What happens when an ordinary American stands up to the global jihad?

Canada is now discussing criminal penalties for “Islamophobia.” Facebook’s Vice President went to Pakistan in July to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would remove content critical of Islam. American columnists seriously call for the denial of free speech rights to those who warn about the jihad threat. That call was directed at me, for the crime of  “falsely constructing a divide between Islam and the West.”

“Falsely”? Really?

Clearly there are some very powerful people who are desperately afraid of what they call “Islamophobia,” and are now cracking down on it hard. For years I have been sounding the alarm about the threat of jihad terror and the human rights abuses that Sharia enables, and increasingly the West, instead of heeding these warnings, is turning against those who have been sounding them.

In my forthcoming book Confessions of an Islamophobe, I make my case. Is there really a threat to the free world from jihad terror and Sharia oppression, or is such concern all just paranoid fear-mongering, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, paranoia, profiteering — in a word, “Islamophobia”?

I’ve always found such accusations bewildering and baseless, and still do. I began this work because I was an ordinary American — a believer in the freedom of speech and free society and the equality of rights of all before the law — who saw problems that weren’t being addressed adequately. In the intervening years, those problems have only gotten worse, although the ruling elites still generally do not admit there are any problems at all.

So: are they right, or am I? You be the judge: in Confessions of an Islamophobe, I discuss the real threat women, gays, Jews, Christians, secular liberals and secular Muslims face, and reveal what happens to those ordinary citizens who dare to tell the truth about that threat.

Pre-order Confessions of an Islamophobe here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EU-funded exhibit “Islam, It’s Also Our History!” opens after delay caused by jihad massacres

Saudi Muslim cleric: Women have “a quarter the brainpower of men”

UK: Growing Support for Arming More Police

The UK’s fear of firearms, and potential weapons of all kinds, is well-documented. Subjects are urged not to carry any item, such as pepper spray, that might be adapted for self-defense. Officers take to social media to boast of “weapons sweeps” that turn up old kitchen knivesbaseball bats, and sharpened sticks. In 2009, the Home Office even contemplated replacing traditional glass pint glasses out of fears about their use in barroom brawls. However, a recent report from the Wall Street Journal reveals that there is growing sentiment in the UK to abandon one of the clearest representations of their antipathy towards arms and equip more police officers with guns.

Since the Metropolitan Police Service was founded in 1829, most officers have conducted their duties unarmed. In order to carry a firearm on duty, an officer must volunteer and be trained as an Authorised Firearms Officer (AFOs). According to the WSJ, today a mere five percent of officers in England and Wales carry firearms. A March 2017 report by NBC News indicated that even in London, less than 10 percent of officers carry a gun.  Data from the Home Office shows that from 2009 to 2016, the number of AFOs in England and Wales dropped 18 percent, part of an overall reduction in the police force. Further, citing this data, the Independent pointed out that the number of AFOs as a percentage of the overall police force fell from 2010 to 2016.

The shift in mindset has taken place amidst a string of terrorist attacks and an increase in violent crimes perpetrated with guns and knives. In what will be seen by some as a blow to the efficacy of UK gun law, the WSJ reported that “London’s Metropolitan Police says the number of guns being smuggled into the U.K. is ‘worrying,’ and there are fears terrorists might use them to carry out marauding attacks.”

Showing just how much opinion has turned, the WSJ article quoted Open University Professor of History and Criminology Clive Emsley, who stated, “There is a much stronger movement for arming the ordinary bobby than I can ever remember.”

Moreover, the article shared the story of Constable Damon Blackman, who was on hand for one of London’s recent terror attacks,

A police medic trained to carry a Taser, he responded to the June 3 terrorist attack at London Bridge that left eight people dead. He said he believed more lives could have been saved if the first responders had been able to shoot the attackers before they rampaged through nearby Borough Market.

“If you’re dealing with someone with a knife, [Tasers don’t] give the same level of security as a firearm,” Mr. Blackman said.

Some high-profile officials have also called for a change. For the past several months, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage has used his radio program to advocate for an armed police force. Following the London Bridge attack, Colonel Richard Kemp, who worked for the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, issued a statement where he advocated for a number of measures to combat terrorist violence. In it, he noted, “We also need to have every cop in this country armed, which gives us a greater chance of having an immediate response.”

The evidence of a change in sentiment is more than anecdotal. A 2006 poll of officers conducted by the Police Federation of England and Wales found that 82 percent “[did] not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty.” A Police Federation fact sheet accompanying the results noted that “there has been almost no change in police officers’ opinions since we conducted the previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime.” A September 2017 version of the poll found, “34% of all Federated Rank officers responding to the survey are in favour of officers being routinely armed both on or off duty, or just on duty;” a 16 point shift in favor of arming officers.

The UK government has already taken some measures to arm more officers. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, France, the government allocated funding to train 1,500 new AFOs. However, recruiting new AFOs has proved difficult and the allotment has not been filled. Additionally, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is in the midst of a review of armed policing in the UK. A July 13 press release from the organization stated that the group “will carefully consider whether there is a need to further increase the number of highly specialist officers working in armed response vehicles, whether some currently unarmed officers in key locations should be armed and more Tasers for front line officers.”

It is encouraging that a growing number of British subjects are coming to the realization that firearms are an effective means of confronting criminal violence. While recent debate on this matter has almost exclusively concerned firearms for police, the UK would do well to rediscover that all law-abiding individuals have the right to access the tools of self-defense.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

Bernie Sanders’s 1960s worldview makes bad foreign policy

Bernie Sanders is exactly the type of Socialist Donald Trump had in mind when he explained the reasons for Venezuela’s failure at the United Nations earlier this week.

“The problem in Venezuela,” the president said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

In a major foreign policy speech delivered from the same Westminster College campus where Winston Churchill gave his famous “Iron Curtain” speech more than 70 years ago, Sanders trotted out just about every shibboleth of the tired old Socialist left, with surprisingly little inventiveness or variation.

It was a speech of anti-militarist and anti-capitalist diatribe, sprinkled with attacks on President Trump and his supporters — just the type of thing that has made Sanders the darling of liberal arts college students.

Iraq was a disaster that left tens of thousands of Americans “wounded in body and spirit from a war we should never have started” Applause.

The U.S. “spend(s) more on defense than the next 12 nations combined, … (at the same time) they want to throw 32 million Americans off of the health insurance they currently have.” Applause.

Income inequality is the scourge of the past, present and future, in the world according to Sanders. “This planet will not be secure or peaceful when so few have so much, and so many have so little.” Applause.

With the exception of his insistence on the “crisis” of climate change, there was little in this speech that could not have been uttered in the 1960s, either by outgoing U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (whose famous “military-industrial complex” speech Sanders quoted at length) or by Timothy Leary.

You want to know America’s biggest problem? In the world according to Sanders, it’s America’s success.

To Sanders, our military power is a problem, a really big problem. “Partnership, rather than dominance,” should direct U.S. policy toward the world, not U.S. military solutions to problems. “We must rethink the old Washington mindset that judges “seriousness” according to the willingness to use force.”

Sanders believes that America’s unparalleled economic success is not just a problem, but a threat to the rest of the world. “There is no moral or economic justification for the six wealthiest people in the world having as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population – 3.7 billion people.”

But hey, don’t worry, Bernie will take care of that. He’ll just confiscate their wealth and redistribute it to the less fortunate so we can all be poor and miserable together.

Sanders really doesn’t like Donald Trump, in case anyone didn’t notice. Just like his friends in the national media, the senator thinks that Trump should give up on threatening Kim Jong un, and offer him more carrots than John Kerry offered the Iranians.

And just like that wonderfully successful Iran deal, that “advanced the security of the US and its partners, and it did this at a cost of no blood and zero treasure,” surely Rocket Man will see how generous and kind we are and will volunteer to give up his nuclear weapons and his ballistic missiles, because we promise to give him goodies.

To those of us brought up in the 1960s, it’s all depressingly familiar. Blame America first, abandon U.S. power and might and kowtow to a consortium of nations that despise us and seek our destruction — otherwise known as the United Nations — and the world will become a wonderful place.

While Bernie likes to contrast the Iraq war to the Iran deal — and no contrast better illustrates his worldview — it’s precisely here that his 1960s socialist vision breaks down.

The United States tried to woo Saddam Hussein. In 1989, under President George H.W. Bush, the United States was set to shower the Iraqi dictatorwith billions of dollars of U.S. high technology, most of it to be delivered on credits financed with taxpayer dollars.

But like any true dictator, Saddam wanted more. When he invaded Kuwait, even Bush 41 said enough was enough.

After another 12 years of crippling sanctions and the toughest arms control regime ever devised by the United States and its partners, Saddam still wasn’t ready to throw in the towel. Despite 17 UN Security Council resolutions condemning him, including multiple authorizations of force under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, it still took U.S. leadership and military might to force Saddam’s hand.

And even then, just as U.S. and allied forces were crossing the borders into Iraq, he had still been manufacturing outlawed ballistic missiles (Al-Samoud 2 missiles), according to the chief United Nations arms inspector, Hans Blix.

The lesson is simple, but it’s a tough one to accept if you’re a 20-year-old liberal arts major who might be subject to the draft: Some national security threats to our nation must be dealt with by force, and by force alone.

When Iran finally tests its first nuclear weapon — developed thanks to the Iran deal — Senator Sanders and his ilk will predictably blame the U.S. military-industrial complex and militarists in Congress for angering the Iranians.

Once again, it will be our fault.

And that is what’s fundamentally wrong with Bernie’s 1960s vision of the world. Far from being the source of all evil in the world, as Bernie thinks, America remains the world’s last bulwark against evil.

Who will you want to call when things go desperately wrong? Something tells me, for most Americans, it won’t be Bernie.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

California Poised to Provide ‘Sanctuary’ to Alien Criminals and Terrorists

On September 18, 2017, roughly one week after the 16th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the LA Times reported on California’s “sanctuary state” bill-SB 54 that would ostensibly “expand protections for immigrants” by preventing officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

To understand the ominousness of this measure, we must look back to the 9/11 Commission’s official “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” report, which focused on the multiple failures of the immigration system that enabled the 9/11 terrorists and other international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

This explicit paragraph explains how sanctuary policies that confound DHS efforts to enforce immigration laws undermines America’s counterterrorism operations:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

This is why each and every illegal alien, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a criminal record, must not be shielded from detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

However, commonsense regarding the need for proper immigration law enforcement is being overshadowed by the manipulations of proponents of immigration anarchy. The LA Times article’s very headline — referring to “immigrants” — highlights the insidious manipulation of language that has made honest discussions about immigration virtually impossible. The process was initiated long ago by the Carter administration, which demanded that the term “Illegal alien” be stricken from the lexicon of INS employees and replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.”

The removal of that single word — alien — from the vernacular has had a huge impact on the entire immigration debate, causing many decent and otherwise sensible Americans to be deceived into believing “sanctuary cities” exemplify altruism when quite the opposite is true.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”  There is no insult in the term “alien” — only clarity. In fact, the title of the DREAM Act actually includes the verboten term “alien” (the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).

​Going back to the LA Times headline, in reality, lawful immigrants have absolutely no need for protection from immigration law enforcement officers. The only aliens who are at risk from adverse actions being taken against them by ICE agents are those aliens who either entered the United States illegally or, following lawful entry through a port of entry, either violated the terms of their admission into the United States or have committed criminal offenses in the United States.

Lawful immigrants do, however, have serious need for protection: they need protection from criminal aliens who lurk in their ethnic immigrant communities, plying their criminal trades. These individuals pose the greatest threat to the immigrants among whom they live irrespective of their ethnicities or countries of birth.

“Sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” such as California, which shield illegal aliens and the criminals and terrorists among them from immigration law enforcement authorities, create a life and death nightmare for the residents of the towns, cities and states that attract aliens who face deportation from the country.

During his administration, President George W. Bush attempted, fortunately without success, to create a “guest worker” program for millions of illegal aliens. Bush also played the “name game” and frequently called for “making immigrants legal” while he was, in actuality, calling for a massive amnesty program for unknown millions of illegal aliens.

Back then, Senate Bill S. 2611, legislation that would have created such an amnesty program, attracted the ire and concern of House Republicans who understood the dangers that such an ill-conceived program would create for America’s national security.  Consequently, on July 27, 2006 a hearing. called by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims addressed the dangers inherent in such a program.

During my testimony at this hearing, I stated that any member of Congress who would vote to provide lawful status and identity documents to millions of illegal aliens should be given the “MVP Award” by Al-Qaeda.

Effective enforcement of our immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, not only helps to prevent terrorists from setting up shop in communities around the country, but similarly combats pernicious transnational gangs, as well as drug trafficking and human trafficking organizations.

The protection of law abiding US citizens, including lawful immigrants, is not a concern for illegal immigration extremists. Case in point: On September 14, 2017 the L.A. Times reported reported on how, under proposed legislation, the California Justice Department would oversee shared gang databases across the state.

Sharing such data is vital for effective law enforcement to achieve essential goals. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report highlighted the lack of interagency cooperation to share data.  However, this news article reported that the proposed creation of a technical advisory council would, under a new amendment, make certain to shield the gang databases from review by immigration law enforcement.

This is nothing short of obstruction of justice.

Here is the relevant and infuriating paragraph:

The state attorney general also would establish a technical advisory council — comprising law enforcement officials, gang intervention experts and community members — to help ensure law enforcement agencies are following the statewide standards. New amendments would prevent agencies from sharing records from the database with federal authorities for the purpose of immigration enforcement, part of negotiations that also scaled back a separate “sanctuary state” bill in the state Senate

Hypocritically, the open borders/immigration anarchists insist that “Undocumented Immigrants” seldom commit crimes” yet members of the California government are concerned about providing information to ICE about aliens who are members of violent gangs.

Jails and prison are often optimistically referred to as “correctional facilities.”  The hope is that criminals can be reformed during their periods of incarceration.  Unfortunately, all too often convicted felons return to their lives of crime upon their release, victimizing still more innocent people.

Deportation (removal) is the best solution when we are dealing with criminal aliens and recidivism.  Therefore, orders of deporation are tantamount to orders of protection for Americans.

Furthermore, in the early 1980s I convinced then-New York Senator Al D’Amato to draft a bill that would impose a 20-year maximum penalty on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then unlawfully reentered the United States.  That bill was enacted and is an element of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326.

The point is to deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States, thereby protecting their potential victims. Sanctuary cities and states shield such alien convicts from detection by ICE, thereby endangering the lives of innocent people including members of the ethnic immigrant communities that attract these violent criminals seeking to evade the long arm of the immigration law enforcement.

Today, members of international terrorist organizations and transnational gangs should give political proponents of sanctuary cities and states their MVP Award.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw from Iran Nuclear Deal

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:

  • Lt. 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
  • Dr. Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
  • Mr. Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
  • Dr. 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

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

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

The Female Jihadi

If one needed a convincing example of the damage done to the female psyche by a strict Islamic upbringing, look no farther than to Linda Sarsour.

The treatment of women is brutally degrading within Islam; they are raped and harassed daily, and “not worthy of protection.” Traditional gender roles provide that men are superior to women and the female is responsible for the family’s honor; hence, they must be obedient to the many prohibitions or punished – even murdered.

Islam should be considered a shame-honor religion as Arab and Muslim cultures are shame-honor cultures that provide a means of manipulation and control by the family or group.  It allows for no creativity and no autonomy.  When shame becomes a destructive force, it leads the victimized family member to seek revenge and spill blood.  It is brought by the families who migrate to the West, and further exacerbated if they observe traditional rigid regulations of surveillance, a key concept that leads to tension and crippling development.

The daughter (and the son up to age 7) spends her time with the devalued mother who was herself a deprived, distressed child who grew into a troubled adulthood, unable to nurture healthy children.  The girls especially do not develop independently but understand that they are like their mother and any other women who serve as wives to the authoritarian male head of household. The women live in dread of losing favor, of being beaten, abused, kept naked in isolation, or even annihilated. If the husband divorces her, by simply repeating the divorce mantra thrice, she is left with only the dowry provided by her parents at the time of her arranged marriage.

The child is injured by their strict sharia laws, and by the disharmony, rivalry and envy that exist within the Islamic household, not to mention the fear and anger caused by the intense political hatred found in the Koran and repeated in their prayers five times daily. The pre-adolescent girl is further traumatized and degraded by the physically and psychologically painful Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) that is performed on her without anesthesia, under non-medical conditions, that may well cause lifelong infection.

Children living under circumstances of neglect, abuse, and trauma grow up with defective bonding relations and stay forever connected to the mother, in a painful traumatic bonding or terror bonding. When the daughter is ultimately given in marriage to a man of any age, not of her choosing, she is programmed to replicate the life of her devalued mother.

A young Muslim in Gaza or Judea and Samaria (West Bank) would have experienced enough shame to be overwhelmed by rage and aggression, resulting in never developing empathy with others.  They are treated as objects from an early age and, thus, treat as mere objects real people with real needs.  Boys who are radicalized at an early age bond violently and aggressively to females, including to the mother; girls internalize that same male rage, also directing it against the female and eventually become pawns of male extremist groups.

So now we have Linda Sarsour, the oldest of seven children born to a Muslim family from Gaza and living among people of the same background in Brooklyn, New York.  She promotes herself by championing “cool issues,” but seeks leadership roles to promote Islam and Palestinian self-determination. She professes to stand for the feminist movement, but rejects all who support Israel and silences any who speak of Islam’s severe cruelty to women.

She spoke briefly of her ties to her mother when she said she had to attend the local school, her mother’s choice. No doubt, her spare time was spent assisting with the care of her six younger siblings at the expense of a typical American childhood, thus denied the opportunity to play and work through fantasy life.

Steeped in the Islamic ideology and the Palestinian narrative, Sarsour endured FGM and shuts down all who criticize the practice. She was limited to meeting young men and women of her own heritage and shared mentality and chose the hijab for further identification.  Given in marriage at age 17 to her parents’ preference, she bore three children by the time she was in her early twenties. Where she is duty-bound to repress her anger against her family about her own personal abuse, she directs her rage outwardly against Americans, women, and the President of the United States.  

She joined several Muslim organizations and labeled herself a “radical activist,” that is, a civilizational jihadist, an Islamic supremacist who, through multicultural coalitions, seeks to curry the favor of the public to accept Islam. She has joined rallies of Nation of Islam, Black Lives Matter and, more recently, the Women’s March. She is deeply involved with community, may seek a City Council candidacy and ponder the idea of mayor of New York City.

Islam is democracy’s sworn enemy because their belief system, their raison d’etre, is based on envy and hatred. The Koran contains 109 versus that decree war with Jews and Christians, commands all manner of torture and extermination, and warns that non-fighters for Allah will go to hell, because Mohammed was offended when the Jews rejected his religion. One of many such commands is “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given. 9:29

A subtle proponent of the prescribed terrorism, Sarsour is a jihadi.  Pew Research estimates that 330 million Muslims believe in violent jihad, a number that exceeds that of the Nazis. Although not trained in armed warfare, Sarsour conducts her own war with lies and propaganda, and her cries of Palestinian injustice and suffering through social media and the Women’s March. She bears a strong odium for Israel, and was proud to share a stage with a convicted terrorist murder of two Jewish university students.

As she thwarts all comments about women’s oppression under Islam, she extols the benefits of FGM, by explaining it as a mere “cut.”  And it is here that we find her not trying to free her oppressed female co-religionists, but sanctioning their position of submission, their bondage, and the pathology of her severe jihadi hatred of women. She warns American Muslims not to assimilate. Of Brigitte Gabriel, Sarsour tweeted, “I wish I could take their (female sexual organs) away; they don’t deserve to be women.”  Of Ayaan Hirsi Ali she tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Sarsour is pathologically fused to, dependent on, and smothered by her mother.  While male jihadists attempt to cleanse and release themselves from the maternal bond by killing others, she has exposed a similar malignancy in her desire for bloody violence against her despised enemies, which include all women, Israel, and President Donald Trump. Unable or unwilling to join the physical war, she will continue seeking to inveigle the public through her multicultural activism, spewing hatred and finding her own path of perpetual rage as she works to make the misogynist sharia law, Islamic violence and destruction, legally part of our American way of life.

Acknowledgment: Kobrin, Nancy Hartevelt, PhD, (2016) The Jihadi Dictionary; Mamaroneck, NY, Multieducator Press.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Hampshire: Muslim refugee charged with inappropriate sexual contact with several young girls

Trump administration considering dropping Pakistan as an ally

Long overdue and much needed.

“US weighs dropping Pakistan as an ally,” by Katrina Manson, Financial Times, September 15, 2017:

The Trump administration is considering dropping Pakistan as an ally as it examines tough measures to quell more than 20 terrorist groups it says are based in the country.

Officials familiar with the Pakistan prong of Washington’s new “AfPak” strategy — which involves an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and praise for India — say it has yet to be fleshed out. But they have plenty of levers.

President Donald Trump last month promised to get tough on Pakistan, accusing it of “housing the very terrorists that we are fighting”. It was the most public breach yet in an often rocky relationship.

“No US president has come out on American national television and said such things about Pakistan,” said Husain Haqqani, former Pakistan ambassador to the US.

“US policymakers are at the end of their tethers about what they see as Pakistan not helping them while promising to help them.”

The administration has already put $255m in military aid on hold after Mr Trump announced the policy shift. It is eyeing an escalating series of threats, which include cutting some civilian aid, conducting unilateral drone strikes on Pakistani soil and imposing travel bans on suspect officers of the ISI, the country’s intelligence agency. It could also revoke Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally or designate it a state sponsor of terrorism.

The latter options would limit weapons sales and probably affect billions of dollars in IMF and World Bank loans, along with access to global finance….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer: Trump Is Right — Pakistan Is No Ally

Iran decries “cowboy” Trump’s “ignorant hate speech” at UN

EDITORS NOTE: According to the Center for Global Development, “The United States began providing economic assistance along and military aid to Pakistan shortly after the country’s creation in 1947. In total, the United States obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. The levels year to year have waxed and waned for decades as US geopolitical interests in the region have shifted. Peaks in aid have followed years of neglect. In several periods, including as recently as the 1990s, US halted aid entirely and shut the doors of the USAID offices. This pattern has rendered the United States a far cry from a reliable and unwavering partner to Pakistan over the years.” Read more.

Ignorance at the Washington Post is stunning

“As for the cost, most is borne by private resettlement agencies.” – Washington Post Editorial Board

What! They don’t read RRW every day?

I’ve said it on many occasions but it is frightening to know something about an issue and then see flat-out ignorance about it from people who should have the facts….

But, I suppose when it comes to the Washington Post it might just be that they do know the facts, but are purposefully spewing FAKE NEWS, like this line in their pro-more-refugees-anti-Trump editorial (Trump flirts with a new age of American timidity) a few days ago.

After taking a whack at Stephen Miller they say this:

The stated rationales for further refu­gee cuts — concerns over terrorists sneaking in, and the costs involved — are not defensible. In fact, both the Obama and Trump administrations have tightened vetting for refugees, who are now the subject of exhaustive background checks despite the fact that very few terrorist attacks, in the United States or Europe, have been carried out by refugees. As for the cost, most is borne by private resettlement agencies.

Nevermind for now, that we, and many others, have chronicled the number of refugee terrorists (or wannabe terrorists caught before they acted) in the refugee population in Europe and here.  It is that last sentence that rockets me through the roof!

After years of, not just me, but many other investigators exposing how much money the “private resettlement agencies”*** are paid OUT OF THE US TREASURY to resettle refugees, how can they possibly promote such a falsehood!

See my post on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops here two days ago.

And, here, if you missed it is my recent accounting of all 9 federal refugee contractors. Episcopal Migration Ministries takes the top prize at 99.5% funded by taxpayer dollars!

***These are the federal contractors paid by the head for refugee “clients” they place (secretively!) in your towns and cities. Congress should be investigating how they are using the millions of federal dollars they receive annually.

And, as long as they are running the program on your dime along with their side job of political agitation and community organizing, there can never be reform of the USRAP!

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Catholic Bishops rolling in federal dough according to financial statements

Federal contractor removes director of its San Diego office in wake of investigation

Mainstream political polls commit fraud

DHS says they can’t handle 50,000 refugees for FY18, but 40,000 is okay!

Arizona Rohingya refugee story: from poor refugee to political agitator

Trump State Dept. gives Aussies information we don’t have….

Military at Ease after Trans Ban Survives

When Congress sets records, they aren’t always good ones! But yesterday, the Senate kept a good streak alive, passing the $700 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 56th consecutive year. In a Capitol where regular order is rarer than a solar eclipse, the military’s spending bill is one of the few things Congress manages to approve on time. It hasn’t missed since West Side Story was in the theaters, and gas cost 27 cents a gallon.But if there was ever a year when the streak might have snapped, it was this one. Apart from the hike in spending, liberal senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) threatened to make a stink about the president’s transgender policy.

Despite being three of the most favorite tweets Donald Trump has ever posted, this pair was desperate to keep Obama’s dangerous social experiment alive. In comments to the press, they defended the gender confusion that’s been panned by the service chiefstroops, and American people.

Gillibrand argued that “Our military is strongest when it represents the nation it serves.”

In the end, that’s exactly who the president represented — a country who elected him to ignore the distractions of the last eight years and focus on the job at hand. And, as dozens of military leaders pointed out, that job was nearly impossible with Obama’s social engineering dogging their every move. Taxpayers didn’t escape the weight of it either, staring down a $3.7 billion tab for the next 10 years of transgender surgeries, treatments, and lost deployment time. In a force devastated by two terms of budget cuts, cultural shifts, suicide, sexual assaults, and recruitment woes, no one wanted to fling open the doors to more politically-correct chaos — least of all the men and women in uniform.

Asked point-blank, almost 60 percent of active-duty military held a negative opinion of the decision to allow transgender troops to serve openly. More telling, more than half of that group said the policy change was having a terrible effect on military morale. In other words, it was unpopular, unproductive, and unreasonably expensive. Is it any wonder that one year after Barack Obama changed the policy, Trump changed it back? Like most Americans, he understands that the military’s job is to fight and win wars – not pander to a political agenda that weakens national security.

Fortunately, the majority of GOP leaders arrived at the same conclusion, refusing to give the Gillibrand-Collins amendment a second glance. That’s in large part to the thousands of you who heeded our call and urged your senators to support the president’s guidance. As a result, the NDAA sailed through the Senate 89-8 — without even debating a return to the demoralizing policy of the last year. Instead they focused on the military’s real priorities: increased pay, missile defense, better equipment, and more troops. And while the bill isn’t entirely out of the woods — the House and Senate still have to agree on the final package in conference — this is a huge step in the right direction.

Our deepest thanks to the White House and all of you, who refused to stop fighting for the people fighting for us.

EDITORS NOTE: Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WARNING: Politics Can Be Hazardous to Your Health Care

Dana Loesch to Star at Next Month’s VVS!

Previous Washington Update Articles »

VIDEO: The ‘Fringe’ begins eating its own, starting with Nancy Pelosi

In his remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress on 13 March 1962, John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Today, the Democrat Party has made peaceful revolution impossible and now it is they who are paying the price when it becomes violent. Democrats did not condemn the violence perpetrated by members of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Instead Nancy Pelosi endorsed the OWS revolution.

In a Weekly Standard column titled “Pelosi on Occupy Wall Street Protesters: ‘God bless them’,” John McCormack wrote:

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi praised those participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. “God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Read more.

Occupy Wall Street then began breaking windows, literally.

Once you endorse a revolution it does become a more and more violent revolution. Watch Nancy Pelosi, a champion of open borders and amnesty, shouted down by illegal aliens (so called dreamers) in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, within California, a sanctuary state.

The Democrat Party, and then President Obama, failed to repair the broken windows beginning with the Occupy Oakland riots in California, which inextricably lead to the 2013 riots in Sanford, Florida, 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently the 2017 riots and death in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now we see the Democrats targeted by their own.

The Democrats have encouraged breaking windows, because “it has always been fun” so long as its the other party that gets hurt. Well now their party is being hurt.

Violence begets more violence: From Sanford, Florida to Ferguson, Missouri to San Francisco, California.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaring evidence which everybody has decided not to see.”

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

In February then candidate Donald J. Trump at a rally in Iowa began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1969 entitled “The Snake.” Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken in the snake and it has bitten them and they are going to die politically.

The snake cannot be satisfied with kindness. It must by its very nature bite the hand of those who took it in.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls: No Longer Friends of Israel

“The Snake” Lyrics

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing, ” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful, ” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake
“I saved you, ” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman, ” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

Written by Robert S. Kelly, Darian Morgan • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group

President Trump at the UN: ‘We meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.’

President Trump made his first speech before the United Nations and it was amazing to watch. The President warned, “To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.  It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”

President Trump emphasized three key policies of his administration: national sovereignty, security and prosperity.

Perhaps his most powerful statement was about Venezuela when the President said:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.

On refugees President Trump noted, “For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

At the UN, Trump Ends the Era of Leading From Behind

Netanyahu on Trump UN Speech: In More than 30 Years at UN, Have Not Heard a Speech so Bold and Courageous

6 Key Takeaways From Trump’s Big UN Speech

Bolton: ‘This Was the Best Speech of the Trump Presidency’

TRANSCRIPT: Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

United Nations
New York, New York

10:04 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates:  Welcome to New York.  It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.

As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid.  The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

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

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been.  For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value.  Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.

International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.  It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future.  It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe.  Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free.  As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations.  The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties:  to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.  This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.  This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example.  We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in the world today.

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are:  “We the people.”

Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign.  I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty.  Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.  (Applause.)

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.

But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies.  But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.  As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.

But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations Charter.  Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall.  America’s devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies, from the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.

It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others.  Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope.  We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife.  We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.  We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room.  It is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face.  Or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today, so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow?

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent.  We must protect our nations, their interests, and their futures.  We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea.  We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.  And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.

The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.  They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries.

If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.  When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea.  It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.

We were all witness to the regime’s deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later.  We saw it in the assassination of the dictator’s brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport.  We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea’s spies.

If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.

It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.  No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.  Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.  The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.  That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.

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

But we must do much more.  It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior.

We face this decision not only in North Korea.  It is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime — one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.  It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.  The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people.

Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.  This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.  (Applause.)  The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.  Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction.  It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained.  And above all, Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors.

The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most.  This is what causes the regime to restrict Internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protestors, and imprison political reformers.

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice.  Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror?  Or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?

The Iranian regime’s support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing.

In Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations.  We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamist extremism that inspires them.

We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.

We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology.  We must drive them out of our nations.  It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and others that slaughter innocent people.

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people.

Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan.  From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.

I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups.  In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS.  In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined.

We seek the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people.  The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens — even innocent children — shock the conscience of every decent person.  No society can be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread.  That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

We appreciate the efforts of United Nations agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict.

The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort.  We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people, and which enables their eventual return to their home countries, to be part of the rebuilding process.

For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.  Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region, and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible.  This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach.

For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere.  We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.

For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.

For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

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

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

We also thank — (applause) — we also thank the Secretary General for recognizing that the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity.  Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.

In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.  For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more.  In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes.  The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but, to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell.  But the powerful people in this room, under the guidance and auspices of the United Nations, can solve many of these vicious and complex problems.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world.  In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially.  Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.

That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom.  My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.

We have also imposed tough, calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse.

The socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country.  This corrupt regime destroyed a prosperous nation by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. To make matters worse, Maduro has defied his own people, stealing power from their elected representatives to preserve his disastrous rule.

The Venezuelan people are starving and their country is collapsing.  Their democratic institutions are being destroyed.  This situation is completely unacceptable and we cannot stand by and watch.

As a responsible neighbor and friend, we and all others have a goal.  That goal is to help them regain their freedom, recover their country, and restore their democracy.  I would like to thank leaders in this room for condemning the regime and providing vital support to the Venezuelan people.

The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable.  We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

We are fortunate to have incredibly strong and healthy trade relationships with many of the Latin American countries gathered here today.  Our economic bond forms a critical foundation for advancing peace and prosperity for all of our people and all of our neighbors.

I ask every country represented here today to be prepared to do more to address this very real crisis.  We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. (Applause.)

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. (Applause.)  From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.  Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.

America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.  Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action.  All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their wellbeing, including their prosperity.

In America, we seek stronger ties of business and trade with all nations of good will, but this trade must be fair and it must be reciprocal.

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

While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government:  the duty of our citizens.  This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.

If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the “independent strength of its members.”  If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substitute for strong, sovereign, and independent nations — nations that are rooted in their histories and invested in their destinies; nations that seek allies to befriend, not enemies to conquer; and most important of all, nations that are home to patriots, to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countries, their fellow citizens, and for all that is best in the human spirit.

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil also fought for the nations that they loved.

Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.

Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, and our minds in our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

We cannot wait for someone else, for faraway countries or far-off bureaucrats — we can’t do it.  We must solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures, or we will be vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat.

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one:  Are we still patriots?  Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures?  Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

One of the greatest American patriots, John Adams, wrote that the American Revolution was “effected before the war commenced.  The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

That was the moment when America awoke, when we looked around and understood that we were a nation.  We realized who we were, what we valued, and what we would give our lives to defend.  From its very first moments, the American story is the story of what is possible when people take ownership of their future.

The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people, and their patriotism.

History is asking us whether we are up to the task.  Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion.  We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself.

Our hope is a word and world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all:  a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.

This is the true vision of the United Nations, the ancient wish of every people, and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul.

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world:  We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the nations of the world.  And God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
10:46 A.M. EDT

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017. Mary Altaffer/AP

VIDEO: The Endlessly Transformable Muslim Identity Politics Warrior

Muslims somehow became an oppressed group. They joined the glorious coalition of perpetually oppressed “brown people”.

Linda Sarsour, who once claimed that without her hijab she would have been just another white girl, reinvented herself as one of the official oppressed people of the donkey party. Now Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer asks, if Linda Sarsour can go transracial, where’s the limit?

Only on this episode of the Glazov Gang.

Both suspects in London subway attack are Muslim ‘refugee kids’ nurtured by do-gooders

The ‘kids’ (unaccompanied alien minors?) were from Iraq and Syria.  Both received government-supported foster care from a couple known for their welcome to needy ‘kids.’

Sorry, this is the first thing I thought of – Al Wilson’s 1969 song “The Snake”:

Ronald and Penelope Jones were foster parents for 268 “children.” Photo: Facebook

Of course we have to wonder if they were even kids when they got into the UK, but that’s a story for another day….

Here is just one of many accounts today of what is going on with the latest UK Islamic terror investigation.

From Sky News:

Two men who are believed to have been fostered by the same couple are being questioned by police over the Parsons Green bombing.

Police investigating the Parsons Green Tube bombing are questioning two suspects after searching three properties over the weekend.

An 18-year-old was arrested at Dover ferry port on Saturday morning and a 21-year-old was arrested at a fried chicken shop in Hounslow, west London, on Saturday night. Neither have been named.

Screenshot (847)

Syrian refugee being questioned.  Balding 21-year-old (!) was Facebook friends with Penelope.

The younger man is suspected of planting the device, which exploded on a District Line train in London on Friday morning, injuring 30 people.

He and the other man, reported to be from Syria, are being questioned by police on suspicion of offences under the Terrorism Act.

Both men are believed to have spent time in the care of Penelope and Ronald Jones, who received MBEs [Member of the Order of the British Empire—ed] for services to children and families in 2010.

[….]

…. the 18-year-old who has been held is understood to be an Iraqi orphan who had moved to Britain when he was 15.

More here.

Go here for my complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Hungary Built a Wall…Cuts Illegal Aliens By 99 Percent

European Attacks Show the Difficulty in Tracking Soaring Terror Suspect Numbers

Parsons Green terror: Foster couple in Tube bomb raid ‘took in Syrian and Iraqi refugees’

Parsons Green bucket bomb suspect named as Syrian refugee, 21, Yahya Faroukh

We want to go to Germany and make Muslim babies…

Former Navy SEAL has an answer to the North Korea Problem

Kim Jong Un has hardly the,resources to reach “military equilibrium” with the, U.S.

Having said that he is demonstrating that by starving his people he is endeavoring to punch way above his geo political weight class with rapid progress in both nukes and mobile missile successes.

If you watched the eye opener CNN “Secret State” hour long report last night on what life is like inside the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea the starving population is beholden to thought control by their dear leader with the threat of torture and death in the gulags for any opposition. The documentary showed what happened to the late 22 year old Otto Warmbier who was beaten into a vegetative state for allegedly tearing a propaganda poster off a hotel wall. The documentary noted that North Korea is detaining three Korean Americans. That thought control extends to hatred of all Americans who those average North Korean interviewed in the documentary believe caused the 1950 war that murdered hundreds of thousands of their people.

Watch CNN’s special report “Secret State: Inside North Korea.”

The propaganda poured into the minds of North Korean kids and adults looks like an Orwellian world on the Korean Peninsula. That was evident in the CNN presentation by a veteran U.S. journalist who made 12 trips there and on this trip had access to hidden aspects of the Secret Society under the ever present gaze of minders. A North Korean Lieutenant Colonel interviewed believes that the DMZ is on a war footing. That is reflected even among North Koreans living less than 3 miles from a dynamic South Korea who believe they are better off. Bizarre.

The CNN documentary bolsters former Navy Seal Jocko Willink’s proposal to flood the country with cellphones and free WiFi to burst the hard shell of dear leader suffocating propaganda that verges on being near religious devotion with children captured on video at a privileged summer camp saying the dear leader loves them more than their own parents.

That is what the U.S. and the West are up against.

Kim Jong Un says he’s seeking military ‘equilibrium’ with US

SEOUL/UNITED NATIONS – North Korea said on Saturday it aims to reach an “equilibrium” of military force with the United States, which earlier signaled its…

NYPOST.COM

Telegraaf interview Geert Wilders — ‘In my opinion Islam is not a religion’

Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders is deeply concerned about Muslim integration. In our series Islam in the Netherlands  he is warning about the “perishing”of our culture. “It is not five to twelve or two to twelve, it is almost morning!” The leader of the second party in the country is pondering about very far-reaching measures.

Geert Wilders (54) is not surprised at the shocking poll results released by daily newspaper De Telegraaf. The fact that only thirteen percent of the Dutch population feel that the problem of integration will solve itself is a writing on the wall, according to him. And that only eleven percent of the Dutch see Islam as an enrichment proves in his opinion that what he has been  calling for years. “If I had said that three years ago, I would have had tens of thousands of police reports thrown at me. But people are completely fed up with it.”

How do you explain the figures?

“Decades ago, a few thousand people from Islamic countries would stay temporarily. But temporarily turned out to be permanently. Those thousands of guest workers became hundreds of thousands. And in Europe millions of people  by now. Back then those people were called upon to integrate and assimilate. But Islam, the word says it already, seeks to dominate. Not long ago Professor Koopmans found that as  much as seventy percent of Muslims find Islamic rules more important than secular laws. In Europe almost weekly innocent people are slaughtered in name of Allah and Islam. Proudly. We have been declared war and we refuse to defend ourselves.”

Who is responsible for this?

“I think that probably the worst of all is that Western European politicians have allowed this to happen. Last week Sybrand Buma of the Christian democratic party CDA was suddenly critical of Islam. That is like a bank robber who, twenty years after the robbery, has spent all the money and apologizes for doing so. He is the one who did it. CDA has been in power in the Netherlands for 50 years.”

Is it not a bit blunt to say …

“No!”

… that Muslims do not integrate?

“I am talking about Islam. But research also points out that 11 percent of Dutch Muslims in the Netherlands are prepared to use violence on behalf of their religion. That is a 110,000 people, twice the size of the Dutch army!”

But perhaps many Muslims in fact take Islam less serious and profess their faith behind the front door, peacefully. Secretary Asscher of Integration said in this paper last week that those people should not be held accountable for terrorist attacks.

“Do you know, secretary Asscher and Prime Minister Rutte are two sides of the same coin. After the second attack in June, Rutte said that Muslims are double the victim, because they are not only victims of attacks, but also blamed for it as a group. For all I care everyone is free to get all teary-eyed but we will perish if we continue. It reminds me of what happened after the murder of Theo van Gogh. Some people, even members of the Royal House, went to a mosque as a  first response. That is total cowardice. We are the victims.”

Who are we? Does it not also include those Muslims not engaged in fanatism? This way people are categorized into a group they do not feel connected to at all.

“Then take your distance from that group. Of course I do not say that all Muslims are cheering at an attack. But I can hardly listen to it, the terror attack commemorations in Parliament. I think we have had ten to twelve this year. I am attending, out of respect for the relatives and the victims and will continue to do so. But every time Rutte reads the same a4-format paper, only altering the name of the city and country where the attack took place. The man does not show any action.”

How do you liberate yourself from the Islamic yoke in your opinion?

“Leave Islam.”

So people must renounce their faith?

“There is nothing they must do. But I would tell: freedom is such a splendorous thing. You do not have anything like it in Islam. I can not force people to leave Islam. They must above all realize what is going on in their minds. But the real concern is what happens in the public space. What is happening in my country and whether we should have more or less of that.”

There are also Muslims who were born in the Netherlands. The country is just as much their country as it is yours.

“For those people that could apply, but not to Islam.”

But according to the constitution it does, a Muslim born here is considered Dutch. According to the Constitution he or she has an equal right to express  what the Netherlands should look like.

“We live in a free country. But in my opinion Islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian, dangerous and violent ideology, dressed up as a religion. People are allowed to think whatever they like, but I also have the right to say that Islam should not be included in the constitutional freedoms.

Can a Muslim not just be moderate?

“According to the Quran that is not possible. I personally believe there are extremist people and moderate people. But I do not believe in two kinds of Islam. There is only one. One that is impossible to reform. And even if it would be the case, we can not afford to wait for another 150 or 300 years. I think it will never happen. You get your head chopped off should you wish to interpret Islam.”

What do you think should happen?

“Recognize the problem. Dare to say that Islam does not integrate. Define Islam as a violent totalitarian undemocratic thing. And stop immigration from Islamic countries. During cabinet Rutte II, a 100,000 Muslims.were added. These are not all terrorists or bad people, but it is 100,000 times more Islam entering the Netherlands.”

There was a war. People were on the move, lost their homes.

“That was not the case. If they were refugees, they would have stopped in the first safe country after Syria. By the way, this is also part of the solution: all Syrians must return! Tomorrow! Why not? That country is safe. This is our country. Why would a Syrian be able to return from the refugee camps in Jordan or Lebanon and not from a refugee centre here?”

Because the land is in ruins and dictator Assad uses poison gas against his own people for example.

“There are many countries in the world that have not very pleasant regimes.”

Back to the Netherlands. We also have a constitution in this country that protects such things as freedom of education and religion. Should that be altered?

“I do not see the word Islam in any constitution, but in jurisprudence Islam is considered to be a religion.”

Do you want to put into law that Islam is not a religion?

“We will have to see about legal possibilities Can it be done, how can it be done and what way can it be done. But it’s definitely worth studying”

So you want to ban Islam?

“I do not rule out that this may be necessary in the long run. It will concern the expressions. You can not ban an idea, that’s impossible. You can not ban communism either.”

There is religious freedom in this country. But you want to record that Islam is not a religion.

“In my opinion it is not part of religious freedom. That is my political wish. How to execute such a thing is wish number two.”

That is very useful for a politician if he makes a statement. What should we think of?

“That is what we have to look into. I have now lifted a tip of the veil.”

Many people will be startled when they read this.

“We are not going to collect Qurans from people’s homes. What is going on behind their front door is their business. We are talking about public space, but it is too early to say anything about it now.”

Does this not make it very casual?

“No. I have  ventilated this for ten years.”

Some things you mention you have. But banning Islam is something different.

“If it is possible to put it into law, we will put it into law. But it will be about expressions. Recently we have also drafted an administrative detention bill for jihadists. I realize all problems will not be solved tomorrow by closing a mosque. You must make it unattractive in this country to profess Islam. People who want to come to the Netherlands from Islamic countries should think: this is not a place we want to go to! And we do not do this to bully Muslims, but to keep the Netherlands of the future a free Netherlands.”

EDITORS NOTE: This interview was published in De Telegraaf today , the largest daily newspaper in The Netherlands and was translated by the Party for Freedom.