The Great Negotiator


Justin Smith and many Conservatives looking at President Trump’s willingness to negotiate on allowing illegal aliens to remain in America is viewed as a betrayal of one his campaign promises.

 

In my humble opinion some kind of give and take is necessary to end legislative gridlock. So, if illegals are proven working individuals that pay taxes, I don’t have a problem with amnesty. HOWEVER, if illegal aliens are living on taxpayer social programs, those illegal aliens need to receive the boot.

 

ALSO, if the Dems will not negotiate on effective border control – e.g. A WALL – Then blame the Dems and give all illegal aliens the boot. If illegal aliens cry racism, they should direct their anger toward recalcitrant Dems.

 

Thus, I am not totally on board with Justin, but in some ways, I am willing to be harsher with the blame falling squarely on the Dems.

 

JRH 1/14/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Great Negotiator

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/13/2018 4:28 PM

 

The negotiations on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), opened under a false sense of urgency by President Trump, the “stable genius” and “great negotiator”, and sixteen senators and seven House members, on Tuesday January 9, 2018 in an ineffectual move to protect 800,000 DACA recipients from potential deportation, once DACA ends on March 5th. These negotiations represent the lowest moment of the Trump presidency, nothing more and nothing less than another amnesty for illegal aliens and the Democrats’ first step towards a full amnesty for nearly forty million illegal aliens (government stats 11 to 12 million), a betrayal of America.

 

If the proposed Dream Act of 2017, the replacement bill of choice, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is any indication of the legislative “solution”, America will be forced to give 3.3 million illegal aliens a conditional lawful permanent resident status. Roughly 1.8 million would certainly become naturalized citizens over the next decade, if not sooner, with voting rights.

 

What happened to President Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to deport all illegal aliens?

 

The switch came after his advisors told him that this DACA amnesty is popular with both Democrats and liberal Republicans. He probably also noted left-leaning polls, like in Politico, that show 54 percent of Americans want to give the “Dreamers” a path to citizenship.

 

I stated in October 2015, that “Trump’s values shift like the changing of one’s underwear from day to day, depending on his personal agenda and who had his ear at the moment”. Ann Coulter, a conservative journalist, seemed to concur, as she recently stated, “The president cares only about his press, has no grasp of details of policy, and simply agrees with the last person to speak.”

 

Under no illusions, one might wish to see our leaders vote to deport all illegal aliens, but the reality of the matter suggests some form of amnesty will be passed eventually, unless there is a loud and massive opposition immediately voiced. While House Republicans are forcefully pushing President Trump’s demands on the wall and heightened security, along with the addition of thousands of federal immigration enforcement officers and judges and E-Verify, through the Goodlatte-McCaul bill, the Senate is prepared to give amnesty in exchange for nothing.

 

The Goodlatte-McCaul bill also ends chain migration and the diversity visa lottery, which allowed the last two Islamic terrorists into the country and the attacks on New York City. It allows the Justice Department to withhold grants from sanctuary cities too.

 

It should also be noted, that after the Department of Homeland Security detained a DACA recipient with gang ties, early in 2017, it acknowledged revoking the DACA status of over 1500 recipients, due to criminal conviction or gang affiliation. How many other criminals have evaded the department’s scrutiny?

 

To his credit, President Trump stated: “It has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border. Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace. A lot of people coming in that we can’t have.”

 

Congress could accomplish the same things, without granting a blanket amnesty, if they really wanted to do so, couldn’t they? But the liberals of both parties aren’t working for America, are they?

 

Curiously, the Great Negotiator’s negotiating skills are less than impressive, given Republicans hold the House, the Senate and the presidency. It is the Democrats, not the president, who are driving a hard bargain.

 

The Dreamers have no right to be here in the first place, since they or their parents broke U.S. law, and they deserve that right even less, when they display 1794 maps of Mexico and wave the Mexican flag in our streets. They have no say over anything America chooses to grant them; and yet, these Dreamers beseech our Congress for America’s solicitude and benevolent care, while standing on the steps of our state houses and at the Capital in D.C. and demand that any DACA replacement legislation be a “clean” bill.

 

During the meeting, when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked President Trump if he would “be agreeable” to a “clean” bill, it was obvious that he didn’t understand that meant leaving out his demands, like more border security and the wall, because he replied: “Yeah … I would like to do that. Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.”

 

Representative Kevin McCarthy, a liberal Republican, interceded, fortunately. He clarified for the President that he was, in fact, acquiescing to an amnesty bill absent any border security provisions.

 

Later, flanked by Senator Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), President Trump said: “We’ll do DACA and we can certainly start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon. Okay? We’ll take an hour off and then we’ll start.” Whether the president understood it or not, “comprehensive immigration reform” stands for amnesty.

 

To be clear, Congress has no moral or legal obligation or responsibility to grant amnesty to anyone who violated our immigration laws or knowingly put their children in an awful legal predicament. Let the March 5th deadline pass, let deportations proceed, and let the Dreamers sort it out, case by case, in immigration court, like they should have done over all these years.

 

Complicating negotiations further is a decision by a liberal activist judge in San Francisco on Tuesday evening, January 9th, that temporarily banned the Trump administration from ending DACA. Until Congress takes immigration policy matters out of the Courts’ jurisdiction, invoking that right under Article III of the Constitution, our borders will never be fully secured and illegals will continue to arrive at our borders en masse.

 

This DACA bill and any general amnesty for the total millions of other illegal aliens helps and benefits the illegal alien population and the Democratic Party only. Within a year of being granted residency or a path to citizenship, activist judges will grant full citizenship, and the bulk of these illegals will expand the Democratic voter base, setting aside all of Trump’s “wins” and border security gains; and Democratic Socialists will get to take permanent control of U.S. elections, laws and governments, for decades to come.

 

A recently leaked memo from the Center For American Progress reads, in part: “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also  a critical component to the Democratic Party’s electoral success … “.

 

An attempt to destroy our borders forever more is still underway as “elite” liberals from both parties, backed by U.S. and global billionaires, seek to force American citizens towards a regional and then global governance. They present America a false solution, in these DACA proposals, on the pretext it serves America’s interests and does not harm our society at large, for their own self-interest, and these members of Congress, who are supposed to represent Americans, not illegal aliens, are eroding and undermining the sanctity of the entire legal system and, by extension, our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Whistle-blower says Robert Mueller lied to the Senate – that’s a crime


Robert Mueller mandate as Special Prosecutor was to investigate if there was collusion between Donald Trump and Russia in the 2016 election. Guess what? Not a scintilla of such evidence has been uncovered against now President Trump.

 

Mueller’s indictments and guilty pleas are all related to individuals apart from President Trump for potential personal illicit actions connected to Russia except for Mike Flynn. Flynn hasn’t been connected to Russia in his guilty plea, rather Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI in a case of gotcha entrapment. The enchantment was getting Flynn on audio speaking to Russian Ambassador – WHICH WAS NOT ILLEGAL – then the FBI looked for the exact wording in their Flynn interrogation. The FBI audio of Flynn was likely acquired by a misrepresented FISA warrant acquired by using the FAKE Steele/Russia Dossier.

 

Thus, using the premise of the idiotic lie, Mueller is being fingered for lying under oath to a Senate panel in 2005. Here’s the story.

 

JRH 12/12/17 (Hat Tip Christian News Alerts)

Please Support NCCR

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

Report: Whistle-blower says Robert Mueller lied to the Senate – that’s a crime

 

By Kit Perez

December 11, 2017

Conservative Institute

 

Image Source: Screenshot

 

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has come under fire repeatedly for political bias. Now a whistleblower who once worked for Mueller claims the special prosecutor is more than just biased.

 

According to an exclusive report from Big League Politics, former FBI agent Chuck Marler says Mueller lied to the Senate in 2005 when questioned about an FBI surveillance program. Marler says that “Mueller and certain members of FBI Management deceived the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2005 and they intimidated and bullied the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 2005 through 2008.”

 

Marler told Big League Politics that because of Mueller’s response then, “since Mueller has taken over as Special Counsel, I’ve been concerned about him continuing that behavior.”

 

Another Day, Another Scandal

 

Marler worked for the FBI’s Special Surveillance Group (SSG); Mueller was the FBI director at the time. As the secretive program rapidly grew in scope after 9/11, the agents involved asked for “better protection, better compensation and more clear duties defined through Congress.”

 

According to Marler, Mueller and FBI management were “continually notified” that the agency was growing “way beyond the scope of their operational plan” and the agent’s safety was at risk. But when FBI management didn’t respond, the agents took their case to Congress.

 

Marler says that two FBI employees wrote a letter, sending it to each member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) notified the agents that she had received the letter, and of Mueller’s response. Big League Politics reports:

 

The two employees involved in the SSCI letter were informed by staff at Senator Hutchison’s Office of Mueller’s response to the letter which the two employees knew the response was not truthful.

 

They sent another, less detailed letter to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The OPM opened a routine investigation in response; but once the the OPM officer assigned to the case initiated an investigation, she found herself threatened by the FBI with arrest – simply for doing her job.

 

Former agent Marler says the SSG agents who initially sent the letter were threatened with “arrest, imprisonment, raids of their residences and loss of their job.” All of the agents involved were “overtly and covertly punished, then and to this day.”

 

Mueller’s Corruption Runs Deep

 

Marler spoke out to Big League Politics because of their ties to Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group; the former agent hopes to shine a light on the dirty backroom deals Mueller was involved in and the threats that the FBI, under Mueller, leveled at those trying to do their jobs.

 

How does Marler know about it? He was one of the agents involved.

 

“I know the OPM Officer, the FBI employees and their supervisor because obviously, I was one of the four employees,” he wrote. He says the corruption “of certain members of the FBI management” eventually led him to quit and start his own business.

 

Marler doesn’t expect that the evidence will be easy to uncover, but he goes on to say that he “pray[s] Mueller will answer for his actions.”

_____________________

Kit Perez is a Conservative Institute contributor. She is an intelligence analyst with a dual specialty in counterintelligence and HUMINT. She writes on national security, tech, and privacy issues. Kit has a B.A. in Counterintelligence and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies from American Military University.

 

© 2015-2017 Conservative Institute. All Rights Reserved.

 

Conservative Institute Mission Statement

 

The Conservative Institute exists to provide a platform for well-reasoned, well-written, and well-distributed articles and columns defending conservative values.

 

At the time of our founding, there exist only two types of conservative publications: popular-but-misleading and honest-but-boring.

 

Our goal is to ignore the mistakes made by both types of publications and instead create well-written, popular commentary that can help people understand the conservative narrative.

 

Our Approach

 

One of the biggest problems in political activism is that a feedback loop exists between media organizations and the “base” of activists that make up the foundational readers. Because the readers want to read content that says a certain thing, the media organizations only say simplified versions of that certain thing – and a blind feedback loop is created.

 

CI is different. We believe in focusing on content distribution that is less short-term oriented and allows us to say what needs to be said regardless of who is offended – even if that means sometimes disagreeing with the base or Republican leadership.

 

Our Beliefs

 

The fundamental value of CI is an open discussion. In other words, our goal is to help ensure that the political conversation in America isn’t lopsided towards the politically correct or mindless populism. Right now, nearly all content created falls under those two categories.

 

Our political values can be summarized as the pillar principles of a strong society, which is explained in our parent organization The Strong Society. We believe in natural morality, slow and gradual conservative reform, maximizing prosperity, never compromising on security, and pursuing individual justice in every area of life.

 

SEE ALSO CI About Page

 

Preserve American Experiment – FIRE Mueller


Trump- Fire Mueller zepplin toon

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2017

 

There is a slew of revelations exposing that Robert Mueller, Team Mueller, Obama Administration and all thing crooked Clinton family becoming available. These revelations are being pooh-poohed by the Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) as nothing to see here, move along, don’t believe your eyes etc., etc. and etc.

 

A few examples:

 

Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey investigations – 12/5/17

 

Massive criminal conspiracy unravels: Hillary Clinton took $145M from Russians to sell out the U.S. uranium supply to America’s enemies (and the FBI knew all along) – 10/18/17

 

Devin Nunes, House Intel Committee Prepare to Find FBI in Contempt for Mueller Cover-up – 12/2/17

 

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow – 10/17/17 06:00 AM EDT

 

Top Investigator on Mueller’s Team Extolled Yates for Defying Trump Travel Ban – 12/5/17

 

Mueller Probe’s Anti-Trump Bias Exposed AGAIN and AGAIN – 12/5/17

 

POLITICAL PROSECUTION: Mueller’s Hit Squad Covered For Clinton And Persecutes Trump Associates – 12/6/17 1:09 PM

 

Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: ‘I am so proud – 12/5/17

 

The question that must be asked: Can the swamp be drained with such Leftist Deep State infiltration embedded in the Government (with the aid of Leftist MSM) be overcome by a President devoted to change the paradigm of Marxist-Socialist propaganda indoctrination of younger Americans?

 

This is a question to mull over while you decide to uphold America’s Founding Fathers’ paradigm of personal Liberty and a government accountable to WE THE PEOPLE or to keep flowing with Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture and law to fit a Living Constitution paradigm that enables government elitists (Executive and Judicial Branches) to tell what to believe, think and say. Your decision probably will define America’s future.

 

Your decision will determine how you feel about this so far mythical speech about President Donald Trump firing Robert Mueller to preserve the United States Constitution.

 

Sign the Fire Mueller Petition

Fire Mueller

[The NY Sun post below is excellent but is a bit too erudite for my own good. I am going to assume at least a few of you are in the same position. So when you read a word in bold text followed by an asterisk (*), a very important definition will be below the NY Sun post.]

 

JRH 12/6/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Private Group: WorldChatNews Email List)

Please Support NCCR

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

The Mueller Firing Speech

 

Editorial of The New York Sun

December 5, 2017

 

Following is the text, drafted by The New York Sun, of remarks it would like to see President Trump deliver:

 

Good evening: A year ago next month I took the Constitutional Oath that has been sworn by every president since George Washington. It binds me to do two things: To faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It’s an oath I swore before God.

 

Now I have concluded that, to redeem those two vows, I must dismiss the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, and the officers he has assembled, ostensibly to look into allegations that there may have been collusion between my campaign and the Russian camarilla(*). I have this morning placed the prosecutors’ premises under federal seal, pending a decision by House Judiciary Committee.

 

From the beginning, I never believed the appointment of such a prosecutor was necessary, or even justified. It was always perfectly within the authority and competence of the Justice Department to investigate and, if due cause were found, prosecute any wrongdoing by any member of my administration — including my daughter and son-in-law.

 

I acquiesced in the initial work of Mr. Mueller’s office because I believed that I was not a target of the investigation. As Mr. Mueller’s work has unfolded, however, suggestions have been made that his office may be investigating my own conduct. Given that possibility, I believe that the investigation must be halted, and, if it is to be resumed in respect of my own conduct, may be recommenced only by the House.

 

That is a constitutional bright line. My opponent in the recent campaign brought before her nominating convention the Gold Star father Khizr Khan to ask whether I had even read the Constitution. The answer is yes. I would not hold myself out as a constitutional scholar. I know, though, that it is only the House of Representatives that can investigate a sitting president for crimes and misdemeanors.

 

That is a provision of the same Constitution that I have sworn an oath to preserve protect and defend. That oath, incidentally, is different from the requirement of the members of Congress and the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Constitutions requires them to swear only to support the Constitution. Only the president is required by the Constitution to swear to preserve, protect, and defend our national parchment.

 

I had barely sworn that oath when it became apparent to me that the Constitution needs protecting — and not just from our external foes but also from those who would seek to subvert it by refusing to accept the results of the election that Vice President Pence and I won. This quickly became apparent to me after the vote by a campaign of leaks of the most sensitive conversations I was conducting.

 

And by the emergence of what its adherents are fain(**) to call a “resistance” against the decision of the voters. We have just learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s office itself have been infected by political sentiments and colluded to keep from the Congress knowledge of the political sentiments against me being expressed by a senior FBI figure in the investigation.

 

This is a shocking development. It was exposed not by the Republican press but by the Washington Post and the New York Times. They reported over the weekend that the special prosecutor had kept from House investigators the discovery that a senior investigator in the special prosecutor’s office was demoted for sending anti-Trump messages to a mistress.

 

I commend to you the editorial in the nation’s most trusted newspaper. Not only did the special prosecutor withhold evidence of that from Congress but he did so despite a subpoena that could have led to the disclosure of this perfidy. That is obstruction of Congress, a prosecutable offense. So I have decided to uphold my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

Effective immediately, the special prosecutor and his subordinates are relieved of their duties and trusts under the United States. I have instructed federal officers to secure their premises pending any subpoena from the House, which is the body that is constitutionally authorized to investigate — and decide whether to impeach — the president. This administration will play no games with the House.

 

Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States requires, inter alia(***), preserving, and protecting each branch of its government, including the presidency. I have learned much in the past year, but nothing more clearly than how important it is to protect the office I hold. This means — under what the courts call the “rule of necessity” — that I have a responsibility to act even when it is awkward.

 

Our country is on the brink of war in Korea, and being maneuvered against by determined enemies on every continent. These challenges may be no more pressing than the workaday assignment to rebuild our economy. All, though, are pressing. Which is why our Founding Fathers decided against dividing the executive powers among a committee or splitting them with a special counsel. They chose instead to vest them in a single president — a principle that, to the best of my ability, I am preserving, protecting, and defending today to make America and its Constitution great again.

+++++++++

Asterisk Notes

 

*Camarilla:

 

Merriam-Webster – a group of unofficial often secret and scheming advisers; alsocabal

MACMILLAN DICTIONARY – a group of advisers, usually a secret group who are involved in a plot

Wordnik.comfrom The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

n. A group of confidential, often scheming advisers; a cabal.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

n. A secret, usually sinister, group of conspiring advisors close to the leadership; a cabal

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English

n. The private audience chamber of a king.

n. A company of secret and irresponsible advisers, as of a king; a cabal or clique.

from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia

n. A company of secret counselors or advisers; a cabal; a clique.

nSynonyms: Faction, Junto, etc. See cabal.

n. A small chamber or cell, as in the brain.

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

n. a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue

 

**fain:

 

Merriam-Webster

1 archaic: happy, pleased

2 archaic: inclined, desirous

3 a: willing

 

  • he was very fain, for the young widow was “altogether fair and lovely … ” —Amy Kelly

 

b: being obliged or constrained: compelled

 

  • Great Britain was fain to devote its whole energy … to the business of slaying and being slain —G. M. Trevelyan

 

***inter alia:

 

Law.com – (in-tur eh-lee-ah) prep. Latin for “among other things.” This phrase is often found in legal pleadings and writings to specify one example out of many possibilities. Example: “The judge said, inter alia, that the time to file the action had passed.”

_____________________

Preserve American Experiment – FIRE Mueller

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2017

____________________

The Mueller Firing Speech

 

© 2002-2017 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

 

The New York Sun

We Americans NEED Tax Reform


John R. Houk

October 24, 2017

President Trump’s tax reform has a bit of everything beneficial from rich to poor. NOT JUST THE RICH as the Democrats deceptively tell their listeners. Sensibly, along with the give there is also some take. After all, tax revenue is what operates the government whether every Joe-American likes it or not.

 

The Democrats and Left-oriented media obfuscate the reality of Trump tax reform with claims it benefits only the Wealthy and harms the Middle Class. That claim simply is not true because deductions benefitting the rich are stream lined as much to wealthy as to all the other tax brackets. Since the Wealthy pay a majority of the tax revenue, even with a reduced tax rate the reduction in deduction choices still gives the Wealthy a punch to the gut.

 

Talking about tax brackets, President Trump wants three reduced from the present day seven brackets. Speaker Paul Ryan apparently wants to add a fourth bracket aimed at the uber-wealthy most likely to kowtow to the Democrats accusation of a tax plan only benefitting the rich.

 

The Original Tax Bracket Proposal (Source: TheBalance.com 10/23/17)

 

  • Lowest Rate: 12% (down from 15%)

 

  • Middle Rate: 25% (down from 28%)

 

  • Highest Rate: 35% (down from 39.6% – let’s just call it 40%)

 

If GOP Establishment Has its Way – The Fourth Bracket

 

 

TheBalance.com has an accurate of the plusses and minuses of Trump Tax Reform with no pun intended, balancing to the plus-side. SavingToInvest.com is apparently running a constant update on where the Trump Tax Reform seems to be at based on recent information.

 

The Heritage Foundation has a fantastic analysis of the proposed Trump Tax Reform looking through the eyeglass of Congress-talk with the term “Unified Framework”. The Heritage analysis begins by detailing how tax reform will benefit Corporations in the sense of benefiting the U.S. economy. The Corporation analysis is written terms that we every-day Americans can understand. Then Heritage looks at how tax reform affects us normal American individuals. I encourage you to read it: http://tinyurl.com/yalz2k35

 

Today, we have an anti-growth, complex and out-of-date tax code. President Donald Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear before the November 2016 election that pro-growth tax reform would be a major legislative priority for Republicans in 2017 if they were given the chance to govern.

Our tax code currently suppresses American business growth, is far too complex for the average citizen, and is full of cronyism. Accordingly, I encourage [you] to stick to the following principles on tax reform: lower and simplify individual tax rates, lower the corporate tax rate, permit “full expensing,” establish a territorial tax system, and end cronyism.

 

The American people gave Republicans control of the House, Senate and White House, and there is a real opportunity to achieve comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform. Congress can use this as an opportunity to pair tax reform with spending cuts in order to comply with the rules of budget reconciliation and maximize the economic benefits of tax reform. After all, the federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. (Hat Tip: HeritageAction.com)

 

JRH 10/24/17

Please Support NCCR

Rep. Frederica Wilson is Full of Dem Crap


Watch why via Mrs. De Alencar

 

John R. Houk

© October 23, 2017

 

Widow – Natasha De Alencar of slain Special Forces Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar — says President Trump was very courteous in a condolence call. Meaning: Dem Rep Frederica Wilson is full of Deep State crap and so is the Mainstream Media supportive of Wilson’s Fake News provocation! Read it at Newsmax: http://tinyurl.com/ybjaps5d

 

Natasha & Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar

 

Newsmax has the embed of President Trump speaking to the De Alencar family over a speaker phone from irony of ironies the Washington Post.

 

VIDEO: Listen to Trump’s conversation with a Gold Star family

JRH 10/23/17

 Please Support NCCR

The End of the Line


In the 2016 election cycle I was a Cruzer. I only became a Trumpster after he sealed up the GOP nomination for POTUS. Frankly, I completely enjoyed much of his campaign rhetoric. However, Trump’s reputation as the great deal maker led me to believe he would not deliver on some or much of his campaign promises.

 

Why? Deals require give and take to accomplish most of a desired goal. This would mean deals will step on some toes on both the Left and the Right.

 

The problem I am seeing is too many Conservative toes are being stepped on largely because the GOP Establishment has blocked the Trump agenda AND there is an obvious Deep State hand countering President Trump’s agenda.

 

The Deep State thing for a Deal Maker is demonstrating decisions I have a problem with as well. Many of the Trump supporters that helped him win the election in 2016 have been dealt out of Executive staff jobs probably under the false hope Deep Staters will comply on some of the goals.

 

I believe Justin Smith would agree due to this critical editorial on how President Trump is dealing with DACA illegal immigration status.

 

JRH 9/25/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The End of the Line

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/24/2017 8:42 AM

 

President Donald Trump was elected, in part, to halt illegal immigration and persuade Congress to help him in the endeavor, and although his recent extirpation of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was a fine and necessary end to an illegitimate and unConstitutional use of an executive order, President Trump’s subsequent meeting and agreement with Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, on September 13th, ended in statements of support to legalize “Dreamers” through legislation. Trump basically lent his name and a new sense of urgency to a legislative amnesty, that certainly doesn’t put America or Her people first.

 

America must not take on the added burden and consequences that will follow any poorly outlined legalization of these DACA recipients. President Reagan’s 1986 amnesty for three million illegal aliens added fifteen million to our population, and, without specific codified pre-conditions, which President Trump and the Democrats seem prepared to ignore, 800,000 DACA folks will add approximately four million new Democratic voters and Republican serfs, while the promise of border security in the future, similar to the 2013 Gang of Eight bill, is never realized.

 

As long as anyone is eligible for amnesty, they will receive amnesty, so it seems. Nearly twenty years after the 1986 amnesty, the Ninth Circuit Court was still granting amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, who unbelievably claimed they were unfairly denied, because they weren’t residing in America for the first amnesty.

 

On September 14th, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stated: “Every time anybody in Congress or in the administration starts talking about, … ‘a deal for amnesty for this or to legalize that’, then we get a huge surge in people coming across our southern border”.

 

How can President Trump not see, that if he gives the Democrats the amnesty they seek now, he will never receive the promised, although unspecified, border security measures in the future? We’ve been down this road before. Is Trump really so politically naive?

 

No deal on DACA in Congress is better than a bad deal. Let DACA die in six months, and each DACA recipient can petition the immigration courts, utilizing existing U.S. law, on a case by case basis. If this upsets a bunch of future Democratic voters, who shouldn’t be here anyway, how is this America’s problem?

 

Any potential Congressional deal on DACA, that might have existed, has already been undermined, by Trump’s tweet he might “revisit” his decision, if Congress doesn’t legalize DACA. His suggestion that DACA illegal aliens have nothing to fear also makes a deal less likely.

 

Hardcore opponents to any amnesty deal are unlikely to soften their position, in the face of an army of lawyers for La Raza, who are feverishly working for continued open borders and a constant flow of illegal aliens into America, with no end in sight. They understand that racist La Raza advocates seek to “reconquer” the Southwest and destroy white Christian America and America’s predominant Western European culture. Only a fool aids in their own destruction.

 

The Dreamers do not have any standing or right to demand anything from us, especially something so precious as U.S. citizenship and all its endowments, or even legalization, and yet, they have made these demands repeatedly and finally acquired DACA. Emboldened by Trump’s sympathy for them, they are now demanding the legalization of all illegal aliens in America.

 

During a recent press conference with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, illegal alien protesters chanted, “All of us or none of us … all eleven million”. They used the Progressive statistic and the assertion that only 11 million illegal aliens reside in the U.S. currently, when the figure is actually much closer to 30 million [Blog Editor: Pew & U.S. Govt. stick with 11 million; disputed by Daily Signal, former Mexico Ambassador to U.S. and Cairco.org]; and, the mere fact they demand legalization, rather than politely request it, is astounding and exhibits their complete lack of respect for America.

 

The majority of DACA recipients are no longer children, as many dishonest politicians would have us believe. They are largely between twenty and thirty-six years old, and by the time they applied for college or some security sensitive areas of employment, they certainly were aware of their illegal alien and “undocumented” status. Whether they have known of their illegal status for two or twenty years, why have they not corrected their situation through legal channels over the years?

 

Some softhearted Americans propose giving legal residence to Dreamers, who pass tough background investigations, pay any owed back taxes, complete high school and enroll in college, get a job or join the military. While this may seem like a good solution, many other Americans see this as a slap in the face of legal immigrants, who came to America properly, and all Americans who fought, bled and died in defense of the Constitution and America.

 

When President Trump said, “We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here”, isn’t that a de facto amnesty?

 

Trump also enjoys repeatedly talking about the massive, impenetrable, “big and beautiful” wall he still intends to build, which gained him monumental support during his campaign. However, he fluctuates between insisting it will be built and rationalizing why it isn’t being built. How disappointed many have become, as they discover they were cheering for routine maintenance at the border and more sensors.

 

It is mind-boggling to witness President Trump prepare to give away the farm, without getting any concessions from the Democrats, other than a vague reference to “border security” that will disappear under the next Democratic president. Legislating DACA without including E-Verify and the RAISE Act is feckless. Changes to the proposed DACA legislation must ensure that they can’t bring their entire tribe with them, from the miserable Third World hellholes they abandoned.

 

When asked if a bill that gives legal status to DACA recipients could pass without funding for a border wall, Representative Dave Brat (R-VA) said: “No way. I don’t think DACA is passable with a wall. We would also need to require E-Verify and end chain migration.”

 

No one will be left to listen to their lies, if President Trump and today’s Republican leadership, along with the Democrats, pass any type of amnesty for the illegal aliens in DACA, or any others too. They will have crossed a line of no return, without the support of many of their voters, who are tired of shouting their demands at the deaf ears of GOP elitists. Millions of Republicans will no longer offer any loyalty to a party that has broken one promise after another, and DACA amnesty will be the end of the line.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

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