Posts

Trump’s CIA nominee promises to roll back Iran deal

The Iran deal is a disaster for the United States and the free world, as I detail in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Rolling it back, as much as this can be done (we can’t, of course, get back the billions Obama has showered upon the Islamic Republic), could be the Trump administration’s greatest achievement, if they can pull it off.

“Trump’s CIA nominee Mike Pompeo promises to roll back Iran deal,” by Geoff Dyer, Financial Times, November 18, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s nominee as CIA director, is a fierce critic of the Iran nuclear deal and wants to restore surveillance programmes stopped after the Edward Snowden revelations….

With his name circulating as a candidate for the Central Intelligence Agency post, Mr Pompeo took to Twitter on Thursday to promise action on the Iran deal. “I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.”

On Friday, he issued a statement saying it had been a difficult decision to move on from representing Kansas, “but ultimately the opportunity to lead the world’s finest intelligence warriors, who labour tirelessly to keep this nation and Kansas safe, is a call to service I cannot ignore.”

If confirmed, Mr Pompeo would replace John Brennan, who has run the CIA since 2013, after serving as President Barack Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser….

As well as opposing the 2014 nuclear deal with Iran, Mr Pompeo has sponsored a series of bills that would increase sanctions on Iran. Earlier this year, he and two other House Republicans requested visas to visit Iran to monitor the parliamentary elections in February.

In the wake of the Snowden revelations, the Obama administration closed a surveillance programme that collected information on telephone calls by millions of Americans. Mr Pompeo has introduced a bill that would restore the National Security Agency’s access to the telephone data and could also give it access to financial and lifestyle information….

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. District Judge: “Everyone talks about Brussels or Paris having cells. We have a cell here in Minneapolis.”

Libya: Monkey pulls off girl’s hijab, violence ensues, 16 dead

Iran to build seven new nuclear plants by 2020

A country whose leaders constantly make its citizens scream “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, of course: Barack Obama and John Kerry promised us that their nuke deal would secure peace in our time.

Khameneinukes74

“Iran to Build Seven New Nuke Plants By 2020,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, April 29, 2016:

Iran is offering to help the global community construct nuclear power plants, according to a top official, who said that Iran would be home to seven new nuclear plants by 2020, according to recent remarks.

Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, announced on Friday that Iran has the technology and know-how to help the world’s advanced nations construct nuclear power plants.

Iran is currently holding talks with a variety of nations aimed at cementing new deals to construct new nuclear plants, Kamalvandi was quoted as saying in the country’s state-controlled press.

“Besides Bushehr nuclear power plant and two other plants being constructed in Iran, four others will be built by 2020,” Kamalvandi announced.

Iran has been working with Russia to construct several new nuclear plants in the country.

“The Islamic Republic is pursuing a plan “to build at least one nuclear power plant every 15 years,” Kamalvandi said in separate remarks this month.

“After this stage, we will have a better opportunity in different fields, including increasing the number of power plants, and we are in talks with different countries to attain this goal,” he was quoted as saying….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim teens admit bombing Sikh temple; one was in deradicalization program

Austria: Muslim teen gets 20 months for Islamic State propaganda

Hillary seeking donations from Islamic Republic of Iran front group

Why not? Obama was so useful to the Islamic Republic, and Clinton promises just more of the same.

NIAC has been established in court as a lobbying group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Said Michael Rubin: “Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s policy director, now appears to push aside any pretense that NIAC is something other than Iran’s lobby.

Speaking at the forthcoming ‘Expose AIPAC’ conference, Abdi is featured on the ‘Training: Constituent Lobbying for Iran’ panel. Oops.” Iranian freedom activist Hassan Daioleslam “documented over a two-year period that NIAC is a front group lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime.” NIAC had to pay him nearly $200,000 in legal feesafter they sued him for defamation over his accusation that they were a front group for the mullahs, and lost.

“Clinton Reaches Out to An Iranian Front Group for Campaign Donations,” by S. Noble, Independent Sentinel, February 20, 2016 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

When you see who Hillary takes money from, you have to wonder what she will do in return. She is already a known threat to our national security.

Hillary Clinton is being outspent by Bernie Sanders 3 to 1 and keeps going back to the same donors who have for the most part given the maximum donations, but don’t worry, she’s found some new donors.

A pro-Iran lobby group that is working against US interests and is actively trying to kill new antiterrorism laws will be at a fundraising event with her this weekend.

This Sunday, Clinton will attend a fundraiser hosted by Twitter executive Omid Kordestani and his wife Gisel Hiscock along with National Iranian American Council (NIAC)  board member Lily Sarafan and Noosheen Hashemi, who serves on the pro-Iran advocacy group Ploughshares, a major funder of the pro-Iran agenda.

NIAC advocates against the pro-Israel community and on Iran’s behalf, they pushed against sanctions, have close ties to Barack Obama, pressured the US to abandon sanctions, and they spread propaganda the same way Press TV does. In 2013, they put out the lie that President Rouhani was a moderate and US papers lapped it up.

Ploughshares partners with NIAC and with the White House to pressure the Jewish community and others to back the Iran nuclear deal.

Iranian state-run media have referred to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) since at least 2006 as “Iran’s lobby” in the U.S.

It portrays itself in the media as an independent group of Iranian expatriates. But Sam Nunberg, director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum project, describes the NIAC as an Iranian “front group.”

And documents released during the discovery phase of a defamation lawsuit NIAC filed against Seid Hassan Daioleslam, editor of the Iranian American Forum and one of the regime’s most public critics, include correspondence with Mohammed Javad Zaif, then Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations. He later negotiated the nuclear “deal” with Iran.

NIAC spends millions to propagandize the Iran nuclear deal as a positive for US national security.

Check out one of their full-page New York Times ads.

niac

They are working to block legislation that will require Iranians to enter the US without a visa. The legislation is meant to keep terrorists out of the country. Why do the Iranians want that, do you think?

Back in 2013, Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister who negotiated the peace talks with Iran, told Mehr News that they would use our democracy and our divisions against us:

“The Republic of Iran has the power and capacity to challenge U.S. and Israel in the international arena. To achieve this we must believe in the abilities of ourselves and of our diplomatic team. If we think that there is a unified voice in America, we are mistaken. By utilizing the opposing views in the U.S. we can be the winners in the (diplomatic) scene, and, of course, we can take advantage of the Zionist regime’s weaknesses.”

Also in 2013, Hossein Naghavi, the speaker of the parliament’s Committee described Zarif’s plan to play our game:

“We consider enemies as enemies and believe that we should not let the Zionists (Israel) present themselves as victims. We believe the U.S. is not a super-power and we can defeat the U.S. and Israel in the diplomatic arena. We should believe in the power and capacities of the revolution and the country. The United States and the Zionists want to show that Iran has no room to play. But we have both the power and the capacity. We know the rules of the game and we can play the best game.”

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) aggressively lobbies on behalf of the Iranian government likely with direct communications to Tehran itself.

This group has ties to Hollywood, industry, Silicon Valley and the White House.

Iran’s representatives in the US will certainly expect favors for their donations.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bahrain adopts steps to counter Iran ‘interference’

Belgium: Muslim teen rapes woman two weeks after attending course on how to treat Western women

Belgian government to fund imams and Muslim consultants to “stimulate a moderate European form of Islam”

The Islamic State’s Chemical and Biological Threat to the West

The Islamic State (IS) terrorism’s long arm reaches out from its self-declared Caliphate in Raqqa, Syria. It broke like a thunderclap in the waning days of 2015. There was the downing of a Russian Metrojet Airbus 321 flight in the Sinai with 224 passengers and crew with a bomb secreted aboard by possible ISIS operatives on October 31, 2015. A suicide bombing by ISIS-linked operatives in the south Beirut bastion of Iran’s proxy Hezbollah killed 43 on November 12th. The worst was yet to come the following evening with the bloody spectacles of Paris massacres on November 13th perpetrated by Belgian and French born Moroccan émigrés and  ISIS suicide bombers who entered Europe in the flood of more than 1 million Muslim refugees  using fraudulent Syrian passports.

The audacious plot by European ISIS operatives at a soccer stadium, outdoor cafés and the Bataclan music hall resulted in the deaths of 130 innocent civilians, more than 350 injured, 95 of the latter seriously. Five days later on November 18th, French police swat teams fought a pitched battle in the predominately Muslim banlieue of St. Denis in suburban Paris resulting in deaths of the mastermind of the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the 28 year old Belgian born ISIS fighter, his French born cousin and other perpetrators.

The U.S. was not spared ISIS-inspired terrorism. On December 2nd, an American born Pakistani husband and his immigrant Pakistani wife, who entered the US under an unvetted K-1 fiancée visa, killed 14 innocent colleagues of the husband in a blaze of assault weapons fire at a holiday gathering in San Bernardino, California. The open borders of the European Schengen System and the vulnerable U.S. immigration control system were broken by these ISIS terrorist events against the backdrop of the massive Muslim refugee flight from Middle East and South Asian conflicts.

French Premier Manuel Valls at National Assembly, November 19, 2015.

On November 19th, French Premier Manuel Valls warned the French National Assembly about the possibility that ISIS may have the capabilities in Europe to inflict mass casualties through the use of deadly chemical and biological weapons. The Daily Mail reported:

France’s prime minister has warned his country to be prepared for chemical and biological attacks as he told MPs that the ‘macabre imagination’ of ISIS is ‘limitless’.

Manuel Valls made the ominous prediction while calling on French MPs to extend the country’s state of emergency for another three months, amid fears another attack is imminent.

The warning comes as U.S. security officials report that they have found proof that ISIS is developing bio-weapons with the help of Syrian and Iraqi scientists in the Middle East.

The French Premier’s allegations about ISIS’ resort to possible CBW attacks before the National Assembly were realized when two Syrian nationals were arrested in Geneva, Switzerland on December 12th after a search of their vehicle revealed explosives and toxic gas. Just prior to the Geneva arrests, the European Parliament Research Service released a report entitled, ISIL/Daesh and non- conventional weapons of terror. It noted:

Rob Wainwright, the head of Europol, the coordinating organization of EU countries’ police forces, confirmed during a hearing in the European Parliament on 19 November that Europe was likely to face new ISIL/Da’esh attacks after those in Paris the previous week. According to Wainwright:

We are dealing with a very serious, well resourced, determined international terrorist organization that is now active on the streets of Europe. This represents the most serious terrorist threat faced in Europe for 10 years.

Several experts have warned that there is a genuine risk of ISIL/Da’esh using chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear materials in the context of future attacks on European targets. It has been suggested that the group’s next weapon of choice could, for example, be an improvised explosive device containing chemical or radioactive materials.

Jill Bellmay with Bio Protection gear.jpg

Dr. Jill Bellamy in Bio-Protection Gear.

Dr. Jill Bellamy, a member of the UN Counter Terrorism Task Force and noted biological warfare threat reduction expert, has been the Cassandra-like predictor that ISIS terrorists would open the Pandora’s Box of non-conventional chemical and biological weapons. We have interviewed Bellamy several times. Her prescience about the lurking threat of the Syrian bio-warfare complex in a Damascus suburb was reflected in our January 2013 NER interview, The Dangers of Syria’s Bio-Warfare Complex Should Assad Fall. Former Israeli Deputy Chief of Mission at the Washington, D.C. Embassy upon reviewing that interview called Bellamy’s revelations, “breathtaking” warning about the threat of terrorists overrunning the Syrian Scientific Research Center complex – a complex now under the security of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

In conversations with Dr. Bellamy she had raised the threat that the Islamic State with more than $1 billion in funding from smuggled oil sales, extortion and looted bank hard currency and gold reserves could acquire the professional staff of scientists and technicians and equip laboratories for production of leading edge synthetic biological weapons. She had also drawn concern over foreign ISIS fighters in Libya gaining control of Gaddafi-era chemical weapons caches sealed by the UN.

In two segments of the Lisa Benson Radio Show on National Security, on November 22nd and December 20, 2015, listen here and here, a panel composed of Ms. Benson, Advisory Board Member Richard Cutting and Jerry Gordon held a discussion with Dr. Bellamy about these non-conventional ISIS chemical and biological weapons threats to Europe and the West. What follows is the consolidated discussion from both programs.

Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson:  Welcome back, everyone. I would like to bring on Dr. Jill Bellamy.

Dr. Jill Bellamy

Dr. Jill Bellamy:  Thank you very much for having me.

Benson:  You are recognized as an international expert on biological warfare, a member of the United Nations Counter Terrorism Task Force. You previously developed and ran NATO-sponsored policy programs on biological terrorism. You have  published extensively in these related fields in papers such as the National Review, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Le Monde, Le Temps, New English Review, and the Jerusalem Post. It is my great honor to have you, Dr. Bellamy. I am going to turn this over to two of my colleagues and friends who know this subject much better than I do, Richard Cutting and Jerry Gordon.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Jill, Premier Manuel Valls of France alerted the media by drawing attention to the possible chemical and biological threat from ISIS. What do we know about this?

Bellamy:  In my view that Premier Valls would come out and make such a statement is really quite an incredible thing to happen. It signals that they possibly have actionable intelligence they are working on. I believe that the Islamic State definitely possesses a chem-bio capability and it is amazing now to see Valls come out with this statement. They have also imposed an extended three-month time period of martial law which hopefully helps them utilize this intelligence that they have acquired. However, bio-chem weapons have frequently been left out of the picture. Here we have a major statement coming out on this. We need to discuss the chemical weapons side and separately the biological ones. In my personal view, France is at a slightly higher threat of chemical warfare than biological for the simple reason that we have seen IS’ capability of using chemical weapons. On several occasions, they have used mustard agents. They have also used sarin. This has been confirmed by the UN. We have a situation where they have already been using it in the Caliphate. The potential that they could bring this into Europe is extremely high. This is very easy using the refugee routes. Thus chemical weapons use in France could result in mass casualties. However, the other side of this is the biological threat. IS does possess, and has been training, in the use of biological weapons. They have set up labs. They have recruited scientists. For me the bio side is much more of a risk to everybody. I think it is an international public health security threat.

Benson:  That is astounding.

Bellamy:  We need to be looking at those refugee routes extremely closely. We have huge refugee camps between Turkey and the border of Turkey and Syria. Refugee populations always represent a public health risk because of the living conditions in these camps. When you start exposing certain people in these camps to biological pathogens, and when these people come into Europe through the Balkans, it becomes extremely dangerous. You start to expose more people to different types of diseases. That kind of threat is something that we have to take very seriously. Valls is to be applauded for coming out with this statement.

Richard Cutting

Richard Cutting:  Dr. Bellamy, thank you for your work. You mentioned in the past that we in the West cling to the concept that biological warfare is morally repugnant, as well we should. That may not be the case in the mindset of some of the players now in the Middle East. If we go on the premise that the mindset is somewhat of a predicate for actions that might be taken, can you tell us how these weapons are viewed in other people’s minds who aren’t Americans or Westerners. Is there a danger in us missing their intentions?

Bellamy:  Absolutely. I have to say when you see a Jordanian pilot being burned to death in a cage; these are not people who will hesitate at all to use chemical or biological warfare agents. They simply do not have that kind of moral capacity. For them, this is just another class of weapons, and they will use it. Whatever works the best, whatever is the cheapest, they will use it. Preventing them from attaining this capability is absolutely vital and whatever we need to do we should.

Cutting:  If we put that together with your concept in the prior statement about possibly using refugees themselves as vectors and, an absolute lack of hesitation to use these weapons, you have something of a whole system there. Is that valid?

Bellamy:  Yes, absolutely. First of all, they want to get rid of the refugees as well. These are people that they do not want coming back into the Caliphate. If they spread disease, it’s not going to make any difference to them whatsoever. It would be a plus for them. However, we have something that could spawn into major pandemics. We need to be very aware of that.

Benson:  We have just reminded America that the refugee movements can be used as vectors for spreading biological weapons.

Cutting:  Dr. Bellamy, the streaming of refugees into various European countries with documentation that can’t be sourced back to adequate database information in the countries of origin is my understanding of the problem. Is that true? How does that relate to the potential of ISIS using them as weaponized human beings?

Bellamy:  One of the things that we need to be really careful about is that most of the refugees are not going to be terrorists. However, there are already ISIS operatives in Europe who have used those routes, and who have been in Europe for months. Thus we need to be careful. A lot of the refugees go into detention centers. Those detention centers, are the perfect opportunity to conduct social network analysis of them and find out who they know. It would be the ideal situation to be able to talk to them and find out: “Who do you know and what are the connections there?” We have very powerful social network analysis that we can use. In the United States, they have it. They use it less so in Europe. More needs to be done using these tools to assess, who among the refugee streams are potential terrorists. We need to be connecting those dots to make sure that we screen people who are going to be causing problems in our communities and might spread disease.

Gordon:  Dr. Bellamy could you assess for us the top silent killers that have been developed by Syria and partners such as North Korea and even Iran? And let’s start off with anthrax. We know about that because of an incident that occurred just after 9/11 in Washington DC and across the country. We had 22 diagnosed cases, five of whom died and tens of thousands of federal postal and other employees innoculated. We spent over $300 million to clear government facilities. How can we deal with that threat?

Bellamy:  I think that we need to start looking at the Syrian Scientific Research Center (SSRC), which is the main research center in Syria. It is now guarded by IRGC forces from Iran. We need to make sure that bio-weapons are not handed over to IS should they overrun the SSRC. The SSRC is where Assad had most of his biological and chemical weapons programs. We absolutely have to protect that and make sure that no command and control is lost over that research facility. Otherwise the loss of it to IS would be huge. In terms of protecting the United States, we know about the 2001 attack. It has been in the news. However, anthrax is treatable with Cipro. Thus, we have good counter measures for anthrax. However, I wouldn’t rule out that IS could use it in a territory-deni­al situation. From my perspective, what I’m very concerned about is that Syria possesses smallpox. I think it was very wise for the United States government to increase their stockpile against smallpox. If the SSRC were to be overrun, I would be very worried about that. They also possess a number of synthetic biologicals which could be an issue. I think IS possesses the scientific capability to be able to deploy that type of weaponized biological agent. I think we need to be looking at their scientists. I absolutely believe that the United States’ cutting back on its threat-reduction programs was a mistake. We need to increase those biological threat reduction programs. It is a very dangerous situation that you have in Syria. Now is not the time to drop the ball. We need to beef up our threat reduction programs.

Benson:  We have to think about whether our antibiotics and vaccine stockpiles can meet these biological threats from Syria; especially if their biological programs are in danger of being over taking by IS. We have to speak to our lawmakers about bolstering the biological threat reduction programs to deal with this threat. Right after the Paris attack both France and Belgium were on high alert for a  biochemical attack. Jerry Gordon and you have been discussing that and the potential of ISIS using sarin gas and other toxic agents from Libya. Why does post-Gaddafi Libya represent a possible ISIS CBW threat to the European Union, Israel, and potentially the United States?

Bellamy:  I think that one of the big problems with Libya at the moment is an ISIS group called Katibat al-Battar al-Libi comprised mainly European fighters. They are mostly from Holland and Belgium. Gaddafi constructed his CW programs so they were spread throughout Libya. They weren’t consolidated in one place. They were sealed up by the UN, but were not processed the way that Assad’s chemical weapons were destroyed. So they are basically sitting there. The problem would be how viable they still are if the sites have been overrun, which we think they have been. How viable are these chemical weapons? I would think that they probably still are. This is an extreme threat to Europe. However, we also believe that ISIS already has some chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear material in Europe. This is extremely serious. You see statements being made by the European Commission, and Premier Valls in France and Europe gearing up for a CBW and possibly nuclear attack.

Benson:  Are they prepared for this?

Bellamy:  For the most part Europe is absolutely not prepared for it at all. The exception is France, which routinely has national plans in place and conducts exercises. They are very prepared, because they are one of the highest targets of Daesh (ISIS). When you’re looking at biological weapons, in terms of other European countries, it doesn’t really matter if the French are prepared. Because if something happens in another European country and they use bio weapons, it will spread to other countries, so it doesn’t really matter how prepared are the French. It will not protect the rest of Europe. I think we need to see major changes in how we prepare. We need to be doing what Israel does. Israel annually runs Orange Flame, which is a bio-preparedness civilian and military two day exercise. They routinely have done this every year since 2005. They train on different types of Category A biological warfare agents like smallpox and anthrax. This is what we really need to have happening in Europe now. It’s now time for Europe and America to do this. We need to prepare our children and the school system to handle this type of attack, and it’s just not being done.

Benson:  This is frightening information, and, we don’t hear our lawmakers talking about this. The Pentagon has altered our intelligence reports. We don’t even  know if they are  getting this information.

Bellamy:  Let’s hope they are. However, I don’t know, either.

Benson:  What are you hearing about sarin gas coming out of Libya?

Bellamy:  Yes, I think sarin and possibly VX. However, that is a little bit on the fringe. I wouldn’t want to say that they have VX yet. What was sealed up by the UN, I would be very worried about Daesh obtaining. I think that they have. It is very concerning.

Benson:  Dr. Bellamy, that is horrifying. Sarin gas is not easy to transport because it’s so lethal in small amounts. We have to find out how to prepare our communities for this potential attack. We have no civil defense in America for this threat.

Gordon:  Just as we were starting this discussion, there was a flash announcement about a possible bomb aboard an Air France flight out of Africa. That raises a question about airport security. In light of your comment, I wonder if you could give us an illustration of how vulnerable airports are in Europe to a possible CBW attack.

Cutting:  It’s a matter of logistics, transport, financing, and getting the weapons in theater are the essential first steps. The vulnerable locations are clearly available in Europe. Any place where there’s a high intersection of people moving through airports, train stations, theaters – large groups of people where these chemical or bio weapons can be used. They can be dispersed in aerosol or any vector format. It is the volume and movement of people in these areas that creates the weapon’s asymmetrical geometric, impact. As those infected move and spread.

Bellamy:  European transportation networks and systems are extremely vulnerable. If we look at a country like the Netherlands, their airports are very vulnerable. I don’t believe that they lack resources. However, they don’t seem to be able to put into place the types of systems that are needed to protect their airports, specifically from biological and chemical attacks. Something as simple as having atomizers in their airport bathroom toilets, that could easily be filled with biological or chemical agents. The Dutch designed these floor to ceiling toilets at Schipol outside of the airport where you would go through screening, so the general public can go in there. You can’t see who is up at the ceiling putting anything into this type of system. You could be releasing that every 15 – 20 minutes. I don’t know how often the atomizers go off, but, you could  probably get a pretty good bio hit by using those atomizers.

Gordon:  After the anthrax incident following 9/11 in October 2001, the U.S. government really got concerned and invested something in excess of $12 billion to protect major airports against a biological warfare threat here in the United States. The obvious question is: Was that money well spent, or are we, frankly, still in danger?

Bellamy:  I think that it is impossible to test for every single biological agent that could be developed, especially when you’re getting into synthetic biological areas, which both Iran and Syria have worked on. It is very difficult to protect against all of that. You’re going to catch the major ones. You might detect anthrax, perhaps botulism, and smallpox if they were ever released. However, we are now at a stage where they are developing things that I don’t believe we have good countermeasures for or even for detection purposes. Life sciences have moved way beyond what our capabilities are for detection.

Benson:  What do we do?

Bellamy:  I think  what we really need to do is start having the types of drills that they do in Israel. I’m very envious of the Israelis and how they completely involve their citizenry in these types of exercises. That is what needs to be happening. We need to be prepared. You can’t prevent every kind of attack that could happen. If you have good intelligence, that’s definitely a step in the right direction. If you willfully ignore certain types of intelligence you are reducing how protective you can be of your citizens. So this is a very difficult situation. In Europe, we have very limited resources in terms of intelligence. The United States obviously has more, and they have more assets available. Still it is, very concerning.

Cutting:  Dr. Bellamy, when offered the opportunity by a credible source why didn’t U.S. intelligence acquire what seemed to be a veritable treasure trove of information on Syrian and Iranian biological warfare developments?

Bellamy:  It really was quite surprising and very worrying to me that they did not. We had somebody who presented us with over 1,000 photos that he had been able to take over a several year period, within Iranian and Syrian laboratories. He was part of a scientific exchange program with these different laboratories. He photographed himself with staff. Some of the photographs were taken under the radar; however most of them were taken in the open. He came to us and said, “Look, I’ve been doing this for seven to ten years. I’ve been visiting these different scientists. I have good contacts with them,” and showed photographs that were sent to the U.S. government. This was never followed up on. This person who did this is a NATO member state’s national. We are not talking about a source that’s off in the clouds. This person was in the defense establishment of one of the countries here in Europe and a scientist able to do this. Long before we had trouble with Syria or there were tensions and problems with Iran, at least in terms of Europe, this person had been invited regularly to Iran and to different laboratories. In these photos it looked like there was some offensive research going on. When offered to US intelligence this was never followed up on.

Gordon:  Is this attitude indicative of not only the U.S. intelligence community, but some national security echelons in Europe? What is behind their inability to come to terms with this threat, as against the so-called terrorist threat that we saw in Paris in November 13, 2015?  What is in the mindset of these folks when they are confronted with the opportunity, as my colleague Richard Cutting just said, to gain a treasure trove of information about what our enemies are doing to prepare offensive weapons?

Bellamy:  I think maybe a year and a half ago or so this person came to me. At that time in Europe they were really seriously trying not to focus on CBW threats. I don’t know about the United States, but they wanted to literally sink this opportunity. I don’t think that they wanted anybody looking at it very closely. In Europe we always have this kind of tension where they think they are going to panic the public if they prepare them. My view on this is a prepared public is not going to be panicked. That iswhat we need to be doing. Why the U.S. didn’t pick up on it, perhaps it’s the attitude of the current Administration. I think that our greatest offense is preparing the public and doing it through civil-military exercises, and conducting periodic  drills. That is one of the major keys to protecting our societies. We really need to do this to reduce the bio warfare threat against vulnerable countries in the West.

Gordon:  This is an illustration of why this discussion is invaluable, imparting information that you could not obtain elsewhere in the media.

Benson:  Dr. Jill Bellamy, thank you. We value your insight, and on behalf of Richard Cutting, Jerry Gordon, and myself, keep it up and report back to us often.

Bellamy:  Thank you very much for having me, Lisa.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Asia Will Build 500 Coal-Fired Power Plants This Year No Matter What the U.S. Does

Two stories about coal use in Asia highlight the futility of EPA’s efforts to reduce global carbon emissions by straightjacketing the U.S. economy with draconian carbon regulations.

First, there’s The New York Times story that China has been using more coal than anyone thought:

China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data. The finding could complicate the already difficult efforts to limit global warming.

Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense. The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated.

The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.

The new data, which appeared recently in an energy statistics yearbook published without fanfare by China’s statistical agency, show that coal consumption has been underestimated since 2000, and particularly in recent years. The revisions were based on a census of the economy in 2013 that exposed gaps in data collection, especially from small companies and factories.

Illustrating the scale of the revision, the new figures add about 600 million tons to China’s coal consumption in 2012 — an amount equivalent to more than 70 percent of the total coal used annually by the United States.

To borrow from the management mantra, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

China has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions from a peak level “around” 2030–assuming anyone knows how much is being produced by then.  However, this pledge isn’t anything exceptional. It’s “little more than business as usual,” writes the Institute for 21st Century Energy’s Stephen Eule. “In other words, the Chinese have committed to doing what they are doing already.”

The second story is that Asia’s appetite coal for it isn’t letting up [h/t GWPF]:

While much attention has been given to a potential peak in China’s coal demand and worries about emissions, in Asia alone this year power companies are building more than 500 coal-fired plants, with at least a thousand more on planning boards. Coal is not only cheaper than natural gas, it is often available locally and has no heavy import costs.

“Electricity is increasing its share in total energy consumption and coal is increasing its share in power generation,” said Laszlo Varro, head of the gas, coal and power markets division for the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Some of the biggest growth in coal use is in India, where it meets 45 percent of total energy demand, compared with just over 20 percent each for petroleum products and biomass/waste.

“We’re absolutely sure India’s coal demand will continue to grow,” Varro said.

Coal will continue to be used in developing countries because it’s a cheap source of electricity. To think U.S. negotiators at upcoming climate talks in Paris will be able to convince China and India to abstain from using cheap energy to better the lives of their citizens is living in a fantasy world.

These facts won’t stop the Obama administration from touting EPA’s Clean Power Plan as the United States’ key contribution to the Paris talks. For them it’s full speed ahead to push aside cheap and abundant coal as a source of electricity no matter the costs to our economy.

As Eule writes:

What’s more of a mystery is why the administration is content to throw away the United States’ energy edge in favor of an agreement that will put us at a competitive disadvantage for no discernible environmental impact. In fact, when other nations choose not to impose carbon restrictions as stringent as those in the U.S., we will be likely to see “carbon leakage,” where emissions are not reduced at all, and instead simply moved (along with the jobs that come with them) to our global competitors.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Attorney General Tries to Criminalize Scientific Dissent on Climate Change

Spooking Small Businesses: Scary Regulations Lurking in Washington by J.D. HARRISON

The Wide Canyon Between Carbon Regulations and the Real World by  SEAN HACKBARTH

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a coal-fired electric power plan in Datong, China. Photo credit: Stefen Chow/Bloomberg,

What Really Drives Obama’s Destructive Mideast Policy?

It’s not a stretch to say that what ex-president Jimmy Carter did for Iran, Barack Obama is doing for the whole Middle East and beyond. Islamic State is on the move; jihadism in general is raging and all the rage; and with the Iran deal, the man who helped enable the “Arab Spring” may give us a nuclear winter.

A Mideast policy with such results has befuddled many. Why did Obama help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and hurl Libya into turmoil? Why did he throw Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak under the bus? And why, as radio host Michael Savage asked late last week, does he have such a “vendetta” against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad?

It’s not enough to say that the Gaddafis and Assads of the world are bad men; the devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t know, and this certainly appears the case when turmoil and jihadists are the apparent alternatives to these strongmen’s rule. And Iran is governed by bad men, but Obama showed no interest in supporting dissidents there.

When analyzing the above, credulous liberals might say the president is merely interested in supporting “democracy,” some conservatives might explain it by way of incompetence, while yet others may aver that Muslim sympathies impel him to support jihadist causes. But the truth is perhaps a bit more nuanced, so let me suggest a different theory.

When discerning a person’s motivations, you must first consider what he is. Obama is a hardcore leftist, marinated in Marxism from his youth, raised by a leftist mother and grandparents and mentored by card-carrying Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. He also belonged to the socialist New Party in 1990s Chicago and, according to a 2007 study, owned the Senate’s most left-wing voting record; this means he was ahead of even that body’s only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders (who was number two).

Now, one thing we know about hardcore leftists is that they generally consider religion the “opiate of the masses.” This brings us to the idea, embraced by 29 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Republicans, that Obama is a Muslim. Question: is it realistic to think that Obama truly believes in God and that God’s name is Allah? Does his support for the homosexual agenda (including faux marriage), women in combat and “transgenders” in the military reflect Sharia?

The reality? Obama is a de facto atheist. He deifies himself more than anyone else. But there’s an important distinction here almost universally missed by liberals and conservatives: Obama isn’t religiously Muslim.

But there’s every indication he’s culturally Muslim.

Having lived in the Islamic country of Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10 with a Muslim stepfather, it’s likely that Obama’s earliest memories are of life in a Muslim culture. He also has characterized the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset” (and recites it with an authentic accent) and has avoided Christian events while trumpeting his Muslim heritage. Yet however much this influences his thinking, it pales in comparison to something else that characterizes him and virtually all leftists.

Hatred for the West.

In Obama’s narrow universe, the West is the cause of most evil in the world. The West is oppressive, destructive and poisons everything it touches. And for justice to prevail, Western institutions and influence must be quashed.

Now consider the Middle East’s modern history. Syria’s current borders were created by the West after the fall of the Ottomans, and the CIA covertly backed the Arab world’s first military coup in that nation in 1949. Italy seized Libya from the Ottoman Empire in the Italo-Turkish War in 1911-12; in fact, the name “Libya” itself was adopted by Italy in 1934 during its colonization of the region and originated with the ancient Greeks (the birthplace of Western civilization), who used it to describe all of North Africa apart from Egypt. As for Egypt, it was part of the Cold War geopolitical tussle, first allied with the Soviet Union and then switching allegiance to the U.S. under President Anwar Sadat. Also note that the Assad dynasty has long been supported by — and Gaddafi was a longtime ally of — the Soviet Union/Russia.

But wouldn’t a leftist such as Obama welcome Soviet influence? First, the leftist line was that the Soviets’ Cold War activities were designed mainly to counterbalance Western imperialism — the Soviets wouldn’t have been in the Middle East if we weren’t. More significantly with Obama, however, I believe that in one sense he doesn’t distinguish between the West and Russia, in that he views them both as the oppressive “white world” (especially since the U.S.S.R. is no more).

You no doubt see the point. The modern Middle East is largely a Western construct, with Western-drawn borders and Western-facilitated strongmen. Obama sees Western influence and creations as the bane of humanity.

Ergo, not only is the enemy of my ideological enemy my friend, but, whatever the “Arab Street” may be, it can’t be worse than the world’s most evil force: the West.

This also helps shed light on Obama’s apparent antipathy for Israel, which he would also view as a Western invention, and his refusal to support dissidents in Iran. Remember that the Iranian theocracy, born in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, already represents the overthrow of the Western Mideast order.

This theory certainly explains Obama’s actions. No, it would not be a rational motivation, but much of what animates man is irrational. This is especially true of leftists, who, disbelieving in and disconnected from Truth, are driven by emotional attachment to misbegotten ideas.

Nor would Obama likely heed cooler-heads’ counsel. He lives in the echo chamber of his own mind, considering others’ opinions superfluous; he’s the very antithesis of the saying “Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him.” Note that he arrogantly stated in 2007 not only that he’d be a better political director than his political director, but also “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. [And] I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Even more telling is a story related by economist and gun-rights advocate Dr. John Lott on Mark Levin’s radio show last Friday about the time when he and Obama were both in the University of Chicago’s employ. Obama didn’t attend the gatherings at which the staff exchanged ideas, except once, when he asked a fairly unintelligible question. Lott then saw Obama after the event and, trying to make friends and conversation, said (I’m paraphrasing), “You know, your question was interesting, but I think more people would have understood it if….” Lott never got to finish.

Because Obama, cold as ice, just turned his back.

And Obama long ago turned his back on reality and on the civilization that has given him everything. He hates the world’s Western-imposed order so much that he’s propelling the world toward disorder. And that’s the tragic result when you don’t realize that hatred is not a strategy.

EDITORS NOTE: You may contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com,

Florida must become energy independent by 2020

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? How do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? Answer: cheap and reliable power.

Organic Fossil Fuels are the Lifeblood of Civilization!

Florida’s Governor, Congressional delegation and state legislature must make it their number 1 priority to make the Sunshine State Energy Independent by 2020 or sooner!

Florida:

  1. Imports all of its natural gas and 99.9 % of its oil.
  2. Imports all of its refined petroleum based products (e.g. gasoline).
  3. Is the second largest user of natural gas, Texas being the largest.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place.

As CO2 emissions have risen so too have the GDP per person, life expectancy and the population.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Off shore drilling naysayers use the example of the Deepwater Horizon spill to strike fear into the hearts of Floridians. But as FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  An example of using the fear factor (precautionary principle) is what happened in Japan following the meltdown of a nuclear power plan in Fukushima. The facts are that no one has died from radiation, nor has cancer increased however, 1,600 did die of stress due to the unnecessary evacuation of people from the area.

Fear kills.

What off shore naysayers, fear mongers, don’t tell you is that mother nature is the greatest polluter in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA over 2,500 barrels of oil naturally seeps daily from fissures in the Gulf. This seeping has been going on for tens of thousands of years, yet the Gulf is doing just fine. Would it not be better to capture this oil, and natural gas, than have it continue to seep into the Gulf?

Some argue that even if natural gas is discovered in Florida’s waters that building an on shore natural gas processing plant is not economically feasible or politically doable. There is an answer to this negative with a positive via new technology. Israel is faced with the same concerns about onshore natural gas processing plants. To solve the problem Nobel Energy and Shell Oil have come up with a solution. Process the natural gas using floating plants. According to Robert Sullivan of the New York Times:

It’s called Prelude, and it’s bigger than big. More than 530 yards long and 80 yards wide, it was constructed with 260,000 metric tons of steel, more than was used in the entire original World Trade Center complex, and it’s expected to displace 600,000 metric tons of water, or as much as six aircraft carriers. Even the paint job is huge: Most big vessels dry-dock every five years for a new coat, but Prelude’s paint is supposed to last 25 years. It will produce more natural gas than Hong Kong needs in a year. And it’s so big that you can’t really photograph it, at least not all at once.

[ … ]

What makes this giant liquefied-natural-gas enterprise feasible, paradoxically enough, is the miniaturization its construction represents. It’s much smaller than landlocked equivalents — imagine shrinking your local refinery until it fits on a barge. Shell Oil, which has the biggest stake in the project, describes Prelude as more environmentally friendly than an onshore site. There are no estuaries under threat, no shorelines to run pipe across and reduced risks to population centers, given the explosiveness of natural gas. And it is designed to ride out extreme weather, thanks to three giant 6,700-horsepower thrusters that can turn it into the wind and waves. “These are the things that the naval architects had to worry through,” says Robert Bea, co-founder of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, at the University of California, Berkeley. “It works like a big-ass weather vane.”

Read more.

Environmentalists use the fear factor when talking about drilling for natural gas and oil off of Florida’s shores. The same is true for some of Florida’s Congressional delegation, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan. Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now it the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If Governor Rick Scott and Republicans are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy. That is good public policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Miami-Dade County school district accepts BP oil spill settlement, sets maximum tax rate

Et Tu, Schu?

“Schumer is not a Shomer” were the words emblazoned on dozens of placards that were held by some of the 12,000 people who flooded Times Square last week to protest the “Death to America/Death to Israel” deal that Barack Obama and his cronies made on July 14th with––to this day, to this hour––a palpably belligerent, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Iran.

The placards––and the demonstration in front of the senator’s New York City office the next day––were to implore him to stop evading the subject with mealy-mouthed language (“I’ll go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”) and to reject the deal outright, vote against it in Congress, and convince at least 13 of his colleagues on the left to vote against the horrific deal. Congress is now reviewing the deal and will vote on September 17, in less than 50 days.

In short, to block the Iran deal, 67 Senators need to vote against it; 59 Senators are already committed to doing just that; and 14 are undecided, Sen. Schumer among them.

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said that, “We have listened to Senator Schumer for years and how he takes every opportunity to explain the origin of his name Schumer and what it means for him to be a proud “Shomer”––which in Hebrew means protector. Now is the time to live up to your claim and put your words into action.”

Last week, The New York Post asked Sen. Schumer 10 key questions about Iran––including if he had any input into the agreement, what he thought of its 24-day advance notice for inspections, and whether the deal raises new concerns for Israel––none of which he has answered to this day!

To Schumer’s lame statement that he is “studying the issue,” the Post responded: “Studying the issue? Please. There’s nothing to study: Just nix the deal, Chuck….Schumer doesn’t need to `study’ the deal. He needs to study his conscience.”

Personally, I can hardly remember a Sunday-night news broadcast since Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 when he wasn’t in front of the camera proposing actions to keep his uber-left constituents happy.

He was Chuckie-on-the-spot when it appeared that Adidas might outsource production overseas, in a plant where Schumer said 100 workers were at risk. But for the past three years, as the ayatollahs have menacingly threatened to annihilate Israel, deadly silence from Schumer. One-hundred potential injuries more important than over-six-million deaths!

He was an early and enthusiastic backer of the national disaster known as Obamacare, and is a reliable opponent of guns, an advocate of open borders, and a full-throated supporter of abortion.

When the Planned Parenthood medical ghouls came out last week to reveal their sale of infant body parts (and the exquisite care taken to “crush” the fetus in strategic places, the better to preserve those parts), deadly silence from Schumer. I guess the 1.2-million fetuses destroyed each year in the U.S. are, in Schumer’s mind, equal to over-six-million expendable Israelis, not even worthy of mention.

But I digress. This article is not to discuss the, ahem, value systems of leftists.

CLAMMING UP

In June 2008––five months before Barack Obama began to occupy the White House––Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed in The Wall St. Journal, stating that cooperative economic sanctions from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China could topple Iran’s theocratic government.

Clearly, the passage of time and his current position have changed his tune. Today, Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin. But Schumer has his eyes on a bigger prize, to replace Harry Reid in 2017.

So there you have it. Schumer’s dilemma is clear––to be a loyal lackey to Barack Obama, the better not to lose his potential position of power, or to be the New York Jewish Senator he was in the past, a vocal and impassioned supporter of Israel.

For a full three years, Senator Schumer has known about every facet of the deal being made by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) P(for permanent members)5+1 group (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, plus Germany).

  • Schumer knew that when Obama said that the final deal would only lift nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, it was a lie–– but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal,” it was a lie––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the promise to maintain sanctions on ballistic missile development was a lie–––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said the deal would make it nearly impossible for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, police, intelligence services and paramilitary groups to do business, it was a lie—but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Obama and Co. were keeping two key parts of the deal secret. As spelled out by blogger Jeff Dunetz, the two covert deals would be kept away from other nations from Congress, and from the American people. They include: (1) the inspection of the Parchin military complex and other Iranian military sites which are off-limits to nuclear inspectors under the agreement, sites long suspected of harboring both long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, and (2) and Iran’s failure to disclose its past nuclear-related military and procurement activities. As the national president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, called the deal disturbing. “The U.S. and other powers having caved on every substantive issue which we were once assured would be included in the eventual agreement, like dismantling centrifuges, shuttering certain nuclear facilities, free and unfettered inspections, disclosure of past nuclear-related military and procurements activities, maintaining non-nuclear sanctions, and so on…” Yep––he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the deal gave Iran 24 days to allow any inspections of their nuclear facilities, more than ample time to clean them up––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Barack Obama, in order to bypass both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution he loathes, would send the agreement straight to that repository of socialists, communists, tin pot dictators, and anti-Semites on First Avenue, the United Nations, in order to make their approval “binding” upon all U.N. members, including the United States––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that as a “signing bonus,” Iran–– already the world’s leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, which has violated 20 international treaties––is to receive $150-billion dollars in sanctions relief, with which no one doubts they will continue financing terrorist groups like ISIS and Hamas and Hezbollah, destabilizing Sunni Arab regimes, and calling incessantly for the death of all Jews, the annihilation of Israel, and the utter destruction of America––but he said nothing.
  • Most egregious, Schumer knew the most malevolent part of the deal, article 10, which promises to protect the Iran nuclear program from sabotage and attack, removing the last option Israel has to protect herself. The U.S. actually promised to intervene against Israel on Iran’s behalf! And Senator Schumer said nothing! Sec. of State John Kerry, the architect of this anti-American deal (surprise, surprise!) conceding to the Senate the other day that the US would defend Iran’s nuclear program from Israeli sabotage––but Schumer said nothing.

Silence, deafening silence, thundering silence, craven silence, immoral silence––week after week after month after month after year after year after year! Such is the picture of the abject lust for power, so overpowering that it eclipses even a vestige of the character and moral fiber that once existed.

A TIME OF RECKONING

Now is the time of reckoning, writes Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary magazine online. “For once, Schumer must choose. It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has staked his career on being the shomer (guardian) of Israel’s security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would never live down.”

Tobin then poses an ominous warning: “Even if [Schumer] chooses to vote in favor of a resolution that seeks to nullify the pact, he may also work behind the scenes to ensure that at least 34 Democrats back the president so as to ensure that an Obama veto won’t be overridden.”

Is there any doubt that Schumer––silent for three long years on this doomsday deal–is more than capable of this kind of treachery?

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, known as “America’s Rabbi,” is the author of Push Back and Why Israel Matters to You” and serves as the president of Caucus for America. Like Tobin, he questions Schumer’s seeming paralysis.

The Iran deal, he says, “is Plan A for the ultimate annihilation of Israel, annihilation through active offense and by making Israel’s defense impossible. To Iran, Mr. Obama has made the most earth-shattering compromises in the annals of history. Even Chamberlain did not provide Hitlerwith a $150 billion to armup.

“This whole deal would go nowhere, be dead on arrival, if the most powerful Democrat right now in the Senate would announce it as DOA,” Rabbi Spero continues. “That man is Sen. Chuck Schumer. Where is he? No one knows what he will do. Why should we be guessing? He should be out there, at this moment, saying No to this accord.  Why should the Israelis have to live another moment in fear and anxiety? Where is his compassion? Schumer should stifle the accord now!”

My friend Howard Bockner from Canada echoes the rabbi’s sentiments. “The US and Europe are now in bed with Iran. Israel––like the Jews in pre-war Europe––is expendable. And if Israel is made expendable you can be sure that Jews in the Diaspora will be next. That has been Obama’s Plan A all along––installing the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt to cancel the Israel-Egypt Treaty, which failed. So he doubled down on Plan B––knocking out Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He is also guaranteeing U.S. help to Iran against any sabotage of its nuclear facilities, i.e., putting Israel into a straight jacket.

“However, this has not all played out,” Bockner adds. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt, now two allies of Israel, will shortly get the bomb courtesy of the Russians (who don’t care who they sell to). Turkey, Algeria, and others will also be lining up for nukes, and the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of non-state players will increase. Therefore, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is now much closer.”

Plan A, indeed. There is no measuring the lengths and depths Obama will go to when it comes to defending his indefensible deal. According to Lee Smith at Tablet magazine, “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby—to scare off Democrats tempted to vote against the [deal] because they think it’s a bad deal. If they do come out against the agreement—if they line up, for instance, with the new organization AIPAC formed, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran—to warn the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,” then he’s going to tar them as dual loyalists who are willing to send Americans out to make war on behalf of Jewish causes.

According to writer Michael Ledeen, it is the mullahs who did not sign the deal in Vienna. “They don’t want to make a deal with the Great American Satan, even though they do want the American concessions, above all the huge sums of money we’ve promised them. Now comes Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei…talking as if the agreement itself is in question.”

Imagine that…Khamenei rejects the deal, but Schumer has to “go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”!

You’d think that just as a practical matter, Schumer’s choice would be easy. As Ari Lieberman writes in Front Page magazine, “Schumer will be around long after Obama is gone and will have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when Iran cheats—and let’s be clear, Iran will cheat. From building secretive underground centrifuge facilities at Fordow to illicit procurement activities in Germany, the Islamic Republic’s history is replete with a record of cheating and fabrication.”

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson warns of the perils of appeasement, be they to countries, an Iran-obsessed resident of the White House and his trusty lapdogs, or a squishy senator.

“While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the U.S. later on.

  • “First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.
  • “Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
  • “Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.
  • “Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. We should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers 1worms’ and pushed them even further.
  • “Fifth, allies are always the big losers in appeasement. Britain and France ensured the destruction of third-party Czechoslovakia by conceding to Hitler’s demands in 1938 — and doomed Poland in 1939.

“In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.”

WHAT TO DO?

A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s perfidious treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified. The lawsuit names U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is posted at www.FreedomWatchUSA.org. The U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution to make any other form of international agreement. The agreement, Klayman says, will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States.

In addition to the Times Square rally and protest in front of Sen. Schumer’s office, a groundswell of concerned citizens is flooding the White House, urging their elected representatives to vote AGAINST the Iran Nuclear Accord.

Here is the Capitol Hill Switchboard number is: 1-202-224-3121

Here is how to reach Senator Schumer’s office: 1-202-224-6542

Here’s how to reach Congressman Steve Israel: 1-201-225-3335

Suggestion: add the above two numbers to your smartphone and make it a point to call them every day until the vote. Takes two minutes!

  1. Call your local Congressperson: www.ContactingTheCongress.org
  2. Contact your Senators and Representatives: U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress
  3. Contact your Representatives here: U.S. House of Representatives Directory

Join the following organizations, which have been at the forefront of defending Israel and holding Schumer’s feet to the fire:

I didn’t mention Senator Kirsten Gillibrand because, as the NY Post says, she is simply Schumer’s “hapless little poodle.”

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, a finance expert in NY City who organized and emceed the Times Square rally, said that he recently saw a picture of the gone-missing Gillibrand on the a milk carton. He exhorted the crowd to put pressure on Schumer to nix the Iran deal. “Chuck, this is your moment! This is your time to make the decision…or we will throw you the hell out of office!”

I also didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, who could not find it within her the other day to counter an anti-Semitic question with a defense of Israel. Except for her first run for the Senate in 2009, when she pandered shamelessly for Jewish votes, she has never been a friend of Jews or Israel, the latest proof being that she endorsed the genocidal Iran deal.

She is like Obama, who has been known to say “I’ve got Israel’s back.” How true. Both of them have put a big fat target on Israel’s back, this one earmarked for nuclear war heads!

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion – The Boston Globe

Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal: It’s Déjà vu All Over Again

Democratic Party leader Barack Obama is doing in 2015 with the Iran Nuclear Deal what another Democrat Party leader did with a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. That Democrat is Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for the White House in 2016.

Perhaps it is time to read excerpts from what President Clinton said on October 18th, 1994:

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea‘s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

[ … ]

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.

[ … ]

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure…

Read the full text of President Clinton’s announcement of a nuclear deal with North Korea click here.

Sound familiar? Here are the comments by President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal:

History shows us what happened with the North Korean nuclear arms deal. Today North Korea is exporting its nuclear and missile technology to other nations, such as Iran, with impunity.

As Yogi Berra once said this is Déjà vu All Over Again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Ted Cruz: Because of Iran Deal, Jihadists ‘Will Use Our Money to Murder Americans’

Investigative Project on Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

Damn It Feels Good to be a Liberal

liberal logic 101It’s usually pretty easy to be a liberal these days. Most of their policy prescriptions and legislative proposals require nothing more than a quick talking point, with no further analysis or questions answered regarding the long-term effects of such proposals. If a liberal policymaker wants to take more money from hard working Americans via higher taxes, he or she simply throws out the “pay your fair share” talking point and doesn’t ever worry about explaining to hard-working Americans what their “fair share” is. If a liberal policymaker wants to steal away control of your health care decisions, he or she simply throws out the “health care is a right” talking point without ever explaining how declaring things as “rights” confers numerous obligations on others, all enforceable using the force of government.

Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through.

Liberals live and die by the talking point because their ideology must fit on a bumper sticker. Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through. It’s pretty easy to be a liberal when you can declare your intentions to be noble and positive, print an easy-to-remember bumper sticker, get massive pieces of damaging legislation passed, and then run away from the negative fallout from your terrible ideas once the consequences become evident.

This strategy has worked for liberals for decades, but this week it hit a massive speed bump with a tsunami of bad news hitting Americans. The horrific murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, who was deported an astounding five times, harbored in a sanctuary city, is really a tough one for the liberal intelligentsia to explain away.

It’s tough to be a liberal policymaker this week when being one involves explaining to your constituents how their hard earned money should support the income, healthcare, education, and housing requirements for a group of people who simply do not care about our immigration laws or procedures. When some, albeit a small, but not insignificant number, of those same people murder innocent American citizens, it’s tough to whip out the quickie talking point or hand out that bumper sticker to bail you out of the trouble your ideology has caused.

It’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape.

Second, the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran is beginning to look like the biggest foreign policy calamity in recent American history. Good luck being a liberal policymaker this week trying to tell Americans “don’t worry, the Iranians are only a decade or so away from deploying a nuclear weapon.” Try fitting that one on a bumper sticker as the hegemonic mullahs immediately jump in front of the cameras to declare “death to America.” Also, it’s tough to stick to the ridiculously oversimplified, and frequently utilized, “world peace” mantra or the “Bush did it” talking point, as liberal policymakers try to explain to Americans how the Iranian deal provides no clear, unobstructed path to inspections of Iranian military facilities. Only those willingly, or wishfully, ignorant believe that an Iranian military facility is an unlikely place for illicit nuclear activity with a regime noted for deception and international agitation.

Finally, it’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape. That handy old “it’s all about choice” bumper sticker talking point is tough to explain away when your support of “choice” also involves innocent American taxpayers being forced to finance the operations of a deranged outfit which traffics in the body parts of aborted babies and discusses it over a hearty Caesar salad. It’s time to immediately defund this abomination of an organization without delay and investigate those responsible for this atrocity.

It’s easy to be liberal; conservatives have been lamenting this for years. We have had to be the adults in the room and explain the marginal tax rate ramifications on productivity and growth while the liberals get to scream, “pay your fair share.” This has led to a messaging battlefield asymmetry, which is hard to overcome.

I hate it that these tragedies occurred, and that many will continue to suffer due to these liberal policies but, if we want to prevent further derelictions of duty, it’s up to us to demand answers now and make liberal policymakers leave their protected messaging comfort zones and answer to the American people for their mistakes.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Krupa | AP Photo.

Iran: A Bad Deal

Over the years that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran were going on, the US government often attempted to quell the concerns of its citizens by claiming that it recognised that no deal was better than a bad deal. This week they went back on that logic, signing up to a bad deal.

Britain, of course, is equally culpable. The UK government has also signed up to the Vienna agreement. But it is America’s signature and the current US administration’s push to make a deal – any deal – that was the driving force behind this agreement and the US administration which must take responsibility for this terrible deal.

It is a remarkable fact that it was the American government which was the one pushing this deal from the outset. In fact throughout the negotiations it was clear – and clear to the Iranian partners to the negotiations – that America seemed to want a deal more than Iran did. This is striking not least because when Iran came to the negotiating table, it did so from a position of weakness. The American-led sanctions against Iran were hurting the regime. On the streets, the Iranian people were beginning to become bolder in their opposition to the regime which had caused such sanctions to be imposed upon them. But throughout the negotiations it has not been Iran which has looked like the country desperate to make the deal. The country that looked desperate to make the deal was the United States.

How else can one explain the inclusion in the final agreement signed this week of details which were not on the table at the outset? This deal does not only give the Iranians what they wanted in regards to the lifting of sanctions which were hurting their economy. It also lifts the long-imposed sanctions on Iran buying and selling conventional arms. There are, of course, very good reasons for those sanctions. The Iranian government is noteworthy for the use to which it puts conventional weaponry. For it does not only use such weapons to bolster its terrorist proxies including Hezbollah; it uses them on its populations at home whenever they dare to express significant dissatisfaction with the way in which they are ruled.

And the agreement signed this week does not only lift sanctions which affect the Iranian people. They lift sanctions – including on Iran’s acquisitions of missile technology – which have the capacity to affect everybody. There is a presumption – erroneous but prevalent – that Iranian aggression is principally a problem for Israel and that this problem is in some ways containable. Let us ignore for a moment what Iran might be aiming to do with the $150 billion cash bonanza it will be acquiring straight away. Let us pretend that none of it will go to any of its terror proxies. Why then is Iran seeking inter-continental ballistic missile technology? It does not need such missiles to reach Israel.

The US administration is currently spinning that without this deal there would be no way of holding Iran back from developing a nuclear bomb. This is wholly incorrect. What this deal does is legitimise an illegitimate regime, giving it almost everything it wants and trusting that regime will never go back on its word in relation to what it wants next. There is no question that this isn’t a good deal for Iran. But it is a terrible deal for the rest of the world.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

This week, I would like to highlight the work of our university campus programme, Student Rights, in analysing the hostile reaction of some students opposed to the UK government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme in its new report:  Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On Campus.

That there remains a problem of extremism on campuses is obvious. Student Rights logged 132 extremist events in 2012, 145 in 2013, and 123 in 2014. The speakers featured suggested that there was a Western war against Islam, supported individuals convicted of terrorism offences, expressed intolerance of non-believers and/or minorities, and espoused religious law as a method of socio-political governance. The report also highlights how a number of those convicted of terrorist offences have passed through Britain’s higher education institutions.

Despite this evidence, student activists have claimed Prevent is a racist policy, that lecturers spy on students, that vulnerable people will be stigmatised, and that the expression of controversial ideas will be suppressed unless the programme is opposed.

Part of the reason for this widespread disdain is the malign influence exercised by the narrative of extremist groups targeted by the policy, with over 40 student union leaders signing an open letter attacking Prevent organised by the pro-terrorist group CAGE on 11 July for example.

But part stems from the ignorance of students about the reasons Prevent is required and what the programme’s goals are. This reflects a failure of government and university authorities in articulating these adequately.

The way forward is therefore clear. In order to generate better buy-in for its policies in this area, government needs to be loud and proud about the need for them and that civil society actors who seek to challenge extremist influence on our campuses are supported.

However, government needs partners on campus to assist with message articulation and it is here that campus authorities must do more. University administrations and even student unions have responsibilities for the health and welfare of those of their charges vulnerable to radicalisation. They need to be reminded of these with carrots – or sticks if necessary – and encouraged to play their part in ensuring that our campuses remain places of enlightenment and exploration, rather than of ignorance and fear.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

VIDEO: Nuke Deal Threatens Israel’s Existence

The incomparable Dr. Andrew Bostom joins us today. He gives his analysis of the horrific P5+1 nuclear “deal” with Iran, with a little history on traditional Shia anti-Semitism.

We discuss the worthlessness of the verification process, Iran’s continued capabilities, what this means to the world and Israel specifically. Where else do you get to see one of the world’s foremost authorities on Islamic anti-Semitism speak candidly for 45 minutes?

Join us!

Iran: Playing With Diplomacy

As the latest deadline in the international negotiations with Iran expires today, millions of Iranians are on the streets. They are not marching because of the talks, nor are they marching because it is the last Friday of Ramadan. They are marching because this latest ‘final’ day of negotiations is also ‘Al-Quds Day’ and thus an annual opportunity – inaugurated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini – to take to the streets and chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’

Back in Geneva, America’s negotiating team are presumably immune to the import of such occasions. A couple of weeks ago, when the Iranian Parliament decried the idea of international access to Iranian military and nuclear sites, the Parliamentary session ended with representatives on the floor chanting ‘Death to America’. In many ways this goes to the heart of the fallacy that is happening in Geneva. Because the American administration seems to see the Iranian regime as an entity that is open to change; one that desires normalisation not as a short-term tactic but as a long-term wish. When this US administration looks to Tehran it does not see an illegitimate regime which survives on a diet of anti-Western hatred, but a plausible negotiating partner. Whatever it is that President Obama and Secretary Kerry think they see in the unsmiling faces of the Ayatollahs is something which is hard to see in Iran on this day of all days.

On Wednesday this week, The Henry Jackson Society held a panel event with experts on Iran – including Emanuele Ottolenghi – who considered this latest round of talks. One issue which arose was the question of the endless extensions to the Geneva talks. On and off, the P5+1 have been at this process for several years now. And yet every time there appears to be the presumption that, as the Iranians run down the talk’s deadlines again and again, a couple more days will solve it. Is it really likely, after years, that the problems will be solvable given another 48 hours? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are stalling?

This past week it appeared for a moment that the latest Iranian gambit was to demand a lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran. In reality, this was probably no more than an attempt by the Iranians to split the European and the Americans from the Russians and Chinese. As the representatives of the international community go through another final round of talks, and attempts to schedule in the next final round as well, is there not another possibility here? Is it not in fact possible that the Iranians are in a position akin to that of Yasser Arafat at Camp David?

On that occasion it did not matter how long the Americans and Israelis kept at the negotiations for. It did not even matter that in the end the Israelis put more on the table than at any time before. What mattered was that Arafat never intended to sign a deal – not just not the deal in front of him, but any deal. It is the hope of the American representatives in Geneva that the Iranians desperately want a deal. But the deals they are considering keep offering them more and more and yet, they still don’t take them. Is it not possible that the millions of people marching through Iran today, rather than the negotiators in Geneva, are the ones who are really speaking on behalf of the regime?


FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

mendozahjsLike a slow motion train wreck, the Eurozone crisis sparked by Greece’s parlous position continues to command attention across the continent. Although in an extraordinary turnaround from the position unfolding earlier in the week – when the Greek people rejected an austerity deal designed to secure a third tranche of bailout funds – it now appears that their irresponsible leaders have reversed position and submitted a package to Greece’s creditors that is even tougher than that previously rejected, and which does not mention debt relief at this juncture.

In this column last week, I suggested that Greece’s Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, was largely to blame for the situation of Greece careering towards Grexit through a series of political missteps. I think this view has been vindicated by a new development that has evidently pleased Eurozone leaders and the financial markets judging by their immediate positive reaction.

Having won his snap referendum by stoking up Greek nationalism and the sense of defiance that has been the hallmark of Greek resistance to overwhelming odds against them in the past, it remains to be seen how Tspiras is going to be able to sell one of the more remarkable political climbdowns of recent years to his people. He has evidently decided that the costs of a likely Grexit resulting from the seductive siren song of “an end to austerity and business as usual” are too high to bear. But having encouraged Greeks to support this idea, he will now have to convince them that there is no alternative to a negotiated deal.

While the beginning of the end – it does of course remain to be seen how any deal agreed will be implemented – of this saga should be welcomed, this has hardly been the EU’s, or Liberal Democracy’s, finest hour. The Eurozone has been exposed once again as a political project masquerading as an economic one, with no sense of how it will resolve this contradiction.  And Liberal Democracy’s ideals have been shaken by the Greek Prime Minister’s abuse of a direct democratic referendum process that says more about his personal political needs than those of the nation, and which will now be reversed without the Greek people having any say in the final outcome. Let us hope Europeans can learn from this shambles or else many more tears will follow from where Greek ones have already been shed.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Iranian girls show their hands, marked with the words “Down with USA,” at a demonstration in Tehran.

On Iran: This is What Happens When the World Stays Silent

When the Jews were being slaughtered in the holocaust the world remained silent. Today Iran repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and attacks ,through its proxy terrorist groups, Jewish and Israeli civilians around the world. If Iran gets the nuclear bomb will the world stay silent again?

To see all the films in the Clarion Project’s Iran short film series visit: http://iran.clarionproject.org/iran_f…

Iran: Deal or No Deal!

Ha…chalk another win up for the Iranians who are making John Kerry and his negotiating team look like novice riders in the Camel Triple Crown! This fiasco is so serious that all Americans should be up in arms and walk away from any deal with this evil, lying nation.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented on the extension of nuclear negotiations with Iran:

Once again, the Obama Administration has given into Iran’s obfuscation and stalling tactics. In April, the President announced to the world that the United States had reached ‘a historic understanding with Iran.’ Now, as the Iranian leadership attempts to walk back the key provisions of that deal, we’re told a few more days are required to negotiate a deal that was supposedly concluded months ago. The events of recent weeks have shown that it is clearer than ever that Iran is not serious about resolving longstanding concerns regarding its illicit nuclear program. Another week of negotiations at this point is just another week for further U.S. concessions. Tehran knows this. Our allies and partners in the Middle East see this because they’ve experienced it before.

“The major points of this agreement are already clear, though there may in the coming days be additional American concessions. We already know that this deal is not in the interests of the United States. It will not keep Americans safer. It will only embolden the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism as it expands its influence and sows instability across the Middle East. It will provide billions of dollars to a regime that brutalizes its citizens and acts like a criminal gang by kidnapping American citizens and effectively holding them for ransom. If the President were serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies, such as Israel, he would walk away from the table and impose new sanctions on Iran until the regime comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously. If he instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it, which will lay the foundation for our next President to undo this disaster.

On today’s show The United West team explains that there is one thing missing from the American negotiating side.

Tune in to find out what, or who is missing and how the States of New Jersey or New York play a role in successful U.S. negotiations.