Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Intelligence, Iran, Law, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States, United Nations | Tags: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy, German Intelligence, The Disastraous Iran Deal
Germany has passed along intelligence that Iran has accelerated its efforts to buy nuclear materials that would allow it to build a nuclear bomb, but also is trying to purchase parts that will assist in its missile program, according to the Washington Free Beacon. The Obama administration has declined to comment and told the Free Beacon that it continues to view Iran as complying with the nuclear accord.
Germany’s internal intelligence agency concluded in a recent report that sources have witnessed “extensive Iranian attempts” to procure illicit materials, “especially goods that can be used in the field of nuclear technology,” according to the report. The report appears to show that Iran is not upholding its most critical commitments under the nuclear deal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel made it clear this week that the intelligence shows “Iran continued unabated to develop its rocket program in conflict with the relevant provisions of the UN Security Council,” particularly one Security Council resolution that bars Iran from pursuing ballistic missile technology.
Reuters reports that “Iran’s ballistic missile launches ‘are not consistent with the constructive spirit’ of a nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers, but it is up to the United Nations Security Council to decide if they violated a resolution,” according to UN Chief Ban Ki-moon.
Bret Stephens writes at the Wall Street Journal that :
The administration is now weighing whether to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization. That would neutralize a future president’s ability to impose sanctions on Iran, since WTO rules would allow Tehran to sue Washington for interfering with trade. The administration has also pushed the Financial Action Task Force, an international body that enforces anti-money-laundering standards, to ease pressure on Iran, which FATF did last month by suspending some restrictions for the next year.
And then there’s the Boeing deal to sell $17.6 billion worth of jets to Iran, which congressional Republicans led by Illinois’s Pete Roskam are trying to stop. Iran uses its civilian fleet to ferry weapons and fighters to its terrorist clients in Syria and Lebanon.
“The administration is trying to lock in the Iran deal and prevent a future president from doing anything, including pushing back on Iran’s malign behavior,” says the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz, who knows more about Iran sanctions than anyone in Washington. “Instead of curbing Iran’s worst behavior, the administration effectively facilitates it.”
Mr. Obama continues to regard his Iran Deal as a great triumph, and says that Iran is honoring the nuclear deal, but German intelligence tells us that Tehran is violating the deal aggressively. Obama promised “unprecedented” inspections, but we’re not allowed to inspect. Obama promised an eight-year ban on Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles, but Tehran immediately and repeatedly violated that ban. but we only mildly protested.
The Obama administration has agreed to buy 32 tons of Iran’s heavy water, a key component in atomic-weapons development. This is supposed to encourage them to stick to the nuclear agreement. We’re also trying to help their international trade. The possibility that their intentions are not pure and peaceful is apparently not part of the “narrative”.
Iran has been waging war with us since 1979, overtly and covertly. Obama just wants to turn over the management of the querulous Middle East to the more enlightened and better educated Persians. The Ayatollah Khomeinei keeps leading chants of Death to Israel, Death to America, but Obama assumes that to be just public relations. Odd kind of PR.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Law, Media Bias, Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Statism, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Iran's Intentions, Radical Islam, The Middle East
Why does Barack Obama refuse to utter the words “Radical Islam?” Why does the phrase in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which has a clear meaning, seem to prohibit our federal agencies from doing necessary background inquiries regarding those who appear to be radicalized Muslims? Major Nidal Hassan who fatally shot 13 people at Fort Hood and wounded more than 30 others was clearly observed to be radicalized and dangerous, but nobody would do anything about it because he was Muslim.
Omar Mateen was allowed to avoid serious investigation because he was a Muslim. He blamed his actions on Islamophobia. He talked a lot about how he wanted to kill people. Disney reported that Mateen and his wife were casing Disney World back in April. But real investigation stopped because he was a Muslim.
After the deadliest mass shooting in American history. President Obama was angry, impassioned — at Republicans? Huh? David Harsanyi notes the occasion at NRO: (Do read the whole thing)
“That’s the key,” they tell us,” Obama said, eviscerating the GOP. “We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?
Victor Davis Hanson wrote about Orlando and “domestic terrorism:”
Most disturbing is the serial inability of the Obama administration — in this case as after the attacks at Fort Hood and in Boston and San Bernardino — even to name the culprits as radical Islamists. Major Hasan shouts “Allahu akbar!” and Omar Mateen calls 911 in mediis interfectis to boast of his ISIS affiliation — and yet the administration can still not utter the name of the catalyst of their attacks: radical Islam. It is hard to envision any clearer Islamist self-identification, other than name tags and uniforms. The Obama team seems to fear the unwelcome public responses to these repeated terrorist operations rather than seeing them as requisites for changing policies to prevent their recurrence.
The current Leftist seems to be consumed by the belief that Michelle Obama derived from her husband. “All of us are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do — that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be,” which seems to be derived from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. They dream of an imagined world that is self-evidently superior to the existing order. Their world is consumed with the glorious future of which they dream and the current battle against the Right.
That leaves little time for reflection or study, so they rely heavily on leftist talking points that are handed down to the press and to Democratic spokesmen. That’s why there are always examples of the entire Democrat apparatus speaking of the same event in exactly the same words. Talking points. And they seem remarkably ill-informed.
Obama clearly was influenced by the years he spent in Muslim Indonesia before he was 10 years old, but there is no evidence that he is Muslim. Many of us believe that his much ballyhooed “Iran Deal” is an absolute disaster and a major danger to the United States, yet the president sees it as a great accomplishment. Why?
I believe he sees the Middle East in a domestic battle between Sunni and Shia for dominance, which we ignited — with the Invasion of Iraq — and made worse with our brutal treatment of the Iraqis, killing Muslims and destroying property. Obama’s closest advisor is Valerie Jarrett who was raised in Iran.
He regards Arab Muslims with their wealth and palaces and yachts as the problem, and the enlightened and educated Persians as a better class to control the Middle East. He believes we should turn the entire area over to the Iranians to manage. He thinks we have no business in the Middle East at all, and believes America should play a smaller role in the world, as just one among many nations. He sees the cries of the Ayatollah for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” as some sort of rallying cry or public relations, but not anything that is meant seriously. He said, when he was trying to sell his Iran Deal to Americans, that he did not believe that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon.
Obama, we are told, does not change his mind. Once he believes something, it is set in concrete. He was heavily influenced by Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American firebrand professor of Middle East studies at Columbia, and I assume Obama believes that Israel is the major problem in the Middle East. Obama’s great accomplishment was to create a “two-state solution”, and he is furious that he hasn’t been able to bring it about. Palestinians aren’t ready to stop trying to kill Israelis with rockets and stabbings and tunnels to attack Israelis in their homes, which is somewhat inclined to give the Israelis a jaundiced view of the fabled “Peace Process.”
I have no expertise in the Middle East, never been there, this is only what I have derived from my reading, but I do read a lot. When an enemy leads chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,”and hangs citizens of his own country who disagree with him, I’m inclined to believe him. When they demand the ability to build nuclear plants that are clearly not needed to produce power, and everybody says they are developing nuclear weapons, I’m inclined to believe them. When they are pursing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon, I’m a more than a little skeptical about Mr. Obama’s Iran Deal. That’s why he won’t say “Radical Islam.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Law, Military, National Security, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: CIA Director John Brennan, President Barack Obama, The Islamic State
Filed under: Afghanistan, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Immigration, Iran, Islam, Law, National Security, Politics, Pop Culture, Progressivism, Syria, Terrorism | Tags: Major Nidal Hassan, Omar Mateen, What Really Matters
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away, Obama said. This is a political distraction”
He described the attacks on him as “yapping” and denounced ‘Politicians who Tweet and appear on cable news shows.”
Omar Mateen’s murder of 5o gays in an Orlando nightclub and wounding of as many others has a striking familiarity to the Fort Hood Massacre when Major Nidal Hassan, a U.S. Army Psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and wounded more than 30 others.
Both killers had been identified as dangerous and unhinged by those who worked with them. Their employers, the Army in the case of Nidal Hassan, and the Department of Homeland Security in the case of Omar Mateen knew that their conversation indicated “there’s something wrong with him” but the employer was unwilling to do anything about it because he was Muslim. Obama’s refusal to say the words “radical Islam,” or to allow anyone else to use the term, is so obvious to all that it approaches comedy. Obama’s instant reaction is always to find something wrong with American society, and to go for the standard Leftist approach: “We have to ban assault weapons“.
Weapons, from duded-up .22s to knives, baseball bats, pressure cookers, bomb-making materials, box-cutters, bows and arrows, are all inanimate objects, and require a human actor to put them to any use. The Left becomes hysterical about weapons, but refuses to deal with those who should not be allowed access to weapons. It’s the bad people, not the weapons.
If you remember, President Obama dismissed the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.” They even went so far as to deny VA benefits to those who had been wounded, and refused to award purple hearts.No medals for “workplace violence.”
The Boston Massacre, the beheading in Oklahoma, and the stabbings at UC Merced had nothing to do with firearms.The attacks in Paris and Belgium took place in locales with the some of the strictest firearm regulations anywhere.
The President sets the agenda. For the last seven years, government officials have seen the suspicious activities of Muslims as the result of America’s Islamophobia, and our insults to the peaceful Muslim religion. Obama has taken the lead in encouraging Syrian refugees to settle in the United States.
A NASA Chief declared that one of the agency’s three primary missions was Muslim outreach. The director of National Intelligence called the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular.” a top counterterrorism adviser praised jihad as a “legitimate tenet of Islam.” Obama has removed the requirement for new citizens to be available for national service if called upon. He said “We are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the Massacre.” He has said, in a video aimed at convincing migrants to pursue American citizenship that they didn’t need to assimilate. Government officials know who signs their paychecks.
I think that Obama lives in a different narrative, one in which he is the hero, wisely directing the American people in the way they should go. That it bears little relation to reality is beside the point. Because he is giving away citizenship to all comers, erasing the citizenship and border control laws, the newcomers will be reliable Democrat voters, and that’s what really matters, isn’t it?
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Deputy Nat'l Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Michael Doran, President Barack Obama
The American people have been trying for eight years to understand Barack Obama and to grasp just what his aims are. Why is he doing what he is doing? Here are the pieces I have saved that I find somewhat enlightening. No, I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, nor does he hate America, nor is he trying to destroy America. He just has some odd beliefs that guide his actions.
Richard Epstein, Professor of Law, fellow at the Hoover Institution had a conversation about Obama on Uncommon Knowledge, with Peter Robinson. Epstein knew Obama at the University of Chicago, and through his next door neighbor who was Obama’s best friend at the time. Posted in 2012. The insight that Obama does not change his mind, that his ideas are fixed in concrete is important.
Fast forward to the present and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes as he explains the Iran Deal, and how they pushed it through by lying to the American people.
Michael Doran, in a widely praised article in Mosaic Magazine took on the task of explaining “Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy.”
And Elliott Abrams followed that up by explaining “What the President Thinks He’s Doing,” also in Mosaic Magazine, February 2015.
At ricochet, Herbert E. Meyer writes about “Obama’s Failed Experiment,” October 2, 2015.
Here’s Jeffrey Goldberg in a widely praised interview with President Obama on Syria and American Foreign Policy from The Atlantic, on June 12, 2016
And today, David Hazony, Editor of The Tower wrote about “The Mind of the President”
Obama is clearly a leftist radical who thinks that most of the problems of the world would be much less troublesome if the United States were not so involved with the world. We are the problem, in his mind. He emphasized that once again today. “We are to Blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre,” by John Podhoretz. Podhoretz says we, once again, have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.
He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.
So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Some of these pieces are long, but all are deeply informative. Their intent is not to attack the President, but to explore his mind. We are told that he is the most brilliant of all of our presidents, which I seriously doubt. But how can this man, who has taken an oath to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States possibly view the bloody, senseless massacre in an Orlando night club and announce primly that “We are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre.” He has no understanding of the office he holds, none at all.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Bureaucracy, Capitalism, European Union, Foreign Policy, History, Immigration, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Law, Military, National Security, Politics, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Second Amendment, The Mullahs in Iran, What ISIS Wants
It’s comforting to know that America’s newsrooms and television studios are flooded with experts who know ISIS better than ISIS itself:
People might come to blame the Left for their attack on the Second Amendment. Or they might conceivably blame President Obama for his excruciatingly wrong-headed pandering to the Islamic radicals in Iran and the Middle East. He has encouraged the caliphate, handing the Middle East over to Iran to manage, so he can pursue his aim of getting America out of the Middle East, and bring peace to that unhappy tribal area.
Obama reportedly believes that he was elected to get the U.S. out of the Middle East, which isn’t even remotely true. He was elected to be the first Black President of the United States in the mistaken belief that he would take on the job of better relations between the races. Instead he has made every effort to stir up hatred in the interest of getting more blacks and Hispanics to the polls.
He has been the most divisive president in history, sending #Black Lives Matter activists to stir up dissension on our college campuses. And with his Iran Deal, he has made sure that the mullahs get the necessary funding to perfect their nuclear weapons with which they intend to strike Israel and the United States. Or is there some other target they want to hit with an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Filed under: Afghanistan, Africa, Asia, Capitalism, China, Developing Nations, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Europe, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Intelligence, Iran, Islam, Israel, Japan, National Security, The United States | Tags: Herbert E. Meyer, The Cold War, The Reagan Administration, The World Today
“Herbert E. Meyer (Herb) served as vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council under President Reagan. He was one of the few people in the 1980’s to perceive that the U.S. and its allies might have turned the corner and were on the way to winning the Cold War.”
You may not have noticed, but the media seldom talks about facts. It’s almost all opinion. Herb Meyer talks facts, and gives you the evidence on which the facts are based. That original paper: “Why Is The World So Dangerous?” from 1983 has long since been declassified, and is available to be downloaded here. Most of his speeches are different versions of “Why is the World So Dangerous”— because that’s what we need to hear. This one was delivered to the Northwest Business Club on March 9th this year. He gives us his version of history, and explains what we need to know to cope. The address is a little over an hour and worth every minute, so try for some time this weekend. You’ll be glad you did, and you’ll think a little differently about the world today. He is a great speaker, funny, charming, and utterly fascinating.
ADDENDUM: If you go to You Tube, there are lots of Herb Meyer’s speeches, many with the same name. I picked this one as one of the most recent. and they are similar because Mr. Meyer has to put you in the right historical frame of mind to grasp the changing nature of the trends. His basic argument does not change, because, well, he’s clearly right, and a little repetition merely reinforces the point.