Posts

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears

Obama’s ‘final solution’ for the state of Israel

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. In his speech Kerry outlined President Obama’s “final solution” for the state of Israel.

One phrase struck me. Kerry stated, “Israel can be Jewish or democratic – not both.”

But Israel is already Jewish and democratic. There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Arab members of the Knesset, and 59 former Arab members. Kerry asked:

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Israel already recognizes the right of every Israeli citizen, Jew or Arab or Christian or Druz, el al, to vote. Israel has been dealing with terrorism against the Jewish state since 1949 and throughout its history, from ancient Rome to the PLO and HAMAS.

The U.S. continues to defend Israel because it is the basis, the foundation, of our own democratic ideals. Founding Father John Adams in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp dated February 16, 1808 wrote:

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations …

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”

There are no Jewish members of the PLO nor in HAMAS, which controls the Gaza strip. Additionally, those nations surrounding Israel are Muslim and undemocratic, abiding by shariah laws that reject non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran says so.

So what is Kerry projecting on behalf of President Obama? What has been, and clearly is, Obama’s “final solution” to end the conflict in the Middle East?

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

Kerry focused on Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samara, historic land that has belong to and had been occupied by, the Jewish people for thousands of years. Kerry sees these settlements as the existential threat to a two state solution stating:

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

Then Kerry asks, “So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?”

May I suggest that a one state solution leads to what now exists in the Jewish state of Israel. A pluralistic society where all segments of the population, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnicity, live in peace side by side as individuals.

Kerry laments:

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

Under a united Jewish state of Israel Palestinians do have access to real political rights, education, transportation systems, serve in the IDF and have enhanced economic opportunities in what is know as “the startup nation.”

If you want to know what an independent Palestinian state would look like and act just look at the Gaza strip. A radicalized Islamic state that is Jew free where its citizens have no political rights and suffer under a regime more interested in arming itself for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims and an exporter of terrorism globally.

The only option going forward for President-elect Trump is a one state solution.

As David Friedman, President-elect Trump’s nominee to become the ambassador to Israel said in a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November:

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements by Gregg Roman The Los Angeles Times

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento, Director of The United West hosts Dr. Andy Bostom and Ken Abramowitz in studio to deconstruct the devastating decision by the Obama Administration to abstain from voting on the UN National Security Council, regarding the issue of “settlements” in Israel.

Kerry: Air conditioners as big a threat as the Islamic State

Stop laughing. Kerry is right. Watch for the next mass shooting by your air conditioner. Remember all those manifestos your air conditioner issued, vowing the imminent destruction of the U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: While you read the article below you may want to listen to Stealers Wheel singing Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right Stuck in the Middle with You:

JOHN KERRY-STATE DEPARTMENT-AP-JOHN DHARAPAK_0

“Kerry: Air Conditioners as Big a Threat as ISIS,” by Alyssa Canobbio, Washington Free Beacon, July 22, 2016:

Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna on Friday that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big of a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.

The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and inhalers.

“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

Kerry said that most of the substances banned in the Montreal Protocol have increased the use of HFCs and claimed that the coolant was thousands of times more potent than CO2. He added that the increase of HFCs has lead to the trend of global climate change.

“The use of hydrofluorocarbons is unfortunately growing,” Kerry said. “Already, the HFCs use in refrigerators, air conditioners, and other items are emitting an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually. Now, if that sounds like a lot, my friends, it’s because it is. It’s the equivalent to emissions from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants every single year.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Islamic Grievance-Monger Who Has Visited the Obama White House Seven Times

Britain’s first Muslim mayor is kicked out after being found guilty of blackmailing voters

Germany: Muslim bomber carried powerful explosives, authorities say no evidence of “extremism”

Germany: At least 1 dead, 11 injured in suicide bombing at wine bar

Munich jihad murderer was 18-year-old Iranian Muslim

CNN: Eyewitness at Munich mall says shooter screamed “Allahu Akbar”

Epic Failure: Hillary’s ‘Smart Diplomacy/Smart Power’ Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton implemented a “smart power” approach to foreign policy and international diplomacy as Secretary of State to harness, as she called it, “American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”  She defined “smart power” as a combination of strategies and tools – including diplomatic, economic, political, legal, cultural and military coalitions as a last resort – in unique combination as defined for each situation. Clinton’s “smart power” approach modernized American diplomacy for the 21st century, rebuilt America’s standing in the world, better engaged technology and led to tangible, lasting results. – Correct The Record

But is America’s standing in the world better?

Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearing to become President Obama’s Secretary of State made these statements:

  1. “I use the phrase smart power “because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”
  2. “For me, smart power meant choosing the right combination of tools – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural – for each situation.”
  3. The objectives of using a smart-power approach and rebuilding America’s standing meshed perfectly.”

obama-and-clinton1The epic failure of Obama’s smart diplomacy/smart power foreign policy implemented by Hillary Clinton is due to the existing Countering Violent Extremism doctrine. As Robert Spencer notes:

“Obama’s CVE policies were developed in 2011 specifically at the demand of U.S. Muslim groups. Now, the very same Islamic groups that demanded CVE are some of its loudest opponents. They claim that the administration is promoting ‘Islamophobia’ through their programs.” They want no resistance to jihad terror at all — which should be revealing to the authorities who give them access and influence. But it isn’t.

“Having intentionally purged the DOD’s training of any ability to define the enemy, America’s top warriors admit they have lost any ability to identify, and then defeat, the enemy.”

Read more.

In this video Bill Little takes a look at how smart diplomacy/smart power has fared during the Obama administration. Of course Hillary was the person who “reset” America’s foreign policy. Listen to Little’s analysis:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry slams Trump’s wall, tells grads to prepare for ‘borderless world’

Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

U.S.-Funded Study: Mass Immigration from Mexico Ended, Border Enforcement Has Backfired

More Hillary Emails That Were Hidden From State Department Probe Uncovered

Clinton and Trump: Where to they stand on Islamism?

EDITORS NOTE: The adjusted featured image is courtesy of Correct The Record.

Obama Administration: Europe facing ‘existential threat’ from Muslim migration

These people have got to go!  Imagine this: Obama Secretary of State John Kerry is confirming what we all know: Europe is in very serious trouble as over a million migrants have flooded in over the last year because ‘leaders’ such as Germany’s Angela Merkel have welcomed them with open arms.

Secretary of State John Kerry with his Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richard are the duo who are responsible for refugee resettlement in every one of our towns.

Obama is doing the same to America!

We have thousands upon thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children walking in to our country (or riding trains) and claiming asylum, refugee numbers have been increased (from countries that hate us!) and foreign workers are invited in by the hundreds of thousands to take Americans’ jobs, even Cubans (from a country supposedly now free!) are swarming in to the US from everywhere.

And, Kerry says the very same things (sans Cubans) pose an existential threat for Europe!  What about us?

Here is The Blaze yesterday:

Though just months ago President Barack Obama excoriated and mocked Republicans who oppose offering Syrian refugees resettlement in the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday characterized the flood of refugees entering Europe as a “threat” of “near existential” proportions to the continent.

“The United States of America understands the near existential nature of this threat to the politics and fabric of life in Europe,” Kerry told the Munich Security Conference Saturday, according to the the State Department’s transcript of his remarks.

The top U.S. diplomat said that half of those trying to get into Europe aren’t even Syrian and that there’s “a whole industry” designed to move them over borders, echoing arguments made by those who want a more stringent vetting process before allowing migrants claiming to be Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“As we know, 50 percent of the people now knocking on the door of Europe — with a whole industry that’s been created to try to help move them and some very perverse politics in certain places that turns the dial up and down for political purposes — half of them now come from places other than Syria. Think about that — Pakistan, Bangladesh***, Afghanistan,” Kerry said. [We have admitted tens of thousands from those same countries to the US over the years—ed]

The secretary of state said that the “staggering humanitarian crisis” is posing “unprecedented challenges” and affecting “the social fabric of Europe.”

Yet, Kerry is so dense he doesn’t get-it that we see what is happening to Europe and DO NOT want it here!  

We want our social fabric left alone!

Continue reading.

People ask me all the time, what can I do to fight this—the invasion of America.

Not for the first time, I am going to beg someone to begin a blog or website about the Diversity Visa Lottery (Green Card Lottery).  If you think refugee resettlement is outrageous you haven’t seen anything yet!

Every year we admit 50,000 new permanent residents to the US (through a lottery!) for the sole purpose of increasing our diversity!  

I’ve highlighted Bangladesh, which is now ineligible for the program because in a previous five year period over 50,000 Bangladeshis entered the US!  Bangladesh is a safe Muslim country.  These people are not refugees!

And, for goodness sake, if anyone you know (or a political candidate or elected official) says, “I am fine with legal immigration, just not illegal immigration,” then hit them upside the head! (figuratively).

These people have got to go!

If you are in one of the early primary states where the 2016 Presidential candidates are everywhere in your state, you MUST be hitting them on refugees and on immigration generally everywhere you find them!  Tell them we don’t want to be Europe!

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Cologne Attacks: A Look at Europe’s Future

Understanding the Caliphate Curve

Canada to resume financial support to a surrogate for terrorist organizations

France’s Leading Meteorologist Denies Reality of Climate Change [+Video]

Philippe Verdier

Philippe Verdier

France’s top meteorologist Mr  Philippe Verdier has been fired claims in his new book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.

“Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so,” he said in a promotional video.

He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

The outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air this past Monday. “I received a letter telling me not to come. I’m in shock,” he told RTL radio reporters. “This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated.”

RELATED VIDEO:

ABOUT GENE KAPROWSKI

Gene Koprowski is the director of marketing at The Heartland Institute. Koprowski is the author of two books, co-author of another two books, and has been a journalist covering science and health policy since the 1980s. He has been a regular, contributing writer to The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, and Entrepreneur magazine, a staff writer for Forbes ASAP, and a columnist for United Press International (UPI). He earned an Emmy Award nomination for his work for Foxnews.com in 2008 from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (Chicago) and an investigative reporting award from the Associated Press Editors in 1988. Overall, he has published under his byline nearly 4,000 reports, op/eds, and features during his extensive journalism career. He served as a health policy adviser to the governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell, from 2010-2014. He’s pictured here with his daughter, Katherine, outside the governor’s mansion in Richmond, Virginia. He is a former U.S. Naval Reserve officer and served in the Supreme Allied Command/Atlantic Headquarters and NATO. He holds degrees from The University of Chicago, and Northwestern University, and completed fellowships at the University of London, King’s College, Institute of Psychiatry, and at the Stanford University School of Medicine. He earned a professional degree in medicine with honors. Koprowski also completed a fellowship at the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top U.S. Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

Icelandic volcano’s toxic gas is triple that of Europe’s industry

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Somewhat Reasonable.

John Kerry: U.S. to accept 85,000 Muslim refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017

What could possibly go wrong? Last February the Islamic State said it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. But they couldn’t actually be doing it now, could they? Inconceivable! And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. But they couldn’t be heading to Europe, could they? Inconceivable! The 80% of migrants who claim to be fleeing the war in Syria but aren’t from Syria at all couldn’t have hijrah or jihad on their minds, could they? Inconceivable!

“US to Accept 85,000 Refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017, Kerry Says,” by Ken Dilanian, Associated Press, September 20, 2015:

Trying to address the Syrian refugee crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide refugees it takes in over the next two years, though not by nearly the amount many activists and former officials have urged.

The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after the two discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war.

Many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian, American officials have said. Others would come from strife-torn areas of Africa. The White House had previously announced it intended to take in 10,000 additional Syrian refugees over the next year.

Asked why the U.S. couldn’t take more, Kerry cited post-Sept. 11 screening requirements and a lack of money made available by Congress. “We’re doing what we know we can manage immediately,” he said.

The migrants would be referred by the U.N. refugee agency, screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resettled around the U.S.

“This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Kerry said. Kerry also met with some refugee families on the wooded, lakeside resort-style campus of the foreign ministry’s education center outside Berlin.

Congressional approval is not required for the expansion of resettlement slots, though Congress would have to appropriate money to pay for the additional effort. Some Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns that Islamic State militants could seek to slip into Europe or the U.S. posing as migrants….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Compassion As A Weapon: Politicizing The Syrian Refugee Crisis

Carson says Muslim shouldn’t be President; Hamas-linked CAIR demands he withdraw

Eiffel Tower closed to visitors after terror suspect with “large rucksack” climbs it

Congress must press Obama Administration on Muslim Syrian refugee policy

Update:  It appears the last time either Judiciary Committee held required hearings on the annual refugee consultation was in 1999 (here).  If anyone can find a more recent hearing record, please send it. Why haven’t they been doing their jobs?

We’ve been aware for several years that the Administration each September must consult with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the President’s refugee resettlement plan for the upcoming year which must lay out how many refugees we will take, from where they will come, and why this is in our national interest.

(Last year’s Presidential Determination is here and an accompanying report can be found here.)

Reports I’ve received over the years are that the Committees responsible for “consulting” don’t change anything the President requests.  I could be wrong, but at least in the 8 years I’ve followed the Refugee Admissions Program, the consultation and the required delivery of a lengthy report amounted to no more than State Department reps dropping off the report with committee staff.  (I want to be corrected if there has been much more than that over the last decade!).

kerry richard

Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard and Secretary of State John Kerry

On Wednesday, Sec. of State John Kerry and Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard made a trip to the Hill to meet with Senators Grassley and Sessions (others?) where they discussed the 10,000 (some reports say 5,000) Syrians for FY2016 proposal.

They are calling that meeting a “consultation.”  Were Members of the House Judiciary Committee present as the law requires?

Opening the floodgates?

This is what the Office of Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley said after the meeting with Kerry.  It appears that Kerry left the door open for a much larger number of Syrians than the 10,000 being mentioned by the Administration so far.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley made the following statement after a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry and Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. The consultation regarding the number of refugees that the United States will admit into the country is required by law. In the event of an “emergency refugee situation” the administration may admit an additional number of refugees, but only after additional consultation with Congress.

“Secretary Kerry initially said that the Obama administration is seeking a reasonable increase in refugees allowed into the United States in the upcoming fiscal year. But when pressed, the administration indicated that they were considering opening the floodgates and using emergency authority to go above what they proposed to Congress in today’s consultation. The administration also has not ruled out potentially paroling thousands of Syrians into the United States.

Where is the hearing?

Below is a section of the Refugee Act of 1980 which lays out the process which should be happening right now regarding the “consultation” and subsequent final determination.

Calling any lawyers out there to help decipher it!  But, as I see it, both House and Senate Judiciary Committees are required to hold hearings!

((It can be confusing because the text intermingles two processes.  One is for the annual determination (where we are right now in mid-September) and the other is for an emergency situation that might come up during the year.))

Below are the sections I’ve selected for your consideration.  I doubt most of this ever happens! This is the statute: STATUTE-94-Pg102

“SEC. 207. (a)(1) Except as provided in subsection Q)), the number of
refugees who may be admitted under this section in fiscal year 1980,
1981, or 1982, may not exceed fifty thousand unless the President
determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate
consultation (as defined in subsection (e)), that admission of a
specific number of refugees in excess of such number is justified by
humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

“(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees
who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal
year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before
the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is
justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national
interest.

“(3) Admissions under this subsection shall be allocated among
refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in
accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate
consultation.

[….]

“(d)(1) Before the start of each fiscal year the President shall report
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and of the Senate regarding the foreseeable number of refugees who
will be in need of resettlement during the fiscal year and the
anticipated allocation of refugee admissions during the fiscal year.

The President shall provide for periodic discussions between designated
representatives of the President and members of such committees
regarding changes in the worldwide refugee situation, the
progress of refugee admissions, and the possible need for adjustments
in the allocation of admissions among refugees.

“(2) As soon as possible after representatives of the President
initiate appropriate consultation with respect to the number of
refugee admissions under subsection (a) or with respect to the
admission of refugees in response to an emergency refugee situation
under subsection (b), the (Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate shall cause to have printed in the
Congressional Record the substance of such consultation.

“(3)(A) After the President initiates appropriate consultation prior
to making a determination under subsection (a), a hearing to review
the proposed determination shall be held unless public disclosure of
the details of the proposal would jeopardize the lives or safety of individuals.

[….]

“(e) For purposes of this section, the term ‘appropriate consultation*
means, with respect to the admission of refugees and allocation
of refugee admissions, discussions in person by designated
Cabinet-level representatives of the President with members of the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives to review the refugee situation or emergency refugee
situation, to project the extent of possible participation of the United
States therein, to discuss the reasons for believing that the proposed
admission of refugees is justified by humanitarian concerns or grave
humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest, and
to provide such members with the following information:

“(1) A description of the nature of the refugee situation.

“(2) A description of the number and allocation of the refugees
to be admitted and an analysis of conditions within the countries
from which they came.

“(3) A description of the proposed plans for their movement
and resettlement and the estimated cost of their movement and
resettlement.

“(4) An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and
demographic impact of their admission to the United States.

“(5) A description of the extent to which other countries will
admit and assist in the resettlement of such refugees.

“(6) An analysis of the impact of the participation of the United
States in the resettlement of such refugees on the foreign policy
interests of the United States.

“(7) Such additional information as may be appropriate or
requested by such members.

To the extent possible, information described in this subsection shall
be provided at least two weeks in advance of discussions in person by
designated representatives of the President with such members.

Where is the report?  Was it delivered two weeks ago?

What you can do!

Contact members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (listed here) and tell them to hold PUBLIC hearings on the President’s plan!

It would be preferable to hold field hearings around the country in some of the largest resettlement locations in the country so that citizens who will be most affected by large numbers of Middle Eastern and African refugees could be heard.  If those hearings hold up the official beginning of the resettlement year—October 1—so be it!

Note to Presidential candidates, this may be the most important issue America ever faces!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Congress shirking its duty to America on refugee admissions? Yes, and has done so for more than 2 decades!

Council on American Islamic Relations: Bring Syrians to St. Louis!

German highway banner: “Your children will pray to Allah or die!”

Two Hundred Retired U.S. Generals and Admirals sign letter opposing Iran Nuke Deal

Retired Admirals and Generals are still usually subject to the UCMJ and do not speak their opinions on political matters without some risk. Speaking out against the Commander in Chief could be a big no no. So when you have 200 opposing the C in C, that is significant.

NOTE: Many of the signatories served in the White House, under Democratic administrations as well as Republican. The only thing they appear to have in common is that they consider the Iran nuclear deal a threat to U.S. interests in the region and its own national security.

As Reported By Times of Israel:

Letter signed by former officers and navy admirals says nuclear agreement will enable Tehran to become ‘far more dangerous’

Nearly 200 retired US generals, admirals and former political officials have come out strongly against the Iran nuclear accord, and have called upon Congress to sink the aon the grounds that it will “enable Iran to become far more dangerous.”

Among the signatories are top former career officers from every branch of the US military, as well as officials who have served in the White House, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter, which was addressed to Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen, stated.

“What I don’t like about this is the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” McInerney

CONTINUE READING:

200 retired US generals lobby Congress to reject Iran deal | The Times of Israel

RELATED ARTICLE: Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenWestRepublic.com.

Iran ‘not satisfied’ with nuke deal, wants more concessions

Obama and Kerry will no doubt jump to give him what he wants, but if they do, the opposition to the deal will grow even stronger than it already is.

“Iranian hardliner: The supreme leader opposes the nuclear deal,” by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, August 15, 2015:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed Saturday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday.

It marked the first time someone publicly has claimed where Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, stands on the deal.

Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved the deal. However, he repeatedly has offered words of support for his country’s nuclear negotiators. Moderates also believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei’s private approval.

Iran’s parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

Shariatmadari said in the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran’s independence, security and “the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran” and that it would be “disastrous” if Tehran implements the accord. He did not specify which parts of the deal he thought were problematic.

He also referred to a speech by Khamenei last month during which the ayatollah said, “Whether this text is approved or disapproved, no one will be allowed to harm the main principles of the (ruling) Islamic system.”

The editorial noted: “Using the phrase ‘whether this text is approved or disapproved’ shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels … It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal Leads to War. There Is a Better Way.

“Tens of thousands” of Muslims in Southeast Asia support the Islamic State

Islamic State takes Libyan port city

Pat Buchanan Sides with Obama against Israel

Pat Buchanan has for years been such a virulent opponent of Israel that he has frequently been accused of anti-Semitism, and this column condemning Benjamin Netanyahu for supposedly interfering in America’s internal affairs by opposing the Iran deal is not going to erase that impression. The paleocon Right hates Israel with such abiding passion that it is increasingly self-contradictory: for a small government advocate like Buchanan defending Barack Obama and tacitly supporting a deal that threatens not just Israel, but the U.S. as well, manifests a moral myopia of catastrophic immensity.

But it’s no surprise. I’ve noted before how the paleocons over at Buchanan’s American Conservative have embraced the hard Left’s invention of “Islamophobia” and even come out in favor of submitting to violent intimidation and kowtowing to the foes of the freedom of speech. If they’re the opposite end of the political spectrum from the hard Left, the ends are meeting.

And now Pat Buchanan pretends that Barack Obama, who has shown himself again and again to have the attitude and assumptions and sensibilities of a Marxist internationalist, is an old-school President like Truman or Ike who only makes deals with other nations with America’s best interests at heart. That’s some serious hatred of Israel, to make Pat Buchanan pick up the pom-poms for a far-Left statist. But lines are being redrawn all over the place these days.

“How to Seal the Iran Deal,” by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, August 7, 2015:

In his desperation to sink the Iran nuclear deal, Bibi Netanyahu is taking a hellish gamble.

Israel depends upon the United States for $3 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic cover in forums where she is often treated like a pariah state. Israel has also been the beneficiary of almost all the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council. America is indispensable to Israel. The reverse is not true.

Yet, without telling the White House, Bibi had his U.S. ambassador arrange for him to address a joint session of Congress in March—to rip up the president’s Iran nuclear deal before it was even completed.

The day the deal was signed, using what the Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”

Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency. Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection.

If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it. Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal.

Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill. But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums.

The message would go out to the world. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now.

With the Gulf nations having joined Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in backing the deal, Israel is isolated in its opposition. And, two weeks ago, Kerry warned that if Congress rejects the deal, “Israel could end up being more isolated and more blamed.”

Hardly an outrageous remark. Yet, Israel’s ex-ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren fairly dripped condescension and contempt in his retort: “The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of being an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”

But this is not Israel’s deal. It is our deal, and our decision. And Israel is massively interfering in our internal affairs to scuttle a deal the president believes is in the vital interests of the United States. When the U.S. and Israel disagree over U.S. policy in the Mideast, who decides for America? Them or us?

Why does Barack Obama take this? Why does John Kerry take this?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State takes Libyan port city

Shocker: Biden calls Chattanooga jihadist a “jihadist”

30 Second Video: Kerry – Iran ‘Atomic Bromance’ Explained

Is John Kerry ‘related’ to Mohammed Zrif?

HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH OF THIS IRAN-KERRY INSANITY YET?

Either Kerry is the biggest buffoon who just had an Iranian “information operation” spun on his head or he is so partial to Iran that he wants them to exert regional dominance in the Middle East, thus clearly threatening Israel.

What will it take for Americans to realize that we MUST dump this Iran nuke deal, get the Iranians back to the negotiating table and require complete dismantling of their key nuke facilities.

Washington, D.C. At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) highlighted the importance of U.S. sanctions as a viable alternative to President Obama’s deal and outlined how, if the deal is implemented, Iran will be in a much stronger position when the deal expires.

“When people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life,” Rubio said during the hearing. “In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions,” Rubio continued. “I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

A video of Rubio’s remarks and the full exchanges is available here.

Transcript of Senator Rubio’s.

Senator Marco Rubio: “The choice right before us was two things.

“On the one hand was to continue with what we thought was the strategy which is international sanctions that had an impact on Iran’s economy. They continued to make progress in their enrichment capabilities and so forth, but it was a combination of international sanctions and the threat of credible military force, which no one wants to talk about, but that was on the table, and the President has said that, in fact, if it came down to it, the U.S. would do that, if it were necessary.

“Versus what we have now, which is a deal that basically argues, well what this will do is that if they comply with it, it will slow them down, and in 10 years if they want to break out, it buys us 10 years of time, and it avoids, assuming everybody complies with everything.

“Here’s my problem with that analysis. My problem with it is that in 8 to 10 years, which sounds like a long time to all of us here, it’s nothing. Ten years goes very quickly, and that’s if we’re optimistic. In 10 years, Iran will be in a much stronger position. In fact, I think in 10 years they’ll be immune from international pressure compared to where they are today, and here’s why.

“First of all, they are going to use this sanctions relief and the billions of dollars that it frees up, and I know everyone wants to believe they’re going to invest it in hospitals and roads and social services in order to win their next election. I promise you, they’re going to win they’re next election. I don’t think they’re worried about that as much as they are about their need for example, to get to modernize their enrichment capability into a 21st century industrial system.

“It actually falls right in line with the mandate that the Supreme Leader, I believe, gave to the negotiators, which is, ‘Don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible. Go as far as you need to go to get the sanctions removed, but don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible.’

“So they’ll have less centrifuges, but they’ll be better ones and they’ll be modernized, and they’ll retain that infrastructure, which is the hardest part of any nuclear program, is the infrastructure, the hardware that it takes to do this.

“But here’s what else they’re going to do, they’re going to continue to build their conventional capabilities. We don’t think about that enough, but Iran in 10 years will have conventional capabilities, maybe less, that could potentially drive us out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz because the price of being there will be too high, I mean they can buy Chinese asymmetrical capabilities that allow them to kill ships, add to these fast swift boats things that they’ve been able to come up with that can threaten an aircraft carrier. They’re going to continue to build long range rockets. Why are you building a long range rocket, an ICBM? Are you going to put a man on the moon? No. They’re building it for purposes of targeting the continental United States. And they look at North Korea and say, ‘Yeah the North Koreans have a long range rocket.’ We don’t know where it is going to hit yet because they aren’t very good yet at guidance, but it will hit somewhere, like the West Coast of the United States. That alone has made North Korea immune.

“And they’re going to continue to build up their surrogates in the region, which I would argue already, even now before the sanctions relief has given Iran tremendous leverage over U.S. policy. As an example: Iran has laid out some pretty clear red lines. They are going to hold back Shi’ite militias in Iraq from attacking American troops or going after Americans. They’ll agree to hold them back if, we don’t cross certain red lines they have made very clear.

“What are their red lines? For starters they don’t want to see any U.S. combat troops in Iraq, and if we make any move toward any sort of permanent presence in Iraq in the future, we are going to get attacked by Shi’ite militias at their orders. They don’t want to see us take any concrete steps to remove Assad from power. If they see us moving toward getting Assad out of power, we’re going to get hit by surrogate groups in the region, including Hezbollah and their Shi’ite militia. If we take steps to help put in place an Iraqi government that actually unifies that country and isn’t a puppet of Iran, not to mention one that might actually be hostile toward Iran’s ambitions in the region, they’re going to attack us.

“So they already have leverage over our policy. Now extrapolate that 8 to 10 years from now, when their conventional forces are higher, when these groups are better armed, when Hizballah in a couple of years doesn’t just have rockets, they have guided rockets, guided missiles that don’t just hit somewhere in Israel, they hit exactly what they want to hit.

“So imagine a world in 10 years, where Iran decides, or 8 years, or 12 years, where they just decide, ‘You know what, we’re building a nuclear weapon because we believe Israel has one or because we think someone else is going to threaten us.’

“What can the world do then? Well then reimposing sanctions really won’t be an option at that point because all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy just won’t let their nations or their governments do anything about it. We’ve already seen that in the case of the Europeans.

“But what will the price be of actually going after their systems? It’ll be worse than the price of going after North Korea now. Do we have a credible military option today to target the North Koreans’ program? We do not. We do not because we know that the price of going after the North Korean program through a credible military option, the price of that is Tokyo, the price of that is Seoul, the price of that is Hawaii, they’ll hit us back.

“Well imagine Iran where the price of going after the Iranian program in 10 years if they decide to break out will be Washington, D.C. or New York City, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and any number of places in the region that are our allies.

“So my argument is that, in fact, what I think we’ve done here is walk right into the situation they wanted to lay out, they didn’t want a nuclear weapon next week anyway. But we have created a system where in 8 to 10 years they will be, they will have the capability to quickly become, walk into the nuclear weapons club, not sneak in, walk in to the nuclear weapons club with a world class industrial enrichment capability, a much more powerful conventional weapons force capable of actually asymmetrically driving our navy from the region or further out and quite frankly immune from any sort of credible military action because if we attack them the price is going to be a nuclear devastating strike, potentially even on the continental United States.

“So my point is that when people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life. In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

Kerry: Iran vow to defy U.S. “very disturbing”

It begins to dawn even upon the Secretary of State that he may not quite have achieved peace in our time. But he has already given away the store.

“Kerry says Iran vow to defy U.S. is ‘very disturbing,’Reuters, July 21, 2015:

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama/Kerry Released Iranian Nuclear ‘Scientist’ But Left Jailed Americans Behind

Authorities seek to revoke citizenship of Oregon imam who aided jihadis

D.C.: Muslim accused of fundraising and recruiting for jihad terror group

The Ideological Gutting of American Foreign Policy

It was clear on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the United States was at war with Islamic radicals, and while there may have been differences of opinion regarding strategy, there was no denying the need to defeat doctrinal terrorism.  But as the U.S. became mired in foreign wars, critics questioned whether its actions were achieving the goal, and ultimately whether the goal was even justified.  Voices on the left falsely claimed that Arab-Muslim extremism was an understandable response to western chauvinism, and instead of condemning terrorists for their actions, they started blaming the victims for allegedly insulting Islam.

We saw it with the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when progressive pundits blamed free expression for inciting violence instead of the ideology that sanctified the killing of “infidels,” “heretics” and “blasphemers.”  Such attitudes arise from a perverse political correctness that elevates radical sensitivities over western cultural values.  But how can secular apologists defer to a doctrine that repudiates liberal democratic traditions?  How can they dignify claims of blasphemy against those who criticize beliefs they don’t consider sacred?

These questions were discussed at a program in Massachusetts entitled, “Freedom Isn’t Free: From the Greatest Generation to the Challenges of Today,” featuring former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, former CIA Operations Officer Clare Lopez and retired Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, Jr., who provided insight into how such issues affect government policy.

Progressives who reflexively condemn religion in politics or any perceived trespass of faith into the affairs of state are strangely silent when the religion is Islam.  Incongruously, they often discourage free speech to avoid insulting radical beliefs.

The panel agreed that such muddled thinking influences the Obama administration’s views regarding national security and foreign policy.  Despite the global threat represented by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of the nuclear danger posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the White House has taken the dangerous road of appeasing the unappeasable.  Since his first days in office, President Obama has turned American foreign policy away from its traditional allies and towards an axis of regimes committed to doctrinal totalitarianism.

He seems driven by the progressive compulsion to validate claims of Arab-Muslim victimhood while denying the extremism and anti-Semitism so common in Islamic society.  Secular liberals often misrepresent Islamist aspirations by claiming that jihad means “introspection” or “inner striving,” and by denying the history of Islamic conquest in the Mideast, Asia, North Africa and Europe.  They also ignore the theological motivations for persecuting non-Arabic and non-Muslim indigenous peoples, such as Copts, Yazidis and Maronites.

Lenin described western leftists as “useful idiots” for supporting communism over their own national interests; the term applies to progressives today who defend or justify Islamism.  Frank Gaffney described the left-wing’s relationship with radical Islam as a “red-green alliance.”

According to Gaffney, the term “jihad” has only one meaning under Sharia, and that meaning is holy war.  He said it motivated the 9/11 attacks, the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris earlier this year.  While not all Muslims support jihad –indeed many come to the West specifically to escape doctrinal extremism – there is no definition of the concept that preaches respect for “infidels” or their beliefs.

Those unable to engage in violent jihad, says Gaffney, are exhorted to engage in “civilizational jihad” by transforming western society from within.  The process includes disseminating propaganda in public schools, promoting sharia courts over civil courts, pursuing sharia-compliant financing requirements, and using societal institutions to assist in spreading the faith.  Gaffney said the existence of the “Civilizational-Jihadist Process” was confirmed in a Muslim Brotherhood documententitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which sets forth mission and strategy.

The success of this program in the West, said Gaffney, is reflected by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s pervasive influence in the United Nations and the establishment of Sharia compliant zones throughout Europe.  This strategy is pursued in the U.S. through initiatives seeking civil recognition of sharia court jurisdiction, the circulation of educational materials produced by Islamist front organizations, legal and illegal immigration, and efforts to gain access to the White House and the security, defense and intelligence establishments.

Islamist intrusion in government (with the complicity of the left) affects national security through the adoption of policies contrary to American strategic interests, said former CIA officer Clare Lopez.  Progressive-Islamist cooperation, she said, was instrumental in purging the FBI’s clandestine library of materials deemed offensive to Islam – though these materials were essential for teaching how to identify Islamist terrorists – and in depriving the military of the means to spot Islamist sympathizers within the ranks.

According to Lopez, the shielding of Islamists from scrutiny is not simply a case of political correctness run amok, but of government policy to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and support its ascendancy in the Mideast.  She said this was the crux of Presidential Study Directive 11 (“PSD 11”), which reportedly called for backing the Brotherhood to force political change in the Mideast and North Africa.  Leaks from this classifieddocument suggest the administration supported the Brotherhood and related groups when they toppled governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, she explained.

This policy produced disastrous consequences across the region, said Lopez, observing that “the outcomes [were] chaotic … shortsighted and ignorant.”  These would have been egregious if only caused by negligence.  However, the uprisings misleadingly dubbed the democratic “Arab Spring” were ignited by a strategy that in itself “wasn’t error [but] policy,” she said.  These policy failures were especially glaring after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Lopez and the panel believe the Benghazi attack resulted from the administration’s support of militias linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in their quest to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi (and also the governments in Egypt and Tunisia).  Although Qaddafi had renounced terrorism, relinquished weapons of mass destruction, submitted to nuclear inspections, and jailed terrorists released from Gitmo, Islamist opposition militias in Libya were supported with arms funneled by the U.S. through Benghazi.  After he was overthrown, she said, weapons from Benghazi were redirected to anti-government militias in Syria.

During this time the Ansar al-Sharia moved near the consulate and called for attacks on Americans.  Lopez explained that when Ambassador Chris Stephens requested increased security, he was denied by Hillary Clinton’s State Department because of optics; with the 2012 election approaching, the administration wanted to continue claiming it had defeated al-Qaeda and won the war on terror.  Thus, despite multiple warnings of impending attack, no reinforcements were provided, the consulate was overrun and four Americans were killed.  According to Admiral Lyons, there were military assets in the region that could have been deployed, but which inexplicably were not.

The White House and State Department thereafter claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video critical of Islam – although information immediately available showed it was preplanned and unrelated to the video.  The ruse continued for weeks and included Mr. Obama’s statement during a “60 Minutes” interview the next day that it was “too early to know exactly how it came about” and Susan Rice’s repetition of the false video narrative during multiple television appearances.

As the administration supported Sunni militias aligned with the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Syria and North Africa, it pandered to Iranian Shiites around the Persian Gulf.  According to Lopez, Obama’s policy was to recognize Iran as the hegemonic power in the Mideast.  He thus snubbed Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia and embraced a Shiite regime that threatens those allies, condemns America as the “Great Satan,” seeks Israel’s destruction, and exports international terrorism.

The courting of extremist Sunnis on one side of the Mideast and apocalyptic Shiites on the other might seem incongruous, but Admiral Lyons sees it as consistent with the goal of fundamentally changing America.  “Never in my lifetime did I think I’d ever see America taken down by our own administration,” he said, observing that challenging U.S. influence is considered a progressive virtue.  Admiral Lyons believes that President Obama always intended to restructure national policy according to progressive ideals that disparage America, Israel and the West, and instead validate Islamist, Iranian and anti-western interests.

He cites as evidence the President’s use of sequestration to cut defense spending and disarm unilaterally at a time when China and Russia are growing in influence, militant Islam is on the rise, and military reductions are viewed as weakness.  “We’re headed for the smallest army since [before] World War II,” he said, noting that military experts are no longer certain the U.S. could prevail in a conventional regional conflict.  The question is how such fundamental changes could have occurred without significant opposition.

The answer, said the panel, lies in the pervasive acquiescence to anti-American priorities and sensibilities.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the liberal affinity for anti-blasphemy laws that contravene free speech.  The U.N. periodically entertains resolutions seeking to criminalize “slander” of Islam, and these are supported by progressive governments and NGOs.  Moreover, a number of European nations have enacted laws banning criticism of Islam as hate speech.

Though such laws would violate the First Amendment, many American progressives favor them as a way of curtailing “hate-speech” and encouraging diversity.  Even without such laws on the books, liberals often discourage free discourse by accusing those who criticize radical Islam of Islamophobia.  This attitude seems to pervade Obama’s denial of the religious basis of Islamist terrorism, and much of his Mideast policy.

The panel concluded that Obama’s policies have compromised America’s ability to defend itself and lead the worldHe has spurned Israel, appeased Islamists, reduced the military, enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and refused to acknowledge the existential threat of ISIS.  These acts and omissions are not hallmarks of effective leadership, but of submission to a feckless worldview that has damaged U.S. power and influence to a degree that may not be easily reparable.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva – IsraelNationalNews.com.