamists. Shortly before his resignation on August 18, Bannon met with Dr. Daniel Pipes and Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum, one of the most effective anti-Islamist organizations and promoters of Muslim modernist reformers.

 

Bannon was McMaster’s top target. McMaster had forced out many officials that he felt were too close to Bannon, personally and politically, apparently attempting to monopolize power as much as possible. After resigning, Bannon said, “No administration in history has been so divided.”

 

Bannon disagreed with McMaster on the April 6 airstrike on a Syrian airbase and the new strategy for Afghanistan. Although there are serious merits to the airstrikes and the new strategy for Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential to have the views Bannon represents be a part of the decision-making process. A good teammate can disagree with a decision but still improve the option that is ultimately chosen.

 

  1. Pressuring Dr. Sebastian Gorka to resign

 

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to the president and author of Defeating Jihadresigned reportedly due to pressure from McMaster and Chief of Staff Kelly.

 

Gorka and Bannon were the main proponents of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

Gorka is best known as the man who flattens the media like a human bulldozer. These viral TV segments earned the adoration of President Trump, who personally intervened to stop plans by his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to move Gorka out of the White House and to a federal agency.

 

Trump’s satisfaction with Gorka and his success in handling the media should be considered important assets for an administration that struggles with messaging and perception. His book shows he is focused on a long-term plan for victory over Islamism.

 

Unfortunately for him, Chief of Staff Kelly disagreed with Trump and was reportedly “displeased” with Gorka’s popular television segments and McMaster saw him as part of the Team Bannon that he sought to conquer.

 

Gorka was also probably seen as too much of a political liability, as he had become the victim of one of the most vicious and meritless smear campaigns in recent memory.

 

However, Gorka’s media appearances, input and the ridiculousness of his enemies made him a political asset.

 

  1. Sidelining K.T. McFarland

 

Shortly after McMaster took his post, Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland was transferred out. McMaster had the leading role in making it happen.

 

She became the ambassador to Singapore; not exactly a position where her national security experience is being used to its full potential. Among her viewpoints is supporting designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

  1. Firing Ezra Cohen-Watnick

 

McMaster wanted to fire Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, right from the start. Watnick was initially saved by Bannon and Kushner.

 

Before joining the government, Cohen-Watnick organized an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event on his campus. He understands the issue of Islamist extremism and is passionate about it.

 

Watnick joined the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2010, became an intelligence officer and left in January 2017 for his senior National Security Council spot. He is believed to have entered the Defense Clandestine Service in 2012 and went to the CIA’s training facility known as “The Farm” in Virginia. He obviously had a strong background.

 

He was brought into the NSC by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and, therefore, was seen as an ally of the Bannon-Gorka team inside the administration.

 

We don’t know much about what Watnick advocated while in the National Security Council aside from expanding U.S. operations against Iranian-backed militias in Syria.

 

Watnick was accused of improperly sharing intelligence with Rep. Devin Nunes, but there is disagreement over whether he did anything wrong. However, we know McMaster wanted to get rid of him right from the beginning, so this was probably just a good opportunity for a power play.

 

  1. Trying to Hire Linda Weissgold

 

McMaster had already begun interviewing CIA official Linda Weissgold as Watnick’s replacement before Bannon and Kushner initially stopped him.

 

Under the Obama Administration, Weissgold was the director of the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis. That means she was responsible for the false talking points about the terrorist attack in Benghazi in September 2012.

 

  1. Firing Retired Col. Derek Harvey

 

Last month, McMaster fired President Trump’s top Middle East adviser from the National Security Council. The reason, as explained by one senior White House official, is that McMaster “wants his own guy.”

 

Harvey had an exemplary record and was thought to have a good relationship with McMaster, going back to when they served together under General Petraeus. He was described as one of Petraeus’ “most trusted intelligence advisors in Iraq” during the remarkably successful surge that turned the situation around.

 

Harvey was fired because of policy differences and McMaster’s desire to win the internal power struggle and cement his group over the National Security Council. McMaster and Harvey disagreed on “nearly every” area, particularly when it came to radical Islam and Iran. Harvey advocated working more closely with Israel, Egyptian President Sisi and Saudi Arabia.

 

Harvey had also put together a proposal for how the Trump Administration could scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. McMaster “blasted” his performance on Iran policy but according to a senior official who spoke to the left-wing Daily Beast, Harvey “was stuck in a Catch-22 situation” because lower-level staff dragged their feet in helping him.

 

According to the Weekly Standard—a publication that is certainly not in the Bannon/Trump camp—McMaster fired him because he didn’t like how close Harvey was to Bannon. Another detailed account said McMaster was also irked by his closeness to Kushner.

 

The most complete story says that McMaster directly told Harvey not to get too close to Bannon and Kushner. Shortly before he was fired, McMaster saw him leaving Bannon’s office. The sources say Harvey actually didn’t talk to Bannon too much, but McMaster had asked for information about Trump’s foreign policy priorities and that necessitated a meeting with Bannon.

 

McMaster saw Harvey at Bannon’s office on a Friday. When Monday came around, McMaster’s executive officer, Ylli Bajraktari (a Pentagon official from the Obama Administration) reminded Harvey it is not a “good idea” to talk to Bannon. He was fired four days later.

 

One other report states that Defense Secretary Mattis complained to McMaster about Harvey. The more exhaustive account based on sources close to Harvey dispute elements of that account.

 

  1. Replacing Harvey with Michael Bell

 

McMaster replaced Harvey with Michael Bell, who was the National Security Council’s director for Persian Gulf affairs.

 

Not surprisingly, Bell is on record for harshly criticizing then-Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka to the Washington Post. Bell claimed that Gorka was too biased on Islam-related issues, stopping just a few steps shy of hitting him with the “Islamophobe” label.

 

Clearly, McMaster was picking a team to go to war with the White House. There’s no other way to interpret this decision.

 

  1. Ousting of Adam Lovinger

 

In May, National Security Counil [sic] analyst Adam Lovinger had his security clearance revoked for unclear reasons that Lovinger described as “puzzling and baseless.” He was then fired.

 

Lovinger was at the council on loan from the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, where he had served as a strategic affairs analyst for 12 years. He was a known Trump supporter and was brought into the council by Flynn. Therefore, he would have been seen by McMaster as a Bannon ally.

 

Caroline Glick described Lovinger as a “seasoned strategic analyst” who clashed with McMaster because he favored India over Pakistan. He also opposed the nuclear deal with Iran and supported the use of terminology like “radical Islam.”

 

Lovinger confirmed that his conservative views on foreign policy had irked bureaucrats, and he believes his clearance was taken away for political reasons.

 

The Washington Free Beacon reported on May 1 that “security clearances granting access to state secrets have become increasingly politicized in a bid by opponents to block senior advisers to President Trump.”

 

Another example of this happening is Robin Townley, who held a top secret clearance and was picked by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn as the council’s senior director for Africa. The CIA declined to grant him the necessary security clearance for Sensitive Compartmented Information. A source close to Townley said it was a politically-motivated “hit job.

 

  1. Ousting Tera Dahl

 

Tera Dahl, the National Security Council’s deputy chief of staff, transferred out of the council in June. She will likely be working at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

 

Dahl was a writer for Breitbart and therefore seen as belonging to Bannon’s camp. She also co-founded a foreign policy think tank with Katharine Gorka, wife of now-former Deputy Assistant Sebastian Gorka (Katharine Gorka is currently an official adviser to the Department of Homeland Security’s policy office.)

 

Dahl was especially interested in Egypt. She is supportive of Egyptian President el-Sisi, arguing that his actions are helping to transition the country towards democracy and stability. She visited Egypt and believes he is getting unfair treatment by some Western media outlets and think-tanks who want to demonize him and exonerate his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.

 

The left-wing Buzzfeed described the change as a result of warring factions inside the White House over foreign policy. It explained, “The move frees up National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to install another staffer of his choosing in his drive to reshape the NSC to his liking.”

 

Dahl is said to have expressed interest in transferring because she was close to National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, whose tensions with McMaster have “created an uncomfortable working environment at the NSC.”

 

The council’s spokesperson Michael Anton claims “it was always her intent to move into a policy role once this task [at NSC] was completed.”

 

  1. Firing Rich Higgins

 

McMaster and/or his deputy, Ricky Waddell, fired the NSC’s director of strategic planning, Rich Higgins, on July 21.

 

Higgins has an extensive background of national security service and has a deep understanding of the Islamist ideology, its associated doctrines and how it interacts with political movements that Islamists find common cause with.

 

Higgins had a deep understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and how Islamists got political access and impacted policy under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He studied how political correctness had resulted in cleansing counter-terrorism training and national security policy documents from references to the ideological basis of the threat.

 

Higgins was pushing for the declassification of documents related to radical Islam and Iran and, more specifically, Presidential Study Directive 11. He had good reason to do so.

 

There were reports that the previous administration was not disclosing important documents, including ones from Bin Laden’s compounds that contradicted its narratives about the nature of the Al-Qaeda threat and the group’s relationship with Iran.

 

Presidential Study Directive 11 is reportedly an assessment of Islamist movements in 2010-2011 by the Obama Administration that resulted in a secret recommendation to align with “moderate” Islamists in handling the Arab Spring.

 

If this is indeed what happened, the directive’s declassification is of the utmost importance for understanding the Islamist threat, the fruits of this strategy and the dynamics of the region, not to mention historical documentation.

 

Alarmingly, according to a Gulf News report, the Presidential Study Directive 11 documents were obtained by the Al-Hewar Center in Washington, D.C. and show that the U.S. decided to back the “political Islamists” including the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Daniel Greenfield reported that the Al-Hawre Center is linked to a Muslim Brotherhood front named the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which has come under counter-terrorism investigation.

 

McMaster reportedly detonated” after coming across a seven-page memo that Higgins wrote which warned about a campaign by Islamists, Marxists, “bankers,” establishment Republicans and “globalists” to destroy the Trump presidency. The memo was given to Donald Trump Jr. and the president himself, who is said to have “gushed over it.”

 

Such a political memo would be inappropriate for the National Security Council. Its tone gives the impression of an author who sees all opposition to the Trump Administration as part of a seditious conspiracy. Its first reference is an interview between a member of the conspiratorial John Birch Society and a Soviet defector about “Jewish Marxist ideology.”

 

However, the memo was not intended for the NSC. It was a personal political analysis of how parties with various interests are trying to undermine the administration’s agenda.

 

According to Breitbart, Higgins used his personal computer to write the memo and did not use NSC time. He didn’t even use his NSC email to send it to anyone but himself. (He sent it from his personal email to his work email to print out.)

 

Another comprehensive Breitbart account says Higgins was fired on July 21 with several holdovers from the Obama Administration present and a Muslim woman with a hijab who worked as an equal employment officer. McMaster’s deputy, Ricky Waddell, told him it was his last day because “we’ve lost confidence in you.”

 

According to this account, McMaster was not responsible for the firing and hadn’t even read the memo. It was entirely the responsibility of Waddell. After the termination, parts of the memo were leaked to media outlets that would be most hostile to Higgins.

 

Regardless of whether Higgins’ firing was due to McMaster or Waddell, it was still done under McMaster’s leadership and was part of a broader push against perceived competitors.

President Trump was said to be “furious” at Higgins’ firing.

 

  1. CAIR Comes to McMaster’s Defense

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a deceptive Islamist bulldog that tears into any opponent by falsely branding them as an Islamophobic bigot. The Justice Department identified the organization as a Muslim Brotherhood “entity” set up to support Hamas and designated it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial.

 

CAIR slaps the “Islamophobe” label on practically everyone, obviously including almost every member of the Trump Administration. It has done so to Muslim adversaries, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic supporters of gun control measures to stop terrorists from obtaining firearms and White House Chief of Staff Kelly whose name was referenced in a letter thanking CAIR’s Florida branch.

 

But not McMaster.

 

When McMaster came under heavy criticism for his stances on Islamism-related issues, CAIR came to his defense. It branded his opponents as “Islamophobes” and “white supremacists.”

 

  1. Reports of a possible CAIR official on his staff

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali from presenting a paper on Islamist extremism to the National Security Council. There are unconfirmed reports that it was one of McMaster’s appointees who blocked Hirsi Ali. One account of the incident says she was also blocked from seeing President Trump.

 

Hirsi Ali is one of the most prominent women’s rights activists and anti-Islamist voices in the world. She is executive producer of the Clarion Project’s Honor Diaries documentary about the oppression of women in the Muslim world. She is a strong advocate for secular-democratic Muslim reformers.

 

The person who is said to have blocked her is Mustafa Javed Ali, who protested that she is an “Islamophobe.” According to one of the reports, a source said that Mustafa said “that the only way she could present the paper would be to have someone from CAIR come in to refute her work.”

 

Mustafa Javed Ali is reportedly a former “diversity outreach coordinator” for CAIR. However, there is no public confirmation to confirm this as his name does not appear on CAIR’s website.

 

  1. Holdovers

 

An analysis by the Daily Caller found that about 40 of the 250 National Security Council officials are holdovers from the Obama Administration. Presumably, these officials would be very hostile to the Trump Administration’s agenda. They should be the first suspects in the ongoing stream of leaks from the NSC.

 

National security expert Jed Babbin identified four NSC officials who previously reported directly to Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the Obama Administration official who boasted of creating an “echo chamber” in the media to promote the nuclear deal with Iran using “compadres” in the media to influence reporters who “literally know nothing.”

 

(Rhodes also has the distinct honor of being the only person to be called an “asshole” in the headline of a Foreign Policy article.)

 

In July, McMaster told NSC staffers, “There’s no such thing as a holdover.” He was professing confidence that those who worked in the Obama Administration would loyally serve President Trump.

 

Likewise, NSC spokesperson Michael Anton defended the holdovers as “stalwarts.”

 

As mentioned before, when Trump and Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers that may be leaking to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.

 

One former NSC staffer told the Daily Caller that McMaster has “protected and coddled them.”

 

Iran expert and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Ken Timmerman wrote a book titled Shadow Warriors in 2007 about how the Bush Administration was undermined by opponents within the governmental bureaucracies.

 

Timmerman’s observation should serve as a contemporary warning:

 

“George W. Bush never got the first rule of Washington: People are policy. He allowed his political enemies to run roughshod over his administration through a vast underground he never dismantled and never dominated.”

 

  1. McMaster was an 11-Year Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies

 

Breitbart discovered that McMaster was a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies from September 2006 until February 2017 when he became national security adviser. IISS was part of a campaign to promote the nuclear deal with Iran and gets funding from Islamist allies.

 

Its website shows that one of its top donors is the Open Society Foundation, formerly named the Open Society Institute, whose founder and chairman is left-wing partisan activist George Soros. The foundation donated between 100,000 and 500,000 euros (roughly $120,000-$600,000) to the IISS.

 

The Open Society Foundation is motivated by hyper-partisanship and works hard to defend American Islamists and slander opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood as bigots.

 

For example, it financed the Fear Inc. reports about the “Islamophobia Network” that is a powerful weapon in the Islamists’ and Regressive Left’s arsenal for character assassination and protecting groups like CAIR.

 

These reports were used to justify the removal of Islamism from counter-terrorism training.

 

IISS also has Ploughshares Fund as a major donor, giving between 25,000 and 100,000 euros (about $30,000-$119,000). The Plougshares Fund is also funded by Soros and his entities like Open Society.

 

When Ben Rhodes boasted about orchestrating the “echo chamber” to promote the nuclear deal with Iran, he specifically mentioned Ploughshares as his example of an outside group he utilized.

 

The president of Ploughshares, Joseph Cirincione, is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Plougshares specifically listed IISS, the group that McMaster belonged to, as the recipient of a grant for work on Iran issues in 2016.

 

Soros’ Open Society Foundation/Institute donated about $70,000 overall to selling the Iran deal, but other entities funded by Soros gave more. Ploughshares donated at least $800,000.

 

Ploughshares also donated over $400,000 to the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has long been accused of being a lobby for the Iranian regime. Ploughshares also awarded $70,000 to Princeton University to sponsor the work of former Iranian regime official Seyed Hossein Mousavian. The Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips writes, “This essentially amounted to subsidizing Iran’s propaganda efforts inside the United States.”

 

As Breitbart’s Aaron Klein shows, IISS was a loyal contributor to the Rhodes-Plougshares “echochamber.” It supported the deal and defended Iran against accusations of violations. It cast doubt on concerns that Iran and North Korea work on WMD together. And it criticized Trump’s attitude towards Iran.

 

IISS also receives funding from many companies that profited from the Iran deal like ExxonMobil. Its list of donors includes many governments, both allies and adversaries of the U.S.

Governmental donors of concern include Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Brunei, Kuwait, Russia and China.

 

  1. President Trump is frequently unhappy with McMaster’s performance.

 

As mentioned before, President Trump has confronted McMaster about his “general undermining of my policy” and was furious at him for telling South Korea to basically ignore Trump’s words.

 

Trump complains that McMaster talks too much at meetings and has described him as a “pain.” There have been multiple articles indicating that Trump might be on the cusp of firing McMaster.

 

“I am at a pain to find an issue that H.R. actually aligns with the president, except for the desire to actually win and beat ISIS. That’s the only one,” said one administration official.

 

A former senior NSC official said, “I know that the president isn’t a big fan of what McMaster’s doing. I don’t understand why he’s allowing a guy who is subverting his foreign policy at every turn to remain in place.”

 

Trump has reportedly said in private that he regrets choosing McMaster as national security adviser and went so far as to meet with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to float the possibility of him replacing McMaster. Bolton and Trump agreed that it was not the right move.

 

Conclusion

 

McMaster has put his life on the line for the country and ascended because of his impressive leadership during the worst days of the war in Iraq. He “basically was the first commander to get things right in Iraq.”

 

At the time, McMaster blasted the media for its downplaying of Iran’s role in murdering U.S. troops.

 

This led to many people’s (including this author’s) initial enthusiasm for him as national security adviser despite his statement in 2014 that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.”

 

Thinking it unfathomable that Trump would choose someone who is so fundamentally at odds with his national security vision, many chalked up the statement to a clumsy articulation of the U.S. position that ISIS shouldn’t be treated as the representative of the Muslim world.

 

But what was once unfathomable has become reality.

 

McMaster performed well as a military commander fighting an insurgency. If he is to continue serving the Trump Administration, then he should be reassigned to focus on taking his success in Iraq and repeating it in Afghanistan.

 

Also Read: 

 

Has Trump Kept His Word on Radical Islam?

 

The Nikki Haley Report Card

_______________

An Intro to … Reassign McMaster

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © August 30, 2017

_____________

25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

Copyright 2017 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

About Clarion Project