Kerry Tries to Dismiss Criticism of Iran talks as “Hysteria”

87446063CSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 4, 2015:

In a statement to Israel’s Channel 10 News over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry aggressively defended the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear diplomacy with Iran and dismissed critics of the nuclear talks as engaging in “hysteria.”

This kind of talk is typical of the way Kerry and other Obama administration have defended their nuclear diplomacy with Iran.  They refuse to discuss criticisms of the talks and instead attack their critics as uninformed and partisan.

Kerry defended the nuclear talks in unusually strong terms, claiming under the deal, inspections would remain in place “forever” and that “We will not sign a deal that does not close off Iran’s pathways to a bomb and that doesn’t give us the confidence — to all of our experts, in fact to global experts — that we will be able to know what Iran is doing and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”

No serious person believes international inspectors will be in Iran forever.

This kind of rhetoric shows how worried Kerry is about the nuclear talks.  His briefings to Congress about the negotiations have gone very badly.  There are bipartisan concerns that the Obama administration has made enormous and dangerous concessions to Tehran and got nothing in return.

The Obama administration’s Iran policy also is in deep trouble because Iranian officials claim it lied about what will be in a final nuclear agreement.

Today, the Center for Security Policy released a compelling ad on the Iran nuclear talks titled “Why are the Mullahs laughing?”   This ad helps explain the dangers of the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran.  You can watch this ad below or click HERE.

Please also check out our new website IranTruth.org for more information about the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Mr. Obama, we have a strategy for victory over global jihad

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 24, 2015:

The United States cannot defeat ISIS as long as its leaders continue to deny its nature as promoting a violent radical ideology of Islamist supremacism worldwide. Why the White House spokesman would downplay the growing global reach of ISIS and dispute the US intelligence community on this issue is baffling.

It is also dangerous. Earnest’s statements are the latest indications that the Obama administration continues to be clueless about the threat from global jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS and still has no strategy to confront this threat.

Working with a group of leading American national security experts, the Center for Security Policy unveiled a comprehensive strategy to defeat the global jihad movement in January. Titled “The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement,” our strategy defines the threat from the global jihad movement, discusses the record of the United States in confronting the threat, and describes how the US government must be re-organized to defeat it.

The secure freedom strategy is designed after the Reagan Administration’s National Security Directive 75 (NSDD 75), a strategy to defeat the totalitarian threat of President Reagan’s time: the Soviet Union. Similar to NSDD 75, the Secure Freedom Strategy is a plan on how the United States can best employ diplomatic, military, economic, cyber, intelligence tools to understand the threat doctrine of global jihadist groups like ISIS and defeat them.

More information on the Secure Freedom Strategy is available here. You also can purchase a copy on Amazon.com.

SecureFreedomStrategySidebar (2)

Texas Senator takes action to protect critical infrastructure

20141125_empattack

Published on Apr 22, 2015 by securefreedom

Texas Senator Bob Hall hears testimony on on Senate Bill 1398 from Kevin Freeman and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. SB 1398 sets scientific and security based standards for electrical grid protection higher than the self regulating industry standards. Under current regulations there is no goal to make the Texas grid withstand and recover from a catastrophic system wide event.

The Texas electrical grid is independent from two other major grids in the U.S. and is therefore able to protect itself independently from threats to and failures of the Eastern and Western grids.

***

guilty-knowledge-web-buy_now

Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, But Refuses to Fix (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)

On January 21, 2014, Fox News aired a segment describing the vulnerability of the U.S. bulk power distribution system, popularly known as the electric “grid.” The report described various dangers that could cause the grid to fail, possibly catastrophically. These range from physical and cyber attacks on its subsystems to space weather and a high-altitude nuclear detonation unleashing intense electro- magnetic pulses (EMP) that could afflict the grid across vast areas. Fox solicited a comment from the Department of Defense about these threats and their potential to imperil the very existence of the United States—and a large percentage of its present population. This was the Pentagon’s response: “The Department is unaware of any increase in the threat of a deliberate destructive use of an EMP device. Further, any reporting to the contrary by those without access to current threat assessments is both reckless and irresponsible.”

At the very best, this statement suggests that the Defense Department is ignorant of a yawning danger to the civilian critical infrastructure—upon which the military also heavily relies. At worst, it is actively and purposefully misleading the American people who will die by the tens of millions when one or the other of these threats eventuates. In fact, a blue-ribbon commission convened by the Congress to examine the EMP threat concluded that, if the power went out and stayed off for more than a year in large parts of the United States—a prospect it found was plausible—as many as nine-out-of-ten Americans would perish.

Even if it actually were the case that EMP threats are not intensifying— something that is highly debatable in light of evidence in the public domain about the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and satellite programs—one thing is clear: U.S. civil society has been for many years so dangerously vulnerable to the take-down of the nation’s electric grid as to invite enemies to try to exploit our vulnerability.

Moreover, even if no enemies acted on this opportunity to bring about, in the oft-stated words of then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “a world with- out America,” there is another menace that is certain to do that, somewhat later if quite soon: a massive geo-magnetic disturbance (GMD). Such a powerful GMD would distort the earth’s magnetosphere, unleashing what are known as E3 long- duration electromagnetic pulses that would, all other things being equal, be con- ducted by power lines into the backbone of the grid: the nation’s high-voltage trans- formers, seriously damaging if not destroying them.

In other words, the vulnerability of America’s grid does not have to become any more severe to pose a mortal danger. To pretend otherwise—and to encourage the public to believe a false narrative—is what is truly “reckless and irresponsible.”

In the interest of ensuring that the rest of us have ready access to this knowledge, the Center for Security Policy has compiled in one short reference book–Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid–the executive summaries of these eleven studies. The full text of each may be viewed at the web site of the EMP Coalition, a group sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. Under the leadership of its Honorary Co-Chairmen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, the Coalition is working to raise public awareness of the electric grid’s myriad vulnerabilities and to achieve the needed corrective action.

Our hope is that this compendium will make clear the abundant evidence distilled from authoritative sources that confirms America has a problem: We are at risk of unprecedented catastrophe from long-duration disruption of the electric grid—unless we take practical, near-term and relatively low-cost steps to prevent it. Equipped with this guilty knowledge, we hope you will recognize and act upon the duty to yourself, your family, your community and your country to ensure that the steps needed to make our grid resilient are taken, before it is too late.

***

Highlights from the Reports in Guilty Knowledge:

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2004)

“Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon- generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication.”

“The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation.”

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (2008)

“When a nuclear explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation. This broad band, high amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.”

“Because of the ubiquitous dependence of U.S. society on the electrical power system, its vulnerability to an EMP attack, coupled with the EMP’s particular damage mechanisms, creates the possibility of long-term, catastrophic consequences.”

Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, A Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies (2008)

“The Carrington event is by several measures the most severe space weather event on record. It produced several days of spectacular auroral displays, even at unusually low latitudes, and significantly disrupted telegraph services around the world…. While the socioeconomic impacts of a future Carrington event are difficult to predict, it is not unreasonable to assume that an event of such magnitude would lead to much deeper and more widespread socioeconomic disruptions than occurred in 1859, when modern electricity-based technology was still in its infancy.”

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission On the Strategic Posture of the United States (Excerpts) (2009)

“We note . . . that the United States has done little to reduce its vulnerability to attack with electromagnetic pulse weapons and recommend that current investments in modernizing the national power grid take account of this risk.”

Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid, Metatech Corporation (2010)

“It is clear that the biggest threat is against the civil infrastructure, shutting down the control electronics associated with the power grid, the telecom network or other parts of the critical infrastructure…. The modern civil infrastructure is very dependent on computers, which operate at logic levels of a few volts. So an intentional interference can occur at a few volts in critical circuits, causing logic upset.”

High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American Bulk Power System. A Jointly-Commissioned Summary Report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the U.S. Department of Energy’s November 2009 Workshop (2010)

“A class of risks, called High-Impact, Low-Frequency (HILF) events, has recently become a renewed focus of risk managers and policy makers. These risks have the potential to cause catastrophic impacts on the electric power system, but either rarely occur, or, in some cases, have never occurred… Examples of HILF risks include coordinated cyber, physical, and blended attacks, the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon, and major natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, large hurricanes, pandemics, and geomagnetic disturbances caused by solar weather.”

Large Power Transformers and the U.S. Electric Grid. Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy (2012)

“Large Power Transformers (LPTs) are custom-designed equipment that entail significant capital expenditures and long lead times due to an intricate procurement and manufacturing process…. Because LPTs are very expensive and tailored to customers’ specifications, they are usually neither interchangeable with each other nor produced for extensive spare inventories…. The average lead time for manufacture of an LPT is between five and 16 months; however, the lead time can extend beyond 20 months if there are any supply disruptions or delays with the supplies, raw materials, or key parts. The United States has limited production capability to manufacture LPTs.”

Buy Guilty Knowledge at Amazon.

Download Guilty Knowledge PDF

About the EMP Coalition

A group of the country’s top experts on this threat and what can be done to mitigate it have joined forces under the leadership of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton’s Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey. The goal of this EMP Coalition is to raise awareness of the extreme peril associated with the sort of powerful electromagnetic pulse that could be caused literally at any time by space weather or a hostile power. The Coalition also seeks to ensure that practical, cost-effective and readily available steps are taken as soon as possible to protect the grid. The EMP Coalition is working to:

  • Engage the nation’s electric utilities and their customers-including, notably, those whose businesses depend critically upon reliable supplies of pow- er–about the imperative of eliminating our vulnerability to EMP and instituting the hardware and other changes necessary to do that.
  • Assist executive branch officials and legislators at both the federal and state levels to create the necessary statutory and regulatory environment to make the present bulk power distribution system and any future “smart” grids resilient against EMP.
  • Develop grassroots support for such measures and empower citizens to help.

To find out more about the EMP Coalition and how you can assist its vital work, go to StopEMP.org.

Grover Norquist book release overshadowed by ‘ethics investigation’ into Islamist ties

2096098934Center for Security Policy, April 8, 2015:

Grover Norquist, famed DC power-player and anti-tax advocate would prefer that you focus on the release of his new book this week. Unfortunately for him, talk show host Glenn Beck, informed by years of investigative work by Secure Freedom President Frank Gaffney, has launched a series of investigative reports detailing Norquist’s connections to dangerous Islamists.

On March 11, 2015, Glenn Beck announced on his popular nationally syndicated radio program that he might have to end his longstanding relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA) if Grover Norquist were reelected to the NRA’s board of directors. For years, Mr. Beck has made clear that he has no problem with the anti-tax activism for which Mr. Norquist is best known, but that he is deeply troubled by evidence that the latter has long been involved with and enabled Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist influence operations.

The next day, Glenn Beck reported that he had received an hour-long call from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the course of which Mr. LaPierre announced that the National Rifle Association would be conducting a “transparent” and “open” ethics investigation of Grover Norquist. On three consecutive days, March 25-27, Mr. Beck used his television and radio platforms to engage in his own investigation – including an hour-long interview with Norquist, himself.

The following are highlights of the Beck inquiry, drawn from his TV shows of March 25th and 26th, and his radio program of March 27th – including an illustrative exchange from Mr. Beck’s Norquist interview.

[CLICK BELOW FOR HIGHLIGHT REEL OF GLENN BECK’S EXPOSÉ]

 

Beck’s Characterization of Norquist

Glenn Beck introduced his audience to Grover Norquist at the start of his hour-long, two -chalkboard briefing on March 25th with the following statement:

“[Norquist] is really a power player who has managed to use his influence to evade any real scrutiny over his dangerous connections….Politicians listen to him. Many obey him. He has a long list of connections with radical Islamic organizations and in some cases actual terrorists. His alarming ties with groups hostile to America, who seek to destroy it from the inside out, those are the things that should worry every American.

“This is about national security. This is a danger to you, your family, and the republic.”

Beck’s Depiction of Grover Norquist’s Muslim Brotherhood Associates and Front Group – the Islamic Free Market Institute

In the course of his March 25 televised briefing, Glenn Beck made the following points:

“[Norquist has]…created this: The Islamic Institute. Which is trying to support the free market in Islam. That’s a good goal. Until you start to see how this thing has come together.

“Let me show you some of the people that he’s been working with and crossing paths with:

  • Abdurahman Alamoudi: “This guy is extremely disturbing….[He] was finally arrested at Heathrow airport with $340,000 in cash that was given to him by Muammar Gaddafi. The plot involved al-Qaeda operatives. He was a senior al-Qaeda financier. He funnelled at least a million dollars directly to al-Qaeda. He was sentenced in 2004. He’s serving a twenty-three year prison sentence for terrorist fundraising related to the plan to assassinate the Saudi crown prince Abdul[lah]. So, people [Norquist] trusts.
  • “Khaled Saffuri:…He is al-Amoudi’s right hand man. He was a deputy at the American Muslim Council, one of the Brotherhood front organizations. He was founder of the Islamic Institute. He was very influential in the Bush Administration. He led talks with the administration in opposition of Operation Green Quest, which we’ll talk a little bit about later. That was basically trying to go get the front groups. He didn’t want that to happen.”
  • “Sami al-Arian:…Former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former professor at [University of South Florida]. Campaigned against secret evidence method. He was caught soliciting donations for a Palestinian terrorist to kill an Israeli Jew. He paid respects to, quote, ‘the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish.’ I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to hang out with him. He also said, ‘Let us damn America to death.’”
  • “Jamal al-Barzinji: He is the founder – the founding father, he’s the George Washington of the Muslim Brotherhood of the U.S. He played a crucial role in creating and organizing the web of Brotherhood front groups that followed: Islamic Society of North America, Muslim American Society, International Institute of Islamic Thought. He founded the radical mosque in Virginia. He’s known for ties to Islamic terrorists from Hamas to al-Qaeda. He’s an officer of the SAAR Foundation, which is suspected of funding terrorist groups.”
  • “Then we go to Suhail Khan. Suhail Khan is probably the cleanest of Grover Norquist’s friends. He campaigned against the DOJ’s secret evidence. His parents are really the trouble spot. They were prominent leaders in the Brotherhood front groups. And the annual award at ISNA, it is given every year in his father’s name. The mosque founded by his dad hosted the Blind Sheikh just a couple of months before he bombed the World Trade Center. He has a network of terrorist friendly organizations and he made it possible for Osama bin Laden’s number two, al-Zawahiri, to actually covertly visit the United States undetected in 1995. He played a key role in founding CAIR. He was praised by al-Amoudi at an awards ceremony.”

Norquist’s Defense

The following exchange is illustrative of the sort of explanation/deflection Grover Norquist presented in the course of his hour-long televised interview with Glenn Beck on March 26, 2015:

GROVER NORQUIST:

“…When we set up the Islamic Free Market Institute in the mid-90s, it was because I had seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the end of the war against the Soviet Union, this radical strain of anti-Americanism and statism in the Muslim community from people who you think would have been more supportive of the United States since we were helping these people fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

“And so I was looking around for how do we make the case for a reformation in Islam focused on something that I know something about, which is free market economics….

“My interest was not here in the United States. It was focused out. And so the work of the institute was trying to be a little light, a little beacon to make the case that…[in the Quran] property rights are strong, low taxes, free trade.”

GLENN BECK:

That sounds like an unbelievably noble goal. That sounds –

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, it’s a small effort.

GLENN BECK:

Well, but I think it sounds like a noble goal.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Well, thank you.

GLENN BECK:

Now, here’s the question that leaps to mind. If that’s my goal, gosh, how do I take a check from a guy like al-Amoudi?

GROVER NORQUIST:

But I didn’t really have that much in contact with him, but I did hear from Khaled [Saffuri], he was sort of okay, if oldish school. But then in 2000 – so he wrote a ten thousand dollar check and ten thousand dollar loan to the institute, I think trying to make nice with Khaled. However, he – in 2000, late 2000, October or so, gave this speech at a rally and said that he supported Hamas –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. At a rally sponsored by you.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Oh, okay. I know what the concern is. No. There was an intern – this was written up in Insight at the time afterwards cause somebody had said so. We had an intern who had said that was okay. He was told that’s not okay. And there was no money involved. He just – I guess they had a bunch of people’s names attached to some rally in opposition to the occupation of the West Bank –

GLENN BECK:

[OVERLAP] Oh, so you didn’t sponsor that at all. That was an intern that made that mistake.

GROVER NORQUIST:

Yeah, that was written up at the time in Insight magazine –

GLENN BECK:

So is that a little like – because your firm was also lobbying for al-Amoudi, but then you said, once you found out that he was going to prison, you then came out and said that that was a clerical error. So was it the same intern or is it a different – is it a different problem?

GROVER NORQUIST:

No, the one was an intern. You’re not supposed to sign us up for other things. He just thought he was – I don’t know why he did it, but he shouldn’t have. He was told not to.

But just let me get back to the lobbying, because that’s I think very important also.

The – [al-Amoudi] gave this speech and Khaled heard about it and told me. And he said, “Look, I told the guy: One, he needs to grovel and apologize and denounce his statement.” Khaled felt he didn’t do that. And he said to him, “Look, you haven’t done anything with this. You haven’t asked us for anything. You haven’t gone to anything we’ve done. But from now on, you’re not allowed to go to anything we’re doing.” He never went to any of the conferences or worked with anybody there. He never asked for anything.

Beck Dissects Norquist’s Explanation of the Islamic Free Market Institute

During his radio program on March 27th, Glenn Beck performed a lengthy post-mortem on his interview the day before with Grover Norquist. At one point, he engaged in a Socratic colloquy with his executive producer, Steve Burguiere, better known as “Stu” about Norquist’s lengthy involvement with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, organizations and agendas. These excerpts capture the essence of their exchange:

GLENN BECK:

“Stu, let’s say that you want to stop the Klan, okay?…And you want to start a big foundation, billions of dollars will go into this, stopping the Klan. And that’s your zeal. You think you can help – and you’re way ahead of the curve, before the Klan is really even stringing people up, you’re ahead of the curve. Okay? What are some of the things that you do? When you’re looking for people to join you. What are the things you do?”

* * *

“Who do you put in next to you? Who do you have in? Who do you take money from? Who do you have as partners?”

STU:

“Well, you pick people fighting that cause, right? You pick people against the Klan who would be donating money to stop that.”

GLENN BECK:

“Right. And you would have people – if you had people who were members of the Klan, full fledged members of the Klan, would you take money from them?”

STU:

“No, I would not.”

GLENN BECK:

“Okay. Would you think it would be irresponsible of you to take money from people unknowingly when they were clearly in the Klan?”

STU:

“Yeah, that would be very irresponsible.”

GLENN BECK:

“Would you take other people’s word: ‘No, he’s a good guy. He’s a good guy.’ ‘Well, he seems to have a lot of Klan stuff at his house.’ ‘Nah, he’s a good guy.’ Or would you take it upon yourself as being a guy who’s setting up an institution, stoptheklan.org, you know, would you take it upon yourself – ”

STU:

“To do my own research – “

GLENN BECK:

“To do your own homework.”

STU:

“Yes, I believe his hoodie fell off. He just needed another hood.”

GLENN BECK:

“Correct. If you found that one of the guys you took money from and you thought was a good guy because everybody was telling you, would you then up your standards and say, ‘Wow, that was a close call.’”

STU:

“See, maybe, you know, you’re starting out, a little lazy on the specifics, but once it happens to you, you’re certainly going to step up your efforts.”

* * *

GLENN BECK:

“[Norquist] is lying. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court. This makes no sense whatsoever….

“Now my question to you is you didn’t accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now this guy is in, this guy agrees with you on much – he agrees, lower taxes, he’s helping people get elected and everything else. He’s on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent?

“Do you have the balls to have the courage of your convictions to say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the GOP. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of one hundred and fifty Republicans every single Wednesday? Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he whitewashed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in? This guy is lying to you.”

Beck’s Conclusions About Grover Norquist and What to Do About Him

The following quotes capture the bottom line of Glenn Beck’s investigation of Grover Norquist (drawn, as indicated from his television and radio programs of March 25th and March 27th, respectively:

“I don’t know what Grover’s motivations are for working with people that range from Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer all the way to full-blown terrorists. It can only be one of two things. He is the most unlucky and naïve guy next to the president of the United States. And I hope it’s that.

“Because the only other option is that he strongly agrees enough with the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission. Or they’re just paying him enough cash to subvert America.

“Either way, somebody with this much power inside the Republican Party and inside the NRA with these connections is absolutely unacceptable. No person with any shred of integrity whatsoever would be within the same postcode of some of these people let alone at the same office or exchanging money with them. And so far, the explanations given for the connections are completely unacceptable as well.” (3/27 Radio Program)

“I am not telling you that Grover Norquist nor his allies want to destroy the United States of America. I don’t believe that. I don’t know what his motivation is. But I’m going to give what I believe his motivation is power and money. That’s it. Power and money. And so he’ll take the money and he’ll use that power anyway he has, anyway he can, to keep himself and others like him in power.” (3/25 TV Program)

“So the question is not about Grover Norquist. The question is about you. GOP members. NRA members. The people – and I’ve got to get the list, I’ll get the list when we come back of all the things that he’s on the board of directors of. That’s the way the Muslim Brotherhood does it. They launder people and then they get on the board of directors. This is the Tides Foundation. Except it’s on our side. Do you like it? Is this who you want to be?” (3/27 Radio Program)

***

Norquist sponsors terrorist Rally

Published on Apr 8, 2015 by theunitedwest

Glenn Beck reveals new documents that prove Grover Norquist Sponsored terrorists rally in front of Whitehouse in 2000.

President Obama: Jihadists Have No Legitimate Grievances

obama31CSP, by Fred Fleitz, February 20, 2015:

Did President Obama really say at the “countering violent extremism summit” yesterday and in his recent LA Times op-ed that jihadist terrorist groups are winning recruits by exploiting economic, political and historic grievances that are “sometimes accurate.”

Yes he did.

This incredible claim begs two questions.  What kind of legitimate grievances could possibly justify beheadings and burning people to death?  And what type of people are being motivated to join Jihadist groups because of such atrocities?

Mr. Obama’s statement reflects his continuing refusal to acknowledge that the global jihad movement is motivated by a unifying ideology: radical Islam and its doctrine of imposing shariah worldwide through violence.

It also is impossible to square President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are attracting recruits for political and economic reasons with the fact that thousands from Western countries are buying plane tickets to fly to Turkey to join ISIS.  And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was not poor; he was the son of a Saudi billionaire.

Moreover, the president’s claims that ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists are perverting or exploiting Islam are at odds with radical Islam’s long historical legacy and its basis in the Koran.

The president also is ignoring growing radicalism in mainstream Islamist theology.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, confirmed this last week at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit when he said that to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda, the United States must avoid aligning with Islamist organizations which may currently be non-violent but sympathize or endorse violent jihadist groups.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said at the Defeat Jihad Summit that these groups are waging a “pre-violent’ campaign to advance a jihadist agenda in the West which the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  Click HERE to read a Center for Security Policy analysis of this issue, “Civilization Jihad: the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon.”

Jasser also took issue with “countering violent extremism,” the term President Obama uses to describe America’s efforts to oppose al-Qaeda, ISIS and other radical groups.  Jasser said “Stop the nonsense of ‘CVE’.  We’re not countering violent extremism.  I can’t help you as a reform-minded Muslim with my book The Battle for the Soul of Islam if you say this is a battle for the soul of violent extremism.  That’s nonsense.”

In short, President Obama is dead wrong.  Jihadist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are recruiting followers by promoting the anti-Western, anti-modern ideology of radical Islam.  They are recruiting people who hate modern society, Western civilization and the United States.  These disgruntled and disturbed individuals are not going to be dissuaded by a new U.S. jobs program for youth in Muslim countries or President Obama making excuses for their decision to join terrorist groups that are the face of evil in the modern world.

French Premier Manuel Valls had it right when he said after the Paris shootings by French jihadists last month, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

This is what President Obama needs to say about the threat posed by the global jihad movement.  Until the president stops denying this threat, he is signaling American weakness and lack of resolve which will allow this threat to continue to spread and grow.

DEFEAT JIHAD SUMMIT Identifies the Enemy in Unusually Plain Language

Screen-Shot-2015-02-12-at-8.58.26-AM-300x147UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 13, 2015:

On Wednesday February 11th, the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. hosted the first ever “Defeat Jihad Summit” with leaders represented from across the world discussing the threat of Islamic Jihadis and how to build a strategy for victory.  This has never been done since the jihadis in Iran declared war against us in 1979.

Participating in this event were Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukaseyformer House Speaker Newt GingrichSenator Ted CruzRepresentative Steven King, Representative Mike Pompeo (Kansas), Representative Scott Perry (Pennsylvania), Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former Representative Pete Hoekstra, Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson, Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, Claremont President Brian Kennedy, former Muslim Nonie Darwish, Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Australian pastor Mark Durie, Andrew McCarthy (author and former Chief CT Prosecutor, NY), the Honorable Joseph Schmitz (Inspector General, Department of Defense, Bush Administration), Judge Jeanine Pirro, human rights attorney Deborah Weiss, author/journalist Diana West, Dr. Charles Jacobs (Executive Director, Americans for Peace and Tolerance), national security expert and CSP Fellow J. Michael Waller, CSP Fellow and strategic analyst Major Stephen Coughlin (US Army, reserves), Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, retired CIA case officer Clare Lopez, and leadership of the Center for Security Policy.

Understanding the Threat Founder John Guandolo participated in this program as well.

The focus of the program was to clearly identify the enemy the United States and the West is facing, and begin a discussion on building long-term solutions to defeating the Islamic Movement in all its forms.  The focus is total victory.

In summation, the threat we face is a global Islamic Movement whose doctrine is Sharia (Islamic Law).  Now subverting governments worldwide, conquering nations/regions across the globe, and barbarically killing hundreds of thousands of human beings on several continents, this massive threat continues to be minimized and given little attention by the current U.S. administration.

While the threat of China, Russia, the Progressive Movement, and others threaten our way of life, the Global Islamic Movement is at the forefront because it is conquering nations and barbarically killing men, women, and children, and literally acting as the agent of evil in the world today.

Truth, courage, faith and determination are watchwords if victory in this war is to be had.  The light of liberty and the survival of Western civilization depend on citizens of free nations coming to grips with the fact we are at war – a war we must win if our children and grand children are to enjoy the fruits and blessings of liberty as we have.

See the best highlights of the day in these two 9 minute videos below:

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 1

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 2

The Defeat Jihad Summit can be viewed in its entirety here.  The program begins at the 28:50 mark.

Defeat Jihad Summit panel debates the use of ‘qualifiers’ when referring to Islam

moderate_radical-islam

CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.

Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”.  He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.

Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.

Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.

I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.

Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video.  I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West  but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:

 

***

Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:

Michael Mukasey at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gen. Jerry Boykin at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gov. Bobby JIndal at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Scott Perry at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Mike Pompeo at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Steve King at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Andrew McCarthy at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Pete Hoekstra at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Newt Gingrich at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Nonie Darwish

 

 

Retired Flag Officers, National Security Experts Advise Against Transfer of Gitmo Detainees and Surrender of Gitmo to Government of Cuba

2425974428

Center for Security Policy, Feb. 13, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.):Yesterday, dozens of distinguished retired senior military officers and national security experts signed a letter to President Obama, organized by the Center for Security Policy, urging him to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay open, and to refrain from transferring – either to foreign countries or to the United States – jihadist detainees currently held there.  The letter also cautions President Obama against acceding to the demands of the Castro regime that the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay itself be surrendered to the government of Cuba.

With respect to the detainees held at Gitmo, the letter underscores the extent to which transferring detainees out of Gitmo, either to foreign countries or to the United States, poses serious national security risks.  The letter states in part:

“The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers.  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so.  The actual number could well be considerably higher….”

“…While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention.  We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.”

The letter goes on to explain the strategic value of the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, and the importance of maintaining U.S. control over that installation from a military and geostrategic perspective.  The letter states in part:

“Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so.  Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.”

“Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran).  We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China.  (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)”

Among of the signatories of the letter were:

  • Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
  • Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
  • Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
  • Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
  • Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
  • Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:

“The individuals who have signed this letter urging President Obama to change course on his disastrous agenda to close down the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, deserve the nation’s gratitude for having stepped up, yet again, in defense of the national security of the United States.  It is also most welcome that the signatories of this letter recognize the geostrategic necessity of keeping Guantanamo Bay under American control, rather than surrendering it to the Castro regime, which would most assuredly use that base against the interests of the United States, and invite others to do the same.  President Obama should heed the advice of these distinguished warriors and national security professionals and keep Gitmo open, operational and in American hands.”

The full text of the letter, with signatures, can be found at the link below.

Gitmo letter 021115s

‘Defeat Jihad Summit’ Challenges Islamic Supremacism – And The Obama ‘Strategy’and A.U.M.F. That Disregard It

33480681301Center for Security Policy, Feb. 11, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah. Among the noteworthy participants in this roundtable discussion were:

  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
  • former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
  • S. Senator Ted Cruz
  • Representative Steven King
  • Representative Mike Pompeo
  • Representative Scott Perry
  • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
  • Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.)
  • Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame
  • Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders
  • Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard
  • Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson
  • Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger
  • former Muslim Nonie Darwish
  • Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
  • Australian pastor Mark Durie

Highlights of the Summit included:

  • A discussion of the nature of our jihadist enemies and the mainstream – not extremist –character of their inspiration: the politico-military-legal shariah doctrine derived from the sacred texts, institutions and authorities of Islam. There was widespread agreement that we mustunderstand and be able to name our foes, not pretend that they and their motivations are unknowable.
  • The global jihad takes various forms including: the violent kind; civilization (or cultural, stealthy and subversive) jihad; institutional jihad (employing entities like the multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations under the OIC’s influence); individual jihad (its perpetrators are mistakenly being described as “lone wolves”); and material support (which, under shariah, is prized as highly as the service of those who take up the sword).
  • America urgently needs a strategy for countering all such jihadist endeavors – one that brings to bear all instruments of national power to achieve a decisive correlation of forces and our victory. We face a truly existential threat from the global jihad movement, as do other nations of the Free World now under assault for sharing our values and love of liberty.
  • The  unveiled last Friday by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force being proposed by the administration are wholly inadequate. The former compounds the inadequacies of the President’s “lead-from-behind” approach with an even more passive one: “strategic patience”; the latter appears calculated to fail and to embolden, rather than defeat, the Islamic State or any other foe.

The Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., moderated the nearly six-hour summit. Afterwards, he commented:

The participants in the Defeat Jihad Summit have rendered a real public service. Their insights, analyses and recommendations concerning the threat from shariah-adherent Muslims and the need to empower and join forces with others in the Muslim community who eschew that brutally repressive ideology create the basis for a far more sound, effective and durable national security strategy.

We at the Center for Security Policy look forward to working with them and all those benefitting from the livestreaming and other products that will disseminate the fruits of this summit, far and wide.

To view videos of the summit’s presentations, go to www.SecureFreedom.org. For more information about the Summit, contact Samantha Nevore at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856.

The event was live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The event in its entirety is embedded below. Video highlights to follow shortly:

WATCH LIVE: Defeat Jihad Summit 9:00am to 3:00pm

3348068130The Center for Security Policy would like to invite you to watch what promises to be a remarkable event in Washington on 11 February. An international summit where the truth will actually be told about the real and growing danger facing our country and the rest of the Free World, a truth that is basically taboo in official circles these days.

All other things being equal, this practice of air-brushing out of presidential pronouncements, national strategies and the Obama administration’s public events any accurate depiction of the enemy or its ideology will be much in evidence at the “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” to be held at the White House on 18 February.

In the belief that the American people deserve better and, specifically, that they have a need-to-know who it is we are fighting and why, a small but representative sample of patriots and freedom fighters drawn from the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel and Australia will be joining forces for the “Defeat Jihad Summit.”

The event will be live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm at: http://youtu.be/xl-7nxBOWyU

This invitation-only event will be conducted in a roundtable discussion format involving some 35 distinguished counter-jihadists. Among the eminent participants will be: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Representatives Steven King and Mike Pompeo, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard and Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson.

In the course of the program, we will explore the reality that we confront not simply the Islamic State or al Qaeda, but what is truly a Global Jihad Movement – and the totalitarian, Islamic supremacist ideology that animates it: shariah. We’ll examine rigorously the adequacy of the measures taken to date by the United States and other Western nations to contend with this threat. And we’ll consider alternative strategies that may be considerably more effective in defeating jihad.

In that regard, we commend to you the Secure Freedom Strategy the Center for Security Policy rolled out on 16 January. It is modeled after the one President Reagan used to destroy the last totalitarian ideology that sought to vanquish us: Soviet Communism and the “Evil Empire” it begat. (A two-page paper outlining the Strategy’s highlights can be found HERE).

Dr. Walid Phares: Jihad in Europe — Implications for European and American Security

 

Published on Feb 9, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Free Fire Zone: A Declaration of War Against the Jihadists

 

CSP, by Jim Hanson, Feb. 9, 2015:

It’s long past time to stand up and call our enemy by their name, the Global Jihad Movement, and declare war against them. The Secure Freedom Strategy has a draft Declaration and we will be sharing it with Congress and other leaders at the Defeat Jihad Summit this Wednesday Feb. 11thin Washington DC.

Jihadists have been at war with those who don’t share their religious views since the founding of Islam around 600 AD. They’ve been at war with the United States since 1979 when they stormed our Embassy in Iran. The recent wave of Islamist terror sweeping the globe has made this impossible to ignore. President Obama has shown himself fundamentally incapable of leadership. The new Obama National Security Strategy is more of the same, doubling down on weakness and failure.

Congress was given the right to Declare War by the Founders and it is time for them to stand up and use it.

Here is what we propose: A declaration of war against The Global Jihad Movement which includes all the usual Islamist terrorist suspects- al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and plenty more. There is no point pretending there is any meaningful difference between them and as new ones spring up, they get added.

But the violent jihad is only half of the problem; this is a war fought by other means, too. The Islamists have front groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America, etc., fighting a non-violent jihad using lawsuits, lobbying, and the omni present claim that pointing any of this out is Islamophobia. These groups are very smart about the public statements they make in English, but if you dig a little deeper they are not at all shy about telling their adherents they are actively working to subvert us from within and use our own freedoms to do so.

The War Declaration has two tracks. The first is for the violent jihadists, the barbaric scum who slaughter innocents- Live by the sword, die by the sword in a fiery storm of righteous Hellfire. It authorizes and calls for the Commander in Chief to use all forces at his disposal to destroy the enemy. That includes the military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, information and cultural power of this great nation and all of our friends.

The second track is for the non-violent jihadis and the goal is the same to defeat their plans to impose their religion on all of us. The only difference is that no military actions are called for, but every other force that can be brought to bear must be. It is easy to see the horror and danger posed by the headcutters, but the infiltrators are just as dangerous.

So there it is, A Declaration of War against those who have already declared it against us, and the rest of the free world. The Center for Security Policy is hosting a Defeat Global Jihad Summit next week 11 February in DC with many national and international leaders attending and adding their thoughts and we hope their support to this vital step. We hope you will join us via the live stream on the web as well.

The Defeat ‘Jihad Summit’

ISIS-black-flag-Iraq-AFP-640x480Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Feb, 5, 2015:

Later this month, leaders and other influential figures from around the world will come together to address in a realistic way the emerging – and potentially existential  threat facing our nation and its friends overseas, and to resolve how best to counter it.

I am not talking about President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit” that will be held on February 18. Like the latest mutation of his doomed “strategy” for countering “ISIL”, er “DAISH,” which the mendacious Susan Rice will be rolling out tomorrow, that official confab will an exercise in disinformation, deflection and deceit, both about the reality of Islamic supremacism and the effectiveness of the steps the United States and its allies are taking to contend with it.

The international conclave that actually holds promise for being illuminating, fact-based, and consequential is a counterpoint to the official event that will take place exactly a week before:  Its sponsors, including my own Center for Security Policy, have given it a clarifying title: the “Defeat Jihad Summit.”

Like Team Obama’s shindig, this meeting will be by invitation only and feature a number of eminent figures in foreign governments, as well as our own. Unlike the closed-door official function, however, ours will be live-streamed.

Among those participating in the Defeat Jihad Summit will be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, and roughly three dozen other freedom fighters.

The alternative summit’s roundtable will focus on three topics: 

1) the nature of the enemy we face – the Global Jihad Movement and its animating ideology of shariah, i.e., not something euphemistically and misleadingly called “violent extremism”;

2) the actual degree to which the present policy for addressing this threat has been successful or a failure – a realistic appraisal devoid of the cheerleading, wishful thinking, misdirection and worse that colors Ms. Rice’s every utterance (predicatably, to include those served up at Brookings tomorrow) and that will be the leitmotif of the CVE Summit, with its official/Muslim Brotherhood and fellow-traveling participants;

3) an alternative approach that is fact-based, non-submissive to jihadist threats and influence operations and, ideally based on a strategy proven to be successful in countering totalitarian ideologies bent on our destruction – i.e., the Secure Freedom Strategy modeled on the one President Reagan launched 32 years ago last month that sought, and achieved, the liquidation of Soviet communism and its “Evil Empire.”

Watch the live-stream of the Defeat Jihad Summit at Breitbart.com or SecureFreedom.org next Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. for what promises to be an extraordinary event – and necessary corrective – to the failed Obama “strategy” and the insidious February 18 Counter-Violent Extremism fandango intended to dignify and promote it.

Iran Truth Squad Briefing

3634283604 (1)

 

 

Center For Security Policy, Jan. 28, 2015

Streaming Live 1:30 pm est Wed Jan 28th US Capitol Building Washington, DC

President Obama, in his January 20th State of the Union address, stated: “…for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

This assertion is false. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program unabated, constituting a paramount national security threat to the United States and its allies. The Center for Security Policy will hold a panel discussion on the true state of the Iranian threat, and what Congress must do to prevent Tehran’s realization of its nuclear ambitions.

WHO:

  • Dr. Andrew Bostom, Author, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Jihad and Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran
  • Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis, Center for Security Policy; former CIA operations officer
  • Fred Fleitz, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy; former Senior Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; former Chief of Staff to then-Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; former CIA analyst

With remarks by:

  • Rep. Trent Franks (Arizona, 8th District) (invited), Member, House Armed Services Committee; Chairman, House EMP Caucus

Obama Straight Up Lied about Iran’s Nukes Tonight: Their Progress Hasn’t Been ‘Halted’

3634283604CSP, by Fred Fleitz, Jan. 21, 2015:

By claiming in his State of the Union address Tuesday night that “for the first time in a decade” progress in the Iranian nuclear program has been halted and Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile has been reduced, President Obama continued an unfortunate pattern of behavior by his administration on this issue: He outright lied.

President Obama’s claims aren’t even close to being true. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has surged since 2009 and has continued to increase since an interim nuclear agreement with Iran was agreed to in November 2013.

The number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, rising from seven to at least eight over the last year.

The below chart from a recent Center for Security Policy analysis illustrates the increase in Iran’s enriched  uranium stockpile and the number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium since Mr. Obama became president — no sign of the president’s proclaimed decline. (Click here to view the entire analysis.)

pic_corner_012115_iranWhile it is true Iran stopped enriching uranium to the 20 percent uranium-235 level as required by the November 2013 interim agreement, and is diluting 20 percent–enriched uranium to reactor-grade, this concession has had a negligible effect in reducing the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most of its enriched uranium stockpile happens to be at the reactor-grade level, and Iran can convert that material into enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear bomb in 2.2 to 3.5 months, only about two weeks longer than it would take to do so using 20 percent enriched uranium.

The United States has offered huge, one-sided concessions in its talks with Iran that will allow the country  to continue to enriched uranium, will not force it to give up its enriched-uranium stockpile, and will not require a halt to construction of a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor.

Iran has failed to cooperate with the IAEA during the talks and cheated on the interim agreement by testing advanced centrifuges.

Based on these factors, I could only conclude in a November 21 NRO article that the Obama administration has no interest in an agreement to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and has instead quietly decided to contain an Iranian nuke program.

Congress must ignore the president’s ridiculous claim that new sanctions against Iran would set back progress made in the nuclear talks and alienate our allies. These talks were fatally flawed from the beginning and are certain to produce a weak, short-lived deal that will destabilize the Middle East.

This is why 14 national leaders signed a Center for Security Policy letter to congressional leaders last November calling on Congress to repudiate the nuclear talks and pass new sanctions against Iran until it complies with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Sanctions legislation in the House and Senate is reportedly close to obtaining veto-proof majorities.  Even if President Obama vetoes new sanctions, passing legislation to impose them will send a clear message to Iran and the world that the American people do not support the nuclear talks and that a future U.S. administration is likely to ignore any agreement reached in them and start over.