Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress 3/3/15
“We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.” – Benjamin Netanyahu before U.S. Congress 3/3/15
Now that was politically gracious from Israel’s Prime Minister. To those of you who the truth, President Obama has been selling out Israel and pushing PM Netanyahu under the bus for quite some time.
AND that bus pushing apparently something politically Obama continues through his Leftist acolytes among the Democrats and the Left Wing Media. Consider this Politico headline:
Bibi speech was an ‘insult’ to America and President Obama, Democrats say
3/3/15 2:35 PM EST
Updated 3/3/15 4:36 PM EST
Scathing Democratic reviews of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress came pouring in just minutes after the address ended: An “insult to the intelligence of the United States.” A “stick in the eye of the president.” An exercise in “circular reasoning.”
Netanyahu’s address to Congress did little to move Democrats toward his position of rejecting a nuclear deal with Iran that is nearing completion, and for many members deepened the rift between the Democratic Party and Israel’s political leadership under Netanyahu.
“This speech was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat. The Jewish lawmaker added: “I resented the condescending tone that he used, which basically indicated that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear, weaponized Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world.”
The Democratic reactions to Tuesday’s address were far more diverse than the response from congressional Republicans, who were uniformly united in their vigorous support of Netanyahu’s speech and his hawkish message. … There was more
I am very grateful to Ari Bussel for sending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint session of the U.S. Congress below, but Obama, the Dems and the MSM irritate me greatly.
PM Netanyahu’s Speech to a Joint Session of the US Congress
Benjamin Netanyahu Speech
Sent by Ari Bussel
Sent: 3/3/2015 1:03 PM
Sent via Government Press Office News
“Speaker of the House John Boehner,
President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch,
Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
And House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet. I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.
My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well-known. I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.
My friends, I’ve come here today because, as Prime Minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated – he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots – religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to ‘export the revolution throughout the world.’
I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply. Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation! Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember – I’ll say it one more time – the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. Breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s breakout time would be very short – about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.
And if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions – 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. Now, I know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught – caught twice, not once, twice – operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, ‘If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.’ Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs.
Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount – 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.
And by the way, if Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reaching corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States. So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would only whet Iran’s appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors, Iran’s neighbors, know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb. And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plane can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table – and this often happens in a Persian bazaar – call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.
Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends; a better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country has a greater stake – no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.
Ladies and gentlemen,
History has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.
You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire.
My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, ‘Never Again.’ And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.
This is why as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the Land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, ‘Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.’
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you. You’re wonderful. Thank you, America.”
The Government Press Office (GPO) is responsible – on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office – for coordination between the Government of Israel and the community of journalists and media personnel working in Israel. For the foreign press corps, the GPO serves as the central address for contact with the government and the Israel Defense Forces.
The GPO works to facilitate appropriate media coverage of key elements in Israel, state visits and foreign VIPs visiting Israel. The GPO issues press cards for permanently stationed and visiting journalists, as well as a range of cards for other media personnel (broadcast technicians, documentary film producers, media assistants, etc.). The GPO offers media representatives a sophisticated briefing room, television studio and professional support materials.
The GPO is equipped to operate in Hebrew, Arabic, English and Russian, thanks to the professional staff in its various departments. A separate department deals with the economic press. The GPO regularly monitors articles in the overseas press regarding the State of Israel and forwards a daily summary to the relevant Government offices. It also distributes … READ THE REST
Author of “The Rise of Tyranny” and
“Global Censorship of Health Information” and
“Restore The Republic“
March 2, 2015
The views and opinions held by our writers and contributors are their own, and not necessarily the views of our advertisers, NewsWithViews.com or its staff.
Published by ATLAHWorldwidePublished: Dec 15, 2011Hon. James David Manning, PhD interviews Dr. Jim Garrow on his new book “The Pink Pagoda.” Recorded on 13 December 2011. Go to http://atlah.org for more information.
It is no secret when he wrote The Hunt for the Red October that he was met at the door by Pentagon officials and FBI agents demanding to know where he got top-secret documents.
Published by SenTedCruzPublished on Feb 13, 2015Learn more: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/internet/
President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.
You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law–fees companies pass on to customers.
Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.
This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.
The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.
What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:
We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.
I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.
We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today–not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today.
Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.
Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.
Senator Mike Lee
© 2015 Protect Internet Freedom
The Center for Security Policy (CSP) sent an email press release to my email and probably their mailing list.
U.S. Flag Officers: Keep Gitmo Open – Don’t Surrender Gitmo to Cuba (Summarized title by Editor)
Sent by Ben Lerner
Sent: February 12, 2015
Center for Security Policy
RETIRED FLAG OFFICERS, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS ADVISE AGAINST TRANSFER OF GITMO DETAINEES AND SURRENDER OF GITMO TO GOVERNMENT OF CUBA
(Washington, DC): Today, dozens of distinguished retired senior military officers and national security experts signed a letter to President Obama, organized by the Center for Security Policy, urging him to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay open, and to refrain from transferring – either to foreign countries or to the United States – jihadist detainees currently held there. The letter also cautions President Obama against acceding to the demands of the Castro regime that the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base] itself be surrendered to the government of Cuba.
With respect to the detainees held at Gitmo, the letter underscores the extent to which transferring detainees out of Gitmo, either to foreign countries or to the United States, poses serious national security risks. The letter states in part:
“The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so. The actual number could well be considerably higher….”
“…While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention. We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.”
The letter goes on to explain the strategic value of the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base], and the importance of maintaining U.S. control over that installation from a military and geostrategic perspective. The letter states in part:
“Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so. Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.”
“Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran). We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China. (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)”
Among of the signatories of the letter were:
· Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
· Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
· Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
· Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
· Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
· Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:
“The individuals who have signed this letter urging President Obama to change course on his disastrous agenda to close down the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, deserve the nation’s gratitude for having stepped up, yet again, in defense of the national security of the United States. It is also most welcome that the signatories of this letter recognize the geostrategic necessity of keeping Guantanamo Bay under American control, rather than surrendering it to the Castro regime, which would most assuredly use that base against the interests of the United States, and invite others to do the same. President Obama should heed the advice of these distinguished warriors and national security professionals and keep Gitmo open, operational and in American hands.”
The full text of the letter, with signatures, can be found below.
12 February, 2015
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As you are well aware, the Department of Defense has, since shortly after September 11, 2001, detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba dangerous individuals the U.S. government has designated as unlawful enemy combatants. Yet, shortly after you took office in January of 2009, you issued an Executive Order mandating the closure of the detention/interrogation facilities at that installation (popularly known as Gitmo.)
In the intervening period, you have transferred a number of those detainees to foreign countries, particularly during the past several months. You also reiterated in your 2015 State of the Union address your intention to close Gitmo and appear intent on removing from that secure facility the unlawful enemy combatants – jihadists that have been officially described as “the worst of the worst” – still confined there.
Meanwhile, public reports indicate that the Castro regime has demanded that the United States surrender Gitmo as part of any arrangement for normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. As you have made a priority of achieving such a restoration of ties, you may feel tempted to accede to this demand.
Our past experience as military, intelligence, law enforcement and security policy professionals leads us to believe that the continued transfer of detainees out of Gitmo to foreign countries, and potentially into the United States, threatens national security and public safety. This is particularly true given events of recent weeks, during which we have seen a resurgence of al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist organizations eager to deploy operatives both abroad and, if possible, here at home to carry out attacks against the West.
The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so. The actual number could well be considerably higher.
Some of the former Gitmo detainees who have definitely resumed their jihad include: Abu Sufian bin Qumu, now the leader of a group that participated in the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi; Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, now a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, also a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There are press reports that at least one of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Sergeant Bo Bergdahl has already returned to the fight. Such individuals pose a direct threat to our military and diplomatic personnel overseas, as well as to our civilian population domestically.
While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention. We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.
For example, the transfer of detainees to U.S. prisons or military bases would turn those facilities – and the nearby civilian populations – into high-probability terrorist targets. In addition, convicted terrorists are known to have plotted or facilitated attacks while incarcerated in our penal institutions. For example, Sayyid Nosair helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing from a U.S. prison. And Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (a.k.a. the “Blind Sheikh”) ran the al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya terrorist organization from a U.S. prison.
Moreover, once inside the prison system, detainees will be better positioned to argue that prison security practices violate their rights and need to be altered. That was the case when “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid asserted the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) interfered with his free exercise of religion. The Department of Justice chose in response to lift the SAMs at Supermax.
Furthermore, once on U.S. soil, detainees will argue that they are entitled, by virtue of their physical presence here, to a range of constitutional protections that can only, they will argue, be realized in our defendant-friendly civilian criminal court system. At least, some federal judges can be expected to entertain such a contention.
Given the circumstances surrounding the capture of these detainees – often on foreign battlefields – civilian prosecutors will likely be forced to choose between revealing classified evidence to secure a conviction, and dropping charges. Such a scenario begs the question of what we will have to do with detainees who, once here in the U.S., cannot be tried and cannot be sent overseas. The options at that point will be either to detain these terrorists inside the U.S. indefinitely, without trial and possibly in the face of court orders dismissing their cases, or release them here.
Additionally, proponents of closing detention operations at Gitmo often argue that the facility’s existence is a “recruiting tool” for terrorists. This ignores the fact that the United States was repeatedly attacked by terrorists during the decades prior to the commencement of detainee operations at Gitmo, including on September 11, 2001. To suggest that Gitmo fuels terrorism ignores history and the reality that the terrorism of greatest concern today is, and has long been, driven by jihadist ideology. Gitmo does not fuel global jihad; rather, it is global jihad that necessitates Gitmo.
That said, there is some truth to the idea that Gitmo has symbolic value to our enemies: It is certain that they would, quite properly, consider its closure a signal victory in their determined effort to demonstrate our submission and enlist new recruits to their cause.
It is also our professional judgment that surrendering to the Castro regime control of the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, with its deep water port and airfield, would be a strategic mistake of the first order.
Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so. Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.
Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran). We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China. (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)
The Castro regime is already making its ports, airfields, intelligence collection and other facilities available to our actual or potential foes. There is little doubt in our view that the Cuban government would be inclined toward similar arrangements with China or others with respect to Gitmo. It would be a serious dereliction of duty were our government to facilitate such a fundamental transformation of our strategic posture in the Caribbean.
For these reasons, we believe that there should be no further transfers of unlawful enemy combatants currently held at Gitmo – either to other nations or to any locale in the United States or its territories – for the duration of hostilities.
We further strongly recommend that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies refrain from spending any funds to accomplish the closure of Guantanamo Bay or the transfer of detainees abroad or to the United States, and that the United States reject Cuban government demands that this vital strategic facility be transferred to the latter’s control.
Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. John R. D. Cleland, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Alvin W. Jones, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. H. Douglas Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. George R. Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Duane Stubbs, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Dale F. Andres, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Terence M. Henry, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Darryl Powell, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Richard D. Read, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Warren A. Todd, USA (Ret.)
Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
Adm. James A. Lyons, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Edward S. Briggs, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Lawrence Burkhardt, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert McClinton, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. E. S. (Skip) McGinley, II, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Don. G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. H. Denny Wisely, USN (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Henry Canterbury, USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. J.D. Lynch, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. James M. Mead, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. Michael I. Neil, USMCR (Ret.)
BGen. W.H.J. Tiernan, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)
State Defense Forces
Maj. Gen. John Bianchi, CSMR (Ret.)
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Hon. Tidal McCoy, Former Acting Secretary of the Air Force
Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive
José R. Cárdenas, Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development; Former Staff Member, National Security Council
Daniel J. Gallington, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former General Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Andrew C. McCarthy, Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services
cc: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Members of the House Armed Services Committee
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.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
I’m probably not as much an erudite writer as I am one who writes within the scope of a sense frustration. Thus when I do run into an erudite writer as the Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander, I am quite happy to cross post their thoughts. In this post Alexander succinctly writes what I have been blogging for some time. Read, enjoy, but most of all, understand the message!
BO’s Blinding Islamophilia
The REAL National Security Threat
By Mark Alexander
Feb. 11, 2015
“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)
Islamophile: One who is so enchanted by Islam as to be under the influence of its tenets.
In 2009, I noted that Barack Hussein Obama’s remarkably brief White House bio began with this fallacious assertion: “His story is the American story – values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…” And you can make up the rest.
Amazingly, his [BIG Lie] (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209] bio page has not been altered since then.
So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and where his religious alliances fall, let’s briefly review.
Barack was conceived to unwed parents, Ann Dunham and his Kenyan father, BHO senior, both atheists. They were later married and then divorced. When Obama was four, his mother remarried, this time to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. In his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote that Soetoro subscribed to “a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”
At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who might best be described as agnostic. There, he would fall under the spell of an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.
As a young adult and budding “community organizer,” Obama was taken under wing by a radical black supremacist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and his wife, Michelle, baptized their children and stewarded BO’s “faith” for 20 years. For those two decades, Obama also developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger and others.
That is the real Barack Obama bio, and those are his “values from the heartland.” Further, while he self-identifies as “Christian” rather than Muslim, that claim may be as deceptive as his bio.
With that in mind, in this seventh year of Obama’s seemingly limitless foreign and domestic policy failures, despite the ominous and impending threats from resurgent al-Qa’ida terrorist networks, the Islamic State, and clear evidence that Islamist Jihadis are targeting the USA, Obama never mentioned al-Qa’ida or Islam in his 2015 SOTU address three weeks ago.
Nor did Obama mention Islam when referencing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in early January, except to insist again that Islam is the “Religion of Peace.”
British journalist Douglas Kear Murray, an expert on Islam, asserts that many Muslims today subscribe to “a creed of Islamic fascism – a malignant fundamentalism, woken from the dark ages to assault us here and now.” He notes, “The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.”
More recently, Obama dismissed the subsequent slaughter of Jews in Paris as an act committed by “a bunch of violent vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.” Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest demonstrated a heroic display of verbal contortionism in endeavoring to explain Obama’s assertion that the attack was random. Those “violent vicious zealots” were Islamists, and there was nothing “random” about terrorists targeting a kosher Jewish deli.
Last week, Obama used a Christian forum, the National Prayer Breakfast, to sanctimoniously denigrate Christians. The theme for this year’s event was “Remembering the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” when more than a million Christians were murdered by Muslims. That notwithstanding, he claimed Christians and Muslims are equal partners in murder and mayhem:
“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place – remember that the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He added, “Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Really? For the record, Obama has ordered drone strikes against Islamic targets that have killed more Muslims in six years than were killed during three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. (Look it up!) And the Crusades were, arguably, undertaken in the name of “the church,” not Jesus Christ. As Islamic scholar and historian Bernard Lewis notes,
“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”
Clearly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that advocates or could even be loosely construed to advocate violence against non-Christians. However, there is plenty in the Quran and the Hadith (the teachings of Muhammad) advocating death to infidels. As Franklin Graham reminds us,
“Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give his life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the child in Indian immigrants, rebutted Obama’s assertion, saying,
“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam. … The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”
As to Obama’s reference to slavery, the abolitionist movement to end chattel slavery in the United States 150 years ago was led by white and black Christian men and women, as was the movement to end segregation 50 years ago. Christians of yore were at the forefront of these sweeping changes, while Muslims today are at the forefront of murderous global Jihad.
This metastasizing Islamic threat advocates for a “master race,” much as did Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. However, rather than a world dominated by Aryans, Islamists seek a worldwide caliphate of Islamists, or “Jihadistan.” And on the subject of percentages, some have suggested that because only 10 percent of Muslims are extremists we need not worry. However, in 1940 only seven percent of Germans belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party. How did that work out?
Notably, the 2014 Global Slavery Index reports that of the more than 29 million humans held today in captive slavery – defined as “the possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of his or her individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal” – more than 18 million are being held in Islamic countries, primarily (and ironically) in Africa.
Indeed, ISIL has institutionalized slavery in the Middle East.
In an interview this week, Obama delusionally insisted that concern about [Islamic] terrorism is simply media-driven hype:
“If it bleeds it leads, right? … It’s all about ratings.”
When asked why Obama would posit such a ludicrous assertion, my favorite psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said flatly,
“Because he believes it. … If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. … This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander in chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack.”
“For the last six years Obama has acted as if the biggest threat American security [in the Middle East] is the Israeli government.”
Curiously, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, “We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends.” Whose religion was he referencing?
Perhaps the answer is found in Obama’s many words of praise for Islam since 2009:
“I will stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. … The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. … We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. … As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. … Islam has always been part of America. … We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. … These [Ramadan] rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. … America and Islam … share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … America is not and will never be at war with Islam. … Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. … In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. … Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. … Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
So, why does Obama refuse to mention Islam in connection with worldwide Islamic Jihad that is at our doorstep?
I believe it is because he is, first and foremost, an Islamophile, and thus he has what is almost a pathological blindness to the threat posed by Jihad.
On the other hand, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former Defense Intelligence Agency director, has been very clear in his assessment of our enemy:
“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists. … There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity. … [They] accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies. … A strong defense is the best deterrent. … The dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary. I think there is confusion about what it is that we are facing. It’s not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it’s also a large [radicalized segment of Muslims] who or threatening our very way of life. … We really don’t have an effective strategy that is coherent, that actually addresses the wider problem. … I think what the American public is looking for is … moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of passivity and confusion.”
Flynn’s assessment follows that of the Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said a year ago,
“Al-Qa’ida is morphing and franchising itself … in Yemen, Somalia, in North Africa, in Syria … and what’s going on there … is very, very worrisome. … Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”
Even one of the Democratic Party’s most liberal members, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, insisted,
“The presence of terrorist groups including those formerly affiliated with al-Qa’ida and others, has spread over the past year. In fact terrorism is at an all-time high worldwide.”
And this week, Congress provided the Army an end-run around Obama’s classifying Nidal Hasan’s murderous attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Instead, it is now classified as an act of terrorism and Hasan’s victims will now receive Purple Hearts.
But Obama can’t bring himself to call it what it is.
In fact, he insisted this week that climate change is a far greater threat, but noted it’s “happening [on] such a broad scale and [is] such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”
Fact is, bloody Islamist attacks are also “happening on a broad scale” and on a “day-to-day basis” – and are getting closer to home every day. The murder of American relief worker Kayla Mueller, as confirmed yesterday, is yet another example of the evil we are confronting.
So, let me script this one for Obama so at his next stump speech he gets it right:
“We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Violent global jihad poses an immense existential threat to the civilized world, particularly since Iran is, or already has, the capacity to hand its asymmetric surrogates a nuclear weapon.”
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
Edited by John R. Houk
As Editor I took the liberty to block quote the quotations used by Mark Alexander if those quotations were at the end of a paragraph.
© 2015, The Patriot Post.
About The Patriot Post
“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!“ —George Washington
The Patriot Post is the nation’s highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.
We believe, as did our Founders, that we have an irrevocable right and obligation “to support and defend” Liberty, as “endowed by our creator” and enshrined as Rule of Law in our Republic’s Constitution.
The Patriot Post frames current policy and culture issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders, and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Key Managers of the Patriot Team
The Patriot Post—inspired by our National Advisory Committee and crafted by an editorial team headed by Mark Alexander—is an indispensable resource for “grass-top” leaders across the nation. These conservative gate keepers use our content as a force multiplier, a source of critical information and inspiration for their grassroots constituencies. The Patriot Post provides a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. We offer a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week’s most significant news, policy and opinion in our Daily Digest, while … READ THE REST
Justin Smith highlights what the Mainstream Media has again failed to notify Americans of adequately. Iran is nuclear and is a heartbeat away from arming nuke missiles. The Appeaser-in-Chief does nothing but talk platitudes out the side of his used car salesman mouth.
Iran and Nuclear Terrorism
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 2/6/2015 5:43 PM
Feckless negotiating with Iran over the past decade, especially these past two years, have burned an image of a miserable Chamberlain-style failure in the minds of the American people, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have allowed the greatest threat in the 21st century to become our reality. For all intents and practical purposes, Iran is now essentially a nuclear armed missile state, and rather than pursue more negotiations, the at risk nations, such as the United States, Britain, Germany, France and much of Europe and Israel, must seriously consider a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, before its weaponry can be perfected and mass produced. And even then, small nukes handed to Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, will remain a threat, as long as the Ayatollahs hold their iron grip on Iran.
All the political analysts have been speaking in terms of “if” Iran achieves a nuclear weapons program, when all the evidence suggests that Iran already has one. Long held Shahab-4 missiles with a 2500 mile range and the February 2, 2009 orbit of the Safir-2 Omid – “Hope” exhibits that Iran has an intercontinental delivery system. Iran also has received an A.Q. Khan warhead design from North Korea, as well as a Chinese warhead design, and it has a currently undetermined amount of near weapons grade uranium, due to its maintenance of a number of secret facilities.
Iran has acknowledged the existence of 19,000 centrifuges, with 9,000 currently operating. These 9,000 centrifuges can produce enough weapons grade plutonium to produce approximately three nuclear missiles in a year. If Iran reduces this number to 7,000 and keeps much of its uranium enriching technology, as John Kerry and others have suggested, experts warn that any reduction in centrifuge efficiency is reversible more quickly than a straight decrease in the number of centrifuges.
While Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani claimed in his February 4th speech that Iran “neither covets nor aspires to acquire nuclear weapons”, there remain many within the Ayatollah hierarchy who would refute this. Rouhani’s opposition states fairly correctly that Sipah-e-Sahaba, an intensely anti-Shiite Islamofascist group, has close ties to Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment, which stokes Iranian fears of a nuclear first strike by Pakistan. They are also concerned that Riyadh has invested heavily in the Pakistan nuclear program and can get a nuclear weapon at will, which plays a large part in Iran’s nuclear quest.
And, as an unrepentant sponsor of terrorism for thirty-five years, Tehran has made no secret of its desire to wipe Israel – “Little Satan” and America “Big Satan” – off the face of the earth, while it has systemized terror as a primary mechanism for accomplishing it goals and exporting its worldview and Islamist ideology. In this context, despite any security issues Iran may have with Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, the United States must not allow Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances.
Over the past year the world has seen Iran use its Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard in Iraq and Hezbollah in Syria. We witnessed Iran trade arms and munitions for black-market oil with the Islamic State. And then, Iran threatened to send millions of jihadists to Gaza to fight in the “struggle” against Israel. The news from Iran is never good.
Since Iran already views itself as advancing the Islamic hegemon in the region, just think of the influence Iran will exert throughout the entire Middle East, once it is prepared to fully unveil its real nuclear capabilities. It is already exerting great influence through its finances and military, and in the aftermath of the Iranian backed Shiite Houthis taking control of Sana’a, Yemen, the Arabic media now refers to Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana’a as “the four capitals of Iran”, which Iranian media calls a “victory for the [Islamic] revolution.”
Does anyone believe that the Ayatollahs will not find a way to detonate a nuclear weapon in New York or Chicago, especially with the U.S’s current porous border situation? – Or Tel Aviv?
Although Iran has previously launched several satellites on a south to north trajectory, in an attempt to elude U.S. Ballistic Early Warning Radar, Iran will seek “plausible deniability”. As I wrote on November 30, 2013:
“Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents.” [Bold text added by Editor]
As Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke with Greta Van Susteren (Fox News) on January 27th, he observed:
“If we continue on the path we are with the Iranians, they’ll wind up with a nuclear capability … and one day have a [nuclear] bomb. He’s about to make the biggest mistake of this presidency.”
While Obama has previously stated that a nuclear armed Iran represents a “profound” national security threat to the U.S., his Chamberlain-style appeasement tactics have greatly alarmed opponents of Iran’s nuclear program, especially considering that Olli Heinonen, former IAEA Deputy Director General, warned (Jan. 20, 2014) that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within two to three weeks. They see Iran on the cusp of a rapid nuclear break-out, while Obama gives Iran more time to stockpile more uranium, time that the world can ill-afford to give a rogue regime with so much blood on its hands.
With Iran’s Ayatollahs stalling for time and possibly stockpiling an untold number of nuclear warheads (scores?) and Obama and Kerry legitimizing major pieces of Iran’s nuclear program, this U.S. administration and world leaders are failing at a critical juncture of history that demands decisive action, not an unacceptable bad deal that leaves nuclear capabilities in Iran’s hands. Decisive action is needed to stop a defiant Iran, protect U.S. interests and halt a rising Islamic dawn and an era of nuclear terrorism.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith
Paul Sutliff reports on recent meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Both the MB central in Egypt and MB acolytes pretending to be Moderate peaceful Muslims in the USA. These meeting with the State Department and the big dog himself – President Barack Hussein Obama. Sutliff points out that items talked about are secret or at the very least with the nefarious appearance of clandestine high-level talks between the MB (and U.S. acolytes) and the POTUS.
Obama meets the American Muslim Brotherhood but keeps the press away!
By Paul Sutliff
Link sent: 2/5/2015 10:35 AM
Original Date: Feb 5, 2015
President Obama’s continual servitude to Islamists has never been more apparent than it is this week. This week alone, the president’s Press Secretary refused to call the Taliban terrorists and when asked for a stand on Jordan’s response to the execution of one of their own by the Islamic State, referred to the group as ISIL, a term created by the president. But that is not all that happened this week. The State Department invited Muslim Brotherhood leaders here, who have been declared terrorists by other countries to meet and talk. The White House lied about who paid to bring the terrorist representatives to the United States and who arranged it by originally claiming Georgetown University was involved.
Egypt has responded through their Ambassador in Washington DC. As have other countries who have named the ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) terrorists. Today the President of the United States is meeting with the American leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood under the guise of calling the Muslim leaders of America.
Who is there and how they were selected to be present is under lock and key because the Press have been told to keep out. What kind of message does the President send when he meets with members of a group declared to be terrorists by ally nations and insists no one be there to record it?
Is this a secret planning session with Muslim Brotherhood?
Will affiliates in MPAC (the Muslim Public Affairs Council) like Haris Tarin a person who has already logged 72 meetings at the White House? His last meeting at the White House was this past Friday! He has met personally with the President, meeting him in the Rose Garden, the East Room, the South Lawn the Roosevelt Room and, the State Floor.
Will Jamal Barzinji, a leader of the International Institute of Islamic thought (IIIT) be present? A man reputed to be a Masul of the Muslim Brotherhood in America according to P. David Gaubatz, who has military intelligence in his background.
What about the ever present daughter of Yacob Mirza of IIIT, Asma Mirza? She became a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood front group ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). Her name appears over 900 times on the White House Visitor Logs! Asma has held a position with ISNA similar to what we call a member of the Board of Directors since she was 26.
Is there any way we cannot question if the president now takes the Islamist side and stands with them against America?
Edited by John R. Houk
© Paul Sutliff
Intro to ‘Meddling at the Pond’
By Ari Bussel
Editor: John R. Houk
Sent: 2/2/2015 8:34 AM
I am fairly certain the U.S. government uses taxpayer funding to undermine foreign governments either subversively or to influence elections if that foreign government has policies that are detrimental to American National Interests or National Security. This has occurred especially in the post-WWII era when the free world has expected America to police the world from nefarious motives typically with Cold War tactics associated with Soviet and Communist China international Marxist revolution agendas. In the post-Cold War era the Pax American paradigm is resented except when a nation or some state-persecuted nationality faces a genocidal situation and that may even be a bit iffy when political correctness forces our policies to conform to a despotic ruler’s sovereignty.
The problem I am having is our Socialist Transformation Deceiver-in-Chief has been promoting Left Wing NGOs – many associated with Leftist Jewish organizations – to fund Israeli opposition campaigning against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due for mid-March Israeli elections.
Amazingly Obama’s State Department could actually be sending American taxpayer funds to one of these NGOs directly to actively lobby against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s election. Since Israel has a special alliance reliance with the USA I cannot believe that a majority of American voters would support Obama or his Administration lobbying against the head of government in Israel. Senator Ted Cruz has queried the State Department about funding such an anti-Netanyahu campaign for an official confirmation or denial.
The Left Wing organization the State Department could be funneling money toward is One Voice (SA HERE). One Voice is funding Victory 15 (V15) which is actually using Obama 2012 campaign staffers (270 Strategies) in Israel in their anti-Netanyahu efforts. Follow the Leftist Money Trail.
SUBVERSION: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-FUNDED GROUP INTERFERING IN ISRAEL ELECTIONS (Homespun Vine 1/30/15)
Meddling at the Pond
By Ari Bussel
Sent: 2/2/2015 8:34 AM
Jeffery Goldberg at the Atlantic describes the relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu as one of “mutual loathing.” I will grant the feeling on the President’s part, although Netanyahu feels the heat, but does not reciprocate. Netanyahu has a country to run, and issues for him are not personal.
Has the President sent a contingency of election manipulating experts to Israel to defeat Netanyahu’s Likud party in the upcoming Israeli elections? Clearly the White House would deny such an absurd notion. The President will not even see Netanyahu during his visit to DC at the beginning of March due (supposedly) to the proximity to the Israeli elections, let alone meddle in the sovereign election of a foreign country.
The President would not dispatch a delegation directly to Tel Aviv to manipulate the Israeli elections. All the President needed to do is to listen to the idea, smile broadly and nod his head. There are enough mega-philanthropists, mainly American Jews and a few Israeli expats living in New York, who would carry out the plan, put up the finances and pull the strings behind the scenes.
The President, undoubtedly, would love nothing better than to see Netanyahu defeated. For him, it is personal, although he has much greater things to handle, including more fundraising, international mega-excursions with a full court, golf outings and vacations with the First Family.
It is not so much Obama as the driving force, it is his stance of “do what you want, it sounds good.” Leave it to the J Street and like- minded Jews in America who feel they need to force Israel to act as they want. Time and again they turned to the Administration to apply pressure on Israel, for her to give in, extend more gestures, withdraw and to submit. Thus, there is really nothing new under the sun. George Soros, J Street, Americans for Peace Now and others have consistently used the same tactics to topple Netanyahu’s government, but Netanyahu is stubborn. He has his country to defend; contrary to what good American Jews may think.
The Likud party is convening a press conference to disclose sources of funds to members of the so-called “Zionist Camp” (a misleading name self-assigned, somewhat similar to J Street initially calling itself “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” later to drop the “pro-Israel” portion. There is another similarity many would remember: J Street hid the fact the Soros was its initial mega donor). The Likud party also enlisted high-powered lawyers to ask the Elections Committee overseeing the upcoming March 17th election to rule against the flow of foreign indirect funding to the election cycle.
This is a very important lesson to which one must pay very careful attention. For a long period of time, there has been noise, thus public attention in Israel, about the flow of foreign money (some from foreign governments) into local NGOs that are acting to undermine Israel’s position in world public opinion.
There has been an attempt to pass legislation to prohibit such funding, but it has not been successful. The main reason is that in Israel, like any true democracy, one does not target only the portion of the flow of funds one does not like. The rule of law applies equally to all. And the “all” in this equation does not want to stop the flow of funds; until the action hits them directly.
Each member of the Knesset, each political party and movement relies heavily on money flowing in from the outside (the comfort zone is psychological more than an imperative). Members of the Knesset regularly travel overseas on fundraising missions, rather than focus on local individuals and companies, within which there is richness beyond imagination (although less of a giving culture and an inclination is rarely forthcoming). (As I flew to Israel, a former Israeli ambassador and a former major general were busy fundraising in my hometown of Beverly Hills.)
An Israeli colonel (reserves) has travelled to the USA repeatedly and very successfully raised millions of dollars to expose the flow of funds from the USA to Israel. Numerous individuals received tax exemptions on donations to that cause legally. So exposed he did what is otherwise generally publicly available (by the mere status of American non-profits; a requirement for the 501(c)(3) status) and came public with it in Israel.
This vigilante only erred with one unacceptable omission: he hid his own sources of funds. Go expose others, while protecting exactly what you are attempting to expose. This does not sit well with me, nor should it with anyone.
As for the elections, something similar is happening. For many years, there are election experts, primarily in New York, who provide advice to the Likud and to Mr. Netanyahu for “big bucks.” They fly back and forth, most are religious and those whom I know are ultra-Zionists. (This is a new form of Zionism, one of living the comforts and the high-life of New York, while espousing to know better and run the Israeli political scene.)
Suddenly there is a problem. There is an acute need to expose “the other side.” Has the Likud forgotten that it, too, uses high-powered “experts” from New York? Admittedly, V15 may not be “Modern-Orthodox” and their flavor of “Zionism” is closer to J Street’s than to ZOA’s, but they are playing the exact same game.
It turns out they are very good at it, and none other than Ha’Aretz has been actively promoting their every move. There is nothing to hide. All is in the sunlight. And they are very effective – the media both in Israel and the USA is hovering around like bees so the public is fed constantly the idea that “Netanyahu has to go. Even the USA thinks so.” Imagine, they do not even need to spend money on this message. In short, priceless.
The more the White House denies, as it should and as is expected, the more the message is drilled into the collective Israeli and international psyche.
The Likud wants to change the rules of the game. Suddenly the same rules by which it played all along are no longer to its liking. Similar to the foreign funding flowing to Israel, the Likud in this case will cry “foul!” but apply their discontent only to the other side, not themselves.
To effect change, one must hurt personally. But “change” applies to all equally, so one must be very careful with for what one wishes.
The upcoming election in Israel is indeed a most fascinating one. The Prime Minister is going to America to act as a tool in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress, and a team of experts has arrived in Israel to tilt the election results here.
Allow me a small reminder that holds true both in Israel and in the USA. The voter, contrary to all assumptions, is not stupid. So try as you might, spend the money, attempt to manipulate. At the end of the day, it is the voter who decides.
My recommendation for anyone who cares: BE SURE TO VOTE!
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.
Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related. Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.
© Israel Monitor, February, 2015
First Published February 1, 2015