Unsafe Places: Islamist Mosques

mosque-American-flag-ReutersBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.

The contempt that America’s enemies have for the United States these days is palpable. The most obvious current example is Vladimir Putin’s disdain for President Obama, whom he regards as little more than a speed-bump on the road to his conquest of Ukraine and perhaps other nations in what the Kremlin calls Russia’s “near-abroad.”

Not content with snatching Crimea and preparing reprises elsewhere, Putin has a jet buzz one of our ships in the Black Sea for ninety minutes then launches a new multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile. By contrast, Team Obama is busily dismantling what’s left of our navy and strategic forces.

Then there’s the back of the hand treatment China showed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel when, during his recent visit to the People’s Republic, the Pentagon chief had the temerity to lecture his hosts about how to behave internationally. They took him to see their just-refurbished aircraft carrier and unveiled a new fighter aircraft to operate from it. The best Hagel could do was announce that the U.S. was going to respond to Beijing’s increasing belligerence in the region by sending there a grand total of two more anti-missile destroyers–by 2017.

A more subtle, but no less in-your-face kind of contempt has just been served up by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other Islamists in this country.

To mark the occasion of the first anniversary of two of their fellow jihadists’ murderous attack at the Boston Marathon, the leaders of several Brotherhood fronts have launched something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” They evidently think we are so stupid, or at least now so submissive, that they can try to put mosques off-limits to law enforcement. This is all the more astounding since we know that the perpetrators of the terrorism of a year ago used the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge to become versed in the ways of the supremacist Islamist doctrine known as shariah and the jihad it commands.

A chief proponent of this Safe Spaces gambit is Salam al-Marayati, the president of an Islamist influence operation out of California with extensive access to the Obama administration, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In an opinion piece posted by altmuslim blog on March 28, al-Marayati actually makes plain the true purpose of his Safe Spaces Initiative.

Notwithstanding the portrayal of this proposal as a means of preventing radicalization in mosques, in the words of al-Marayati: “Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the latest announcement by William Bratton–the former police commissioner recently re-appointed by New York’s new, Islamist-friendly mayor, Bill de Blasio–would sure seem to justify the Brothers’ low regard for us. As the New York Timesreported today “The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods….Plainclothes detectives looked for ‘hot spots’ of radicalization that might give the police an early warning about terrorist plots.”

The Times quoted the NYPD’s chief spokesman, Stephen Davis, who made clear the completeness of the department’s submission to the Islamists who style themselves as the “leaders” and “representatives” of all Muslim Americans: “‘Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis,” Mr. Davis said. “In the future, we will gather that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the communities they serve.”

I discussed the folly of making mosques surveillance-free zones in an interview on Secure Freedom Radio this evening with former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Andrew C. McCarthy. Here’s part of our conversation (for the entire podcast, click here):

FRANK GAFFNEY: The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s a Muslim Brother fellow-traveller jihadist type, has a rather poetic turn of phrase for it. He says, “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks, and the faithful our army.” And, Andy, this gives rise to a concern that I’m sure you share about an initiative that some of these Muslim Brotherhood types, notably Mohamed Magid, the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America–and, oh, by the way, a frequent visitor at the Obama White House and prominent source of counsel to him and others in his Administration–

ANDY MCCARTHY: And another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation.

FG: Indeed. These guys have cooked up something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” I wonder what you make of that idea, particularly as it seems their purpose is to, as one of them put it, “keep government informants…from violating the sanctity of the mosque.”

AM: Yeah, well, you know, it’s unfortunate that with this particular Justice Department and this Administration they’re probably pushing on an open door.

FG: It’s probably a wired game, let’s be honest. These guys have almost certainly got this rigged with the Justice Department.

AM: But the amazing thing is for all of Obama and Eric Holder’s caterwauling about, you know, how we’ve proved again and again that the civilian justice system is the best way to prosecute terrorism cases–well, why don’t they ever check into what was proved in those prosecutions that they like to tout around? Because if they open the transcripts…what they would find is that mosques were used as recruitment centers, they were used for conspiratorial conversations and agreements, they were used to house weapons, they were used to transfer weapons, and they really were used to light a fire under people who might have been fence-sitters but who were powerfully influenced by some of the imams, particularly the guy who I prosecuted in the 1990s, the Blind Sheikh.

It was in the mosques that [Omar Abdel-Rahman] did most of the damage that he did to the United States. So this is not something we speculate about, Frank. This is something that’s actually been proved in court, and proved again and again and again. So, if you’re going to say that a mosque needs to be a safe space, then what you’re really saying is we’ve taken willful blindness, which was a problem, and we’ve now codified it, so it’s not just willful blindness; it’s just mulish, absolute refusal to come to terms with what we’re up against.

FG: Yeah. And to speak to the other subject of your trilogy there, it is a formula for more of the grand jihad, not less. It is a certainty that you will find more Tsarnaev boys being recruited, or being trained, or being armed, or in other ways being enabled. It simply is mindboggling, Andy, and I think the American people couldn’t comprehend what’s going on here, or believe it if told it.

We can’t afford more of the sort of willful blindness that will give rise to more unsafe mosques and other places, and more jihad.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

CPAC’s Blind Spot

3235888515By Frank Gaffney:

What would you call an issue portfolio that is vital to the future of our country, central to conservatism’s past electoral success and compelling to significant parts of the demographics likely to determine the Right’s future competitiveness? If you were the American Conservative Union, sponsor of the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, you would evidently call it taboo.

The rest of us would call it the national security.

To be sure, despite a palpable effort by CPAC organizers to low-ball topics addressing the defense and foreign policy challenges of our time, a few speakers nonetheless touched on them.  But the degree to which such issues deserved to be a central focus of the three-day meeting – but weren’t – was made palpable by a parallel, day-long event held on CPAC’s first day under the sponsorship of EMPAct America and Breitbart News Network. I was privileged to have had a hand in organizing and moderating the proceedings.

Dubbed the “National Security Action Summit,” the program featured remarks from nearly forty participants including Senators Ted Cruz and David Vitter and five Members of Congress – Representatives Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Trent Franks, Mo Brooks and Jim Bridenstein.

Among the other highpoints were: a keynote address provided by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, remarks by Phyllis Schlafly, comments by undercover investigative journalist James O’Keefe and a rousing closing speech by Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Panels addressed topics that were largely ignored by CPAC, but should not have been.  These included: the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” and enablers; the dangers inherent in open borders and amnesty to both the country and the GOP; the need for truth-telling and accountability in the Benghazigate scandal; Obama’s endangering of the common defense, evident in and facilitated by his hollowing out of the military; the crisis in the Ukraine and what we should do about it; and the existential threat to our country posed by an electric grid dangerously vulnerable to attack and naturally occurring solar storms.  (Videos of the entire conference can be viewed at www.homelandthreats.com.)

Read more at Center for Security Policy

(Hover over menu item “Latest Events” to access videos of speakers and panels)

C-PAC’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem

suhailBy Diana West:

One of the hallmarks of the post-9/11 years is the Western democracies’ systematic failures to analyze and debate the issues of this era of aggressively ascendant Islam — their systematic failures to connect the Islamic terrorist war on the West with the colonization of Western countries through Islamic immigration, with the clashes between Islamic and Western law and custom that occur at every nexus. This failure marks this same era of ascendant Islam as an era of Western submission.

As a conservative forum of American politics, C-PAC is no different. It may be the “mecca” of American patriots who want to defend their Constitution, but CPAC organizers have seen fit to enforce radio silence on these same issues, just as though they didn’t exist — just as though there were no threat to liberty posed by the expansion of Islam through the advance of sharia, Islam’s law. This is another feature of leadership’s abdication, cowardice and corruption — The Death of the Grown-Up and American Betrayal, both.

Read the following column, and ask yourself whether a chain of influence related to the Muslim Brotherhood might have something to do with it.

This week’s syndicated column

As thousands of conservatives from across the country gather outside Washington, D.C., this week for the annual CPAC conference, they get to see and cheer on their favorite conservative all-stars and presidential hopefuls in person – Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and many more. But something else is going on. Amid the hoopla, book signings, meet and greets, speeches, panels and bands, a tense, no-holds-barred fight is under way to try to rid CPAC of a pair of influential men with track records of working with America’s enemies – Islamic organizations the U.S. government has linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and larger world of jihad.

It sounds like the setup to a thriller: Here is the pre-eminent showcase of red-meat conservatism, and at its organizational heart are movers and shakers with links to the world jihadist movement. But these are the facts as laid out in a meticulous, 40-plus-page “Statement of Facts” solemnly signed last month by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, former U.S. representative and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West, retired U.S. Navy Adm. James A. Lyons, retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former Pentagon intelligence official William G. Boykin, former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo and former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

These nine men and one woman sent their dossier and a letter to Cleta Mitchell, counsel of the American Conservative Union (ACU), the organization that has staged CPAC for the past 40 years. They also sent it to every member of the ACU board.

Among these ACU board members is Suhail Khan. A former Bush administration appointee, now a member of a newly minted minority “engagement” council of the Republican National Committee, Khan is one of the two men under these former national security officials’ scrutiny. The other is Khan’s longtime ally Grover Norquist, the well-known anti-tax activist and ubiquitous presence at CPAC and other conservative power centers.

The case against Khan and Norquist is not new. Frank Gaffney, a national security expert and former Reagan Pentagon official (also a friend and colleague of mine), first began making it more than a decade ago. On behalf of ACU, Mitchell officially rejected a similar presentation by Gaffney in 2011, maintaining that it had “no basis” in fact, but rather constituted “continuing venom against Grover” – as if, for example, laying bare both Khan’s and Norquist’s troubling, past associations with such enemies of America as the later-convicted al-Qaida terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood member Abdulrahman “Oh Allah, destroy America” Alamoudi could be discounted as a personality clash.

As a personal aside, I would like to add that in all of my career in Washington, I have met no finer man nor greater patriot than Frank Gaffney, who has brought this case to light out of concern for America’s national security.

Then, of course, he has all those facts on his side. With Woolsey, Mukasey, West and the rest now attesting to them, ACU’s quite feeble and unbecoming excuses won’t wash. The central question remains, now anchored by the reputations of heavyweight public servants. That question is: How long will the ACU and CPAC both embrace and be guided by men who, as distilled by the executive summary of the group’s Statement of Facts, “have extensive ties to ‘various Muslim extremist organizations,’ individuals associated with them and their activities”?

The statement continues: “These include organizations established in federal court as prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations with ties to the designated terrorist organization, Hamas.”

Ties to groups avowed to America’s destruction are not usually seen as conservative movement resume enhancers. But that’s not the only bizarre aspect to this long struggle to reintroduce the survival reflex into conservative thinking. The ACU seems unable to recognize that people who build political careers associating with operatives from Muslim Brotherhood front groups and advancing their interests straight into the inner sanctum of the Bush White House are not the best candidates for conservative leadership.

All Americans, not just conservatives, should read the Statement of Facts. In concise and measured language, it lifts the curtain on the complex machinations of Islamic influence agents and operatives orbiting around the network of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front organizations that have multiplied throughout the U.S. in the past 50 years. (Suhail Khan’s parents actually founded several of them.) The group’s goal? Nothing less than to destroy the United States and transform what is left into an Islamic-ruled land.

Read more

SEN. DAVID VITTER TO KEYNOTE ‘UNINVITED II’, NEW GUESTS AND PANELS ANNOUNCED

20140302_Slider_EMPact_Natl_Sec_ActionSummit_3614Breitbart, by :

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) will deliver a keynote address on the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal aliens at “The Uninvited II: The National Security Action Summit” during CPAC, Breitbart News Network is proud to announce.

Co-hosting the event alongside EMPAct America and the Center for Security Policy, Breitbart News Network will present the second annual installment of the “Uninvited” event—this year a full day of events and speakers rather than just one panel—at the Westin Hotel at National Harbor all day Thursday, from 8 AM until after 4 PM. Tickets are available for free but prior registration is required at HomelandThreats.com.

First elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Vitter is known for being as vicious a fighter against amnesty as Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has offered scores of amendments and pieces of legislation to counteract efforts from Democrats and Republicans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Breitbart News is also proud to announce that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) will also speak on the topic of amnesty at the “Uninvited II.” Additionally, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) will speak on how big a threat to America’s national security the national debt presents.

Newly announced speakers also include former George W. Bush administration Western Hemisphere foreign policy official and current American Enterprise Institute fellow Amb. Roger Noriega; Judicial Watch’s top investigator Chris Farrell; American Foreign Policy Council president Herman Pirchner; Foundation for the Defense of Democracies national security expert Sebastian Gorka; former CIA agent Clare Lopez; and the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen. In addition, Breitbart News Network Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak will speak, as will retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bob Newman, Amb. Hank Cooper, and EMPAct America president Dr. Peter Pry.

Also revealed today are panel presentations and topics at the “Uninvited II” event that include “The Common Defense Endangered: The Case for Peace Through Strength 2.0,” and a panel focused on the crisis unfolding in the Ukraine right now, titled “Crisis in the Ukraine: Putin’s Bid for USSR 2.0 and the Needed U.S. Response.” There will also be a panel focused on efforts to protect America’s power grids by pointing out vulnerabilities.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this week, other speakers who will present at the “Uninvited II” include Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will also speak, as will several retired military generals, commanders, and admirals, former members of Congress, and anti-amnesty and pro-military grassroots activists.

Update: TED CRUZ TO SPEAK AT ‘THE UNINVITED II: THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT’

Center for Security Policy petitioning to remove Norquist, Khan from the ACU

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Examiner, by Christopher Collins:

The Center for Security Policy on Tuesday sent notice through email communications that they are pursuing and petitioning the removal of American Conservative Union (ACU) members, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, due to their influence from the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

On February 11, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners sent a letter to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell, urging her and her colleagues to take action against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two ACU members who have influenced operations against conservatives, for several years, on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. President of the Center for Security policy stated that as of March 4, 2014, ACU board member Cleta Mitchell has ignored their request.

“Both Norquist and Khan have had relationships with a bevy of individuals with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood– including jailed al-Qaeda and Brotherhood member Abdurahman Alamoudi and onetime head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Sami al-Arian– that make their participation in the American Conservative Union anathema to the organization’s supposed vision,” Gaffney said in his email.

“It behooves true conservatives, Republicans… and, indeed, the American people as a whole to resist such subversive operations and to expose and counter those who enable them.”

In statements released on February 18, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners that included:

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz signed a letter to remove Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

The signed letter addressed statements of facts sent to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell said in part:

“Grover Norquist served on the founding Board of Directors of the Islamic Free Market Institute and reportedly as its chairman. Norquist was identified as the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation when its registration papers were filed in the District of Columbia on July 23, 1998.”

“Suhail Khan is the son of Mahboob and Malika Khan, Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and founders of numerous Muslim organizations in the United States. Suhail Khan has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

In July 1999, Khan told a conference sponsored by the largest of such groups, the very first mentioned in the attachment to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Islamic Society of North America in which he said, “It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-60s and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.”

Gaffney said, “The time has come for the American Conservative Union to disassociate itself from Norquist and Khan. Nothing less than the Board of Directors’ repudiation of these individuals will suffice. The coming together of thousands of conservative activists at this year’s CPAC offers an opportunity for mainstream conservatives to demand the ACU distance itself from Norquist and Khan.”

“Furthermore, by signing this petition and sending ACU Chairman Al Cardenas and Executive Director Dan Schneider emails, it will let them know that Norquist and Khan need to be removed out of the American Conservative Union.”

Gaffney also pointed out that a newly released monograph, “Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right” reproduces the letter to Mitchell and the accompanying Statements of Facts she ignored and that it is also available at Amazon.com.

safe_image

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

BREITBART TO CO-HOST ‘THE UNINVITED II: THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT’ DURING CPAC

PH_national_security_banner

Live Webcast will be HERE

Breitbart News Network will be hosting its second annual national security forum during the Conservative Political Action Conference and expand the event from a single panel to a full day of events with top conservative leaders.

Speakers for the event include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK).

Many of the speakers presenting at the Uninvited II were not invited to CPAC, which is organized by the American Conservative Union.

EMPAct America’s Henry Schwartz and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon will be leading the summit; Center for Security Policy President and former Reagan official Frank Gaffney will moderate.

The summit will take place at the Westin Hotel around the corner from CPAC’s location at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center at National Harbor. This year’s “Uninvited” event will take place on Thursday, March 6, the first day of CPAC.

“Conservatives — and Americans more generally — must be informed about the various international challenges confronting the United States today and in the years to come, and what we can do to address them,” Gaffney said. “The National Security Action Conference is a much-needed corrective to the failure of CPAC to cover such topics. Better yet, it will do so with many conservative leaders and others from whom especially the CPAC audience needs to hear, but no longer can.”

“Now more than ever CPAC must honor their membership and turn away from the gutting of our military, giving in to a nuclear Iran and the weakening of our nation at war,” said EMPact America’s David Bellavia. “This cannot stand and EMPact America proudly stands with Breitbart.com to ensure attention is paid to our national security and the feckless policies of the Obama administration, even if CPAC does not.”

Panel topics include the Muslim Brotherhood, “Amnesty and Open Borders: The End of America – and the GOP,” and “Benghazigate: The Ugly Truth and the Cover-up,” among others.

Confirmed speakers for 2014’s “The Uninvited” include:

  • Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey;
  • Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK);
  • Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Congressmen Pete Hoekstra and Roscoe Bartlett;
  • Former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Conway, former Commander-in-Chief Pacific Fleet Admiral “Ace” Lyons, retired Army Lt. Gen. “Jerry” Boykin, and retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney;
  • Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro;
  • Charles Woods, father of Benghazi hero Ty Woods;
  • Former Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy;
  • Anti-Islamist Muslim leader Dr. Zuhdi Jasser;
  • Eagle Forum founder and longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, NumbersUSA director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks, and Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian

More information about the event will soon follow. Check Breitbart News throughout the week for updates.

‘UNINVITED II’ FINAL SCHEDULE, GUEST LIST REVEALED

braveheart-AP

Judge Jeanine: “Lights Out: Danger to U.S. Power Grid”

CSP, Justice with Judge Jeanine devoted an hour-long special to the many dangerous threats to the US electric grid, including EMP attack, solar flares, and insecure transformers.

 

 

Available at Amazon:

Guilty Knowledge: What the US Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, But Refuses to Fix (Center for Security Policy Archival Series)

Deadly Life-Support for a Threatening Iran

emCenter for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama committed national security fraud.  He claimed to have “halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolled parts of that program back.” Unfortunately, it is becoming ever more apparent that the only thing he’s actually “rolled back” is the sanctions regime meant to halt that program.

For example, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that Iranian oil exports have increased by roughly one-quarter in the last month alone. China, Japan, South Korea and India are set to provide what amounts to life-support for the mullahs’ regime by buying vast quantities of the once-off-limits product.  The Indians say they would like to purchase oil “exclusively from Tehran through 2015.”

According to the Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo, “exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency…. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that ‘Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.’”

This statistic provides fresh evidence that the Obama administration perpetrated another fraud by declaring that the value to Iran of the deal’s sanctions relief would amount to no more than $7 billion.  In fact, it appears that, thanks to increased oil sales, the mullahs will actually receive cash infusions of over $20 billion.

Since there are no restrictions on the use of even the $4.2 billion in frozen Iranian funds we are obliged under the deal to give back to Tehran – including on March 1st $450 million and a further $550 million on March 7th – and since money is, after all, fungible, it is likely that these windfalls will wind up financing activities that endanger us.

For one thing, Tehran is making plain that its nuclear program is not halted.  Notably, Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif declared last month, “The White House tries to portray [the deal] as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again. If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. We are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.”

According to another senior Iranian negotiator, Abbas Aaraghchi, it would “take less than a day” to return to enriching uranium to the 20% level.  In other words, the undoing of the sanctions regime – which is, as a practical matter, effectively irreversible – has been bought in exchange for what amount to gestures by the mullahs that can be immediately negated at will.

It is bad enough that Team Obama was completely snookered on the nuclear program.  But Iran is deliberately adding insult to injury by its simultaneous and increasingly threatening behavior on other fronts.

Notably, Iranian ballistic missile capabilities continue to grow.  Last week, Tehran tested two indigenously produced long-range Bina missiles. U.S. intelligence is said to believe Iran can have a missile capable of reaching the United States within two years. And, thanks to its extensive collaboration with North Korea on nuclear and missile developments – including so-called “space-launch” vehicles, we may face such a threat even sooner.

Meanwhile, Iran’s mullahocracy is ramping up the ominous presence and activities of its operatives in our hemisphere. Iranian agents conduct espionage, influence operations and collaboration with enemies of this country – from the region’s dictators to narco-traffickers – under diplomatic cover, the banner of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and that of Hezbollah. No good can come of an emboldened adversary acting with impunity in what should rightly be thought of as our front yard.

The latest addition to this combustible mix is Iran’s announcement that it will begin deploying warships off America’s coasts.  It would be a mistake to discount this development as a symbolic act of no strategic import.  At a time when U.S. naval resources are declining, the task of monitoring and, if necessary, countering such hostile warships may not receive the priority it deserves.

Alternatively, the presence of Iranian naval combatants may distract such attention as the Navy can provide from another threat: tramp steamers equipped to perform the sort of “Scud-in-a-tub” attack of which the blue-ribbon congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Threat Commission warned years ago. Iran has put in place nearly all the required elements of such a strike – specifically, missiles capable of being launched from sea-going platforms, tested to deliver a device to apogee where a nuclear detonation would trigger a burst of electromagnetic energy that could have devastating effects on our electric grid and country.  The one missing ingredient would appear to be a serviceable nuclear weapon. And, thanks to Team Obama, that may also be in the mullahs’ hands in short order.

America is being put at risk by Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud. Will he be held accountable for it, and corrective actions taken, before we are afflicted by the predictable consequences?

 

‘Conservative’ Attorney called out for Denial of Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration

By Walid Shoebat:

It never ceases to amaze how blind people can be when it comes to the tactics of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and sympathizers in the U.S. The latest example comes courtesy of Attorney Cleta Mitchell, an otherwise incredibly intelligent woman, who represents American patriot and True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht in the latter’s battle with the IRS.Nonetheless, she has apparently constructed a firewall in her mind that fends off uncomfortable facts regarding Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

The inability or unwillingness of Mitchell to see these realities may extend to the tax-exempt status received by Malik Obama’s foundation. We have provided Mitchell’s office with our work on this matter and walked them through many of the details. Contrasting the treatment received by the President’s brother with that received by Engelbrecht provides an excellent opportunity for Mitchell to go on offense for her client. Then again, if she cannot acknowledge the uncomfortable yet simple truths about Norquist and Khan, it’s quite possible she’ll stand down. Unfortunately, it’s her client who would suffer in that case.

Like Norquist and Khan, Mitchell has served on the Board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which is the umbrella organization for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She used to be the ACU Chairman but no longer holds that position. Khan is still listed as a Board member; Norquist is not.

In 2011, the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney sent a letter to then ACU Chairman Mitchell, requesting an investigation of Norquist and Khan. The evidence against these men is overwhelming.

Both Norquist and Khan are closely linked to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

The 2011 letter sent to ACU’s Board of Directors by Mitchell in response to the Center for Security Policy’s claims smacked of someone in denial. When someone is presented with truths they don’t want to face, said person often lashes out at the messenger, which is what Mitchell did. Here are some excerpts from her 2 1/2 page letter:

Mr. Gaffney has… persistently attacked Grover over a period of many years… there was absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such organizations or their activities… With respect to Mr. Gaffney’s allegations against Grover, those are purely and simply character assassination… Mr. Gaffney simply has some personal animosity toward Grover and, because he cannot wage any winning battle with Grover, Mr. Gaffney has turned his attention to Suhail and has mercilessly attacked Suhail with no basis in fact to do so – while continuing to wage a rumor battle against Grover… I have tried to talk Mr.Gaffney into ceasing these attacks – but to no avail… Mr. Gaffney’s baseless attacks… Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn, against Mr.Gaffney’s ceaseless war against them. It is reprehensible and simply has no place in the conservative movement.

There are two paragraphs in Mitchell’s 2011 letter that go a long way in explaining her denial of very painful truths. They are based on faulty premise, that individuals granted security clearances could not possibly have nefarious motives:

I have specifically pointed out to Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly) thatafter 9/11, Suhail was on the staff of the White House, in the Executive Office of the President, with a security clearance. I asked Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly), “How do you account for the fact that Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?” I have never received any reasoned response to this crucial question.

Perhaps one of the most consequential results of Khan getting a security clearance was his becoming a White House ‘gatekeeper’ for Muslim Brotherhood leaders. In one of the most revealing articles on the subject, New Republic’s Franklin Foer explained – just two months after the 9/11 attacks – how Khan brought in Muslim Brotherhood leaders to meet with the President. This must have shaped a very flawed policy relative to Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S.

Instead of considering that the security clearance process may have been compromised or corrupted, Mitchell assumed it is airtight and impenetrable. Big mistake. How does one explainHuma Abedin’s case or, for that matter, Malik Obama’s?

Mitchell makes a similar mistake when talking about Norquist’s wife. That mistake is assuming that the security clearance process has not been corrupted:

And I’m certain that Mr. Gaffney’s hatred is further fueled by the fact that Grover is married to a Muslim-American woman (who also has worked for the United States government in very responsible positions, I might add!)

In much the same way that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) smacked down Rep. Keith Ellison’s two-page letter in defense of Abedin in 2012 with a 16-page letter, Gaffney’s group has now responded to Mitchell’s three-page letter with 51 pages, signed by some prominent figures to include a former CIA Director, a former Attorney General, a former 3-Star General, a 4-Star Admiral, and several others.

We encourage you to visit the hyperlinks embedded above to view the evidence against both Khan and Norquist but here are two videos of Khan at CPAC, 2011 and 2012 respectively.The first is Khan being asked about the Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. Keep in mind that his father helped to found the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA), both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. His mother sat on the Board of a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter. Watch as Khan issues a bald-faced lie, saying there are ‘no Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States’. He denied his parents’ work:

 

At CPAC one year later (2012), Khan was approached by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. This video says it all. In response to claims that he’s tied to Alamoudi, Khan accuses Geller of being tied to… Barack Obama’s hero, Saul Alinksy?

 

Also see:

 

 

 

Influence Operation

Frank Gaffney / AP

Frank Gaffney / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by :

Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to influence the U.S. conservative movement as part of non-violent jihad against the United States, according to a group of retired national security leaders.

The 10 former officials—including a retired attorney general, former CIA director, a retired general and an admiral, and a former counterterrorism prosecutor—challenged an assessment made several years ago of the political outreach activities by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, a former George W. Bush administration official, and their purported links to Islamist subversive groups.

The 2011 assessment in question was conducted for the American Conservative Union (ACU) by Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer and ACU board member who concluded there was no factual basis for charges linking the two activists to Islamists.

In a cover letter accompanying a 45-page dossier made public Tuesday, the former officials supported charges made by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration defense official, who has said both activists are tied to and have engaged in activities “in support of Islamists inside the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood, its operatives, front groups, and agendas.”

The letter and “statement of facts” were produced in response to Mitchell’s review for the ACU that stated she found “no factual basis” to Gaffney’s charges. The rebuttal letter and dossier also was sent to ACU Chairman Alberto R. Cardenas.

The dossier, titled “The Islamists’—and their Enablers’—Assault on the Right: The case against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan,” presents a detailed rebuttal of the Mitchell memorandum.

“The statement of facts demonstrates that Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist have extensive ties to ‘various Muslim extremist organizations,’ individuals associated with them and their activities,” the report said.

“These include: organizations established in federal court as prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations with ties to the designated terrorist organization, Hamas; two convicted terrorists, Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian; and efforts to deny prosecutors an important counterterrorism tool vilified by such groups and individuals as ‘secret evidence,’” the report said.

The former officials stated in the cover letter that Mitchell should address the compiled statement of facts that they asserted support Gaffney’s charges and contradict her 2011 assessment.

Additionally, the former officials said the Mitchell memorandum prompted the ACU board to endorse the conduct of two of its members that “is at odds with the stated mission of the American Conservative Union—namely, ‘harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense.’”

Mitchell said in an email she had no plan to read the report and thus would have no comment.

A spokeswoman for Norquist had no immediate comment, and a spokesman did not return an email seeking comment. Khan could not be reached for comment and did not return emails seeking comment.

The dossier concludes that Muslim Brotherhood front groups are engaged in “civilization jihad” aimed at destroying Western civilization from within. It also says “Muslim Brotherhood front groups and operatives have targeted, among others, the Republican Party and conservative movement.”

The cover letter was signed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey; former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; former Rep. Allen B. West; retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former undersecretary of defense for intelligence; former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy; Former FBI Agent John Guandolo; retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz; Amb. Henry F. Cooper, former director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Defense Initiative Organization; and former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

Cannon Shot

New publicity of attack on California transmission substation re-energizes efforts to protect the grid

download (70)

Sign the Petition to Protect the Grid!

For background see Jerry Gordon’s article at NER:

The Metcalf Incident: California Power Station Terrorist Attack Reveals Highly Vulnerable National Grid

 

Jeanine Pirro is helping to get the message out:

 

 

 

And Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney together with EMPact America and the Reserve Officers Association hosted a live webcast on Feb. 6

American Security and The Iranian Bomb: Analyzing Threats at Home and Abroad

 

Ted Cruz: Nuclear Iran greatest national security threat to US:

 

Woolsey: EMP catastrophe worse than effects of nuclear war:

 

The full video of the event can be viewed here

Obama’s Nuclear ‘Perfect Storm’

1950158182Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

America is confronting a very dangerous nuclear “perfect storm.”  You might be forgiven for thinking that prospect has sufficient importance to warrant mention in President Obama’s State of our Union.  But, if past experience is any guide, it probably won’t make the cut in a speech with an Alinskyite focus on persuading the public and his Republican opponents that the greatest threat the country faces is “income inequality.”

Reality must intrude, however, on such cynical political machinations.  Consider the following elements of this perfect storm:

  • The Washington Free Beacon reports that a Defense Science Board task force has completed a three-year review of U.S. intelligence capabilities with respect to emerging nuclear threats and found them seriously wanting.  The Beacon’s Adam Kredo says the DSB found that: “‘The nation is not yet organized or fully equipped’ to detect clandestine nuclear activities across the globe, and in most cases ‘current solutions are either inadequate, or more often, do not exist.’”

This conclusion is all the more alarming given the current strategic environment. The panel concluded: “The actual or threatened acquisition of nuclear weapons by more actors – with a range of motivations, capabilities and approaches – is emerging in numbers not seen since the early days of the Cold War.  Many of these actors are hostile to the U.S. and its allies, and of greater worry, they do not appear to be bound by established norms, nor are they deterred by traditional means.”

Think about that the next time – presumably in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address – the President claims his seriously defective deal with Iran will curb its bid for the Bomb.  The truth is that we have no clue about the extent of the mullahs’ covert nuclear weapons program, let alone any reason to believe it will be impacted at all by the terms of an agreement that covers only a few declared facilities and only in ways that are readily reversible.

  • It seems certain that those intelligence deficiencies will only grow as President Obama further compromises our collection policies, practices and capabilities.  As a new study by the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Fleitz and Clare Lopez points out, that is the inevitable effect of his affording many foreign leaders and even “ordinary people” the privacy rights heretofore reserved for American citizens and persons.

The question occurs: Will our spies and intelligence agencies find it still more difficult to perform the mission of ferreting out what enemies are doing to ready electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and other nuclear threats for possible use against us?

  • Speaking of EMP, Americans have lately been getting a much-needed crash-course on the existential danger it poses to our country and population.  With the enthusiastic support of a new EMP Coalition chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, Bret Baier and Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News last week aired must-see-TV segments about this threat.  They exposed the damage Iran or other actors could inflict on the United States by taking down its electric grid, possibly with the EMP unleashed by a single high-altitude nuclear detonation. Do you think Mr. Obama will mention that threat to our Union – or the fact that we need to harden our grid against the certainty that intense solar flaring will at some point in the future cause similar effects?
  • Mr. Obama is also unlikely to address another element of the nuclear perfect storm: the free-fall being experienced by America’s deterrent to nuclear and other threats. In the wake of a series of performance, readiness and disciplinary problems with personnel manning some of the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently issued an all-hands-on-deck memorandum to the Pentagon leadership.

The Secretary’s memo read, in part: “Personnel failures within this force threaten to jeopardize the trust the American people have placed in us to keep our nuclear weapons safe and secure.”  It went on to lay out an “action plan” to try to remedy the situation, which included this directive to the senior occupants of the E-Ring: “Examine the underlying leadership and management principles governing the strategic deterrence enterprise and the health of the culture that implements those principles.”

Mr. Hagel’s initiative is certainly welcome, the more so for its coming from a man who, until recently, was a champion of “Global Zero” – the reckless and truly insidious campaign to take down the U.S. nuclear arsenal, on the bizarre theory that other nations will then follow our example.

  • Unfortunately, the most serious “underlying leadership and management” problem confronting America’s strategic deterrence enterprise today is the Commander-in-Chief’s continuing adherence to his policy of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons,” starting with ours.  Unless and until he makes clear his commitment to maintaining and modernizing our deterrent, it will continue to unravel as a result of demoralized personnel, obsolescing weapon systems and ever more emboldened adversaries.

The State of the Union would be a perfect vehicle to announce such a commitment and to rally the Congress and the American people to the task of contending with the emerging nuclear perfect storm.  Will President Obama follow the lead of his Defense Secretary and do so?

 

See also:

Secure Freedom Radio with John Guandolo: Raising a Jihadi Generation

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

download (65)John Guandolo discusses his new book, RAISING A JIHADI GENERATIONJohn is a former Marine Reconnaissance Officer who served as a commissioned officer and Platoon Commander in both the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company and 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, leading his infantry unit through combat operations in the Persian Gulf War.  He has also served the FBI as a Subject Matter Expert in the Counter Terrorism Division (CTD), SWAT Team Leader, and a Special Agent for 12 years.   From his perspective in the national security community, John recounts the pervasive political correctness that that inhibits Federal law enforcement from understanding and strategically responding to the threat of Islamist terrorism in the United States.

Visit his website at Understanding The Threat

 

How to Tell When Barack Obama is Lying

2768806406Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know how to tell when President Obama is lying?  These days, it’s easy:  His lips are moving.

Unfortunately, the president’s infamous lie as part of his sales pitch for Obamacare that “you can keep your doctor, period” is now clearly not the exception. It’s the rule.  The pattern is especially worrisome with respect to his practice of what amounts to serial national security fraud.

Consider, for example, the latest on the Iran nuclear weapons front. Mr. Obama insists that his interim deal “freezes” the mullahs’ nuclear program for six months.  He may be the only one who believes that whopper.  Certainly, the Iranian regime does not, and neither should we.

Yet, the President insisted at a Brookings Institution symposium on December 7th that, “There’s nothing in this agreement or document that grants Iran a right to enrich.” In fact, as the Iranians have noted, the United States and the other “Perm 5+1” members clearly accepted in two different places in the so-called interim accord that Iran would continue the enrichment of uranium.

Whether we call this arrangement an acknowledgment of an Iranian “right” or not is beside the point.  What matters is that the long lead-time item in Iran’s acquiring sufficient nuclear weapons-grade uranium has been legitimated by President Obama’s treacherous diplomacy.

The magnitude of the treachery being exhibited by a man who continues to profess that he will not let Iran get the bomb is evident in another comment made in the course of his remarks at Brookings. Mr. Obama floated for the first time the idea that the final agreement, that supposedly will be fashioned in the next six months, will allow Iran  to enrich uranium in perpetuity: “It is my strong belief that we can envision a end state that gives us an assurance that, even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have [a] breakout capability.”

Forget about the weasel-wording caveats and the President’s empty platitudes about “the military option” remaining on the table. He has thus cleared the way for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, probably on his watch.  Just as his health care fraud is properly known as Obamacare, the fruit of the mullah’s nuclear weapons program he has just green-lighted should be known as Obamabomb.

It seems that the real purpose of the interim deal was less to “freeze” Iran’s burgeoning nuclear capability than it was to block the one military option that may actually remain viable: Israel’s.

There is no small irony to the fact that Mr. Obama chose as the venue for his latest lies about his commitment to the security of the Jewish State – which he described as “sacrosanct” – the Brookings event sponsored by an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban.  In response to questions posed by Mr. Saban, the President insisted, for example, that: “Our support of Israel’s security has never been stronger….And that’s not just my opinion; I think that’s something that can be verified.”

Actually, it can be readily verified that no president has done more to jeopardize Israel’s security.  The bill of particulars may start, but does not end, with Obama’s clearing the way for the Iran to have the capability to act on its threats to “wipe Israel off the map.” Even before the interim deal, his administration had acted to impede, if not foreclose, Israeli options to prevent that existential danger. (For instance, it compromised, and thereby ended, a secret bilateral arrangement with Azerbaijan to provide post-strike recovery airfields for Israel’s jets.)

Insult was added to injury when the President lied to Israel’s Saban: “Prime Minister Netanyahu and I have had constant consultations on these issues throughout the last five years.” The truth is that Obama completely blindsided Netanyahu about his secret negotiations with Iran over the past year.

Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has also bludgeoned Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians that would be perilous for the Jewish State. He declared that Israel must withdraw to earlier, indefensible boundaries correctly described as the “Auschwitz borders.” He has publicly demeaned and humiliated Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his Secretary of State, John Kerry, has encouraged European boycotts of Israel and “a third intifada” (or Palestinian terrorist war).

Most recently, Team Obama has let it be known that the United States would “impose” a solution on Israel next year if the Jewish State does not make the concessions necessary to satisfy the Palestinians. President Obama nonetheless lied to Mr. Saban: “What I’ve consistently said is that the only way this is going to be resolved is if the people of Israel and the Palestinian people make a determination that their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren will be better off with peace than with conflict.”

The people of the United States, and the futures of their children and grandchildren, are being imperiled by a president whose disastrous national security policies are being exacerbated by his lies about them. These constitute high crimes, and should be treated as such by the Congress.

 

American Betrayal 2.0

2947115834By Frank Gaffney at CSP:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have described November 16, 1933 as a day that will live in infamy.  As syndicated columnist Diana West notes in her splendid new book,American Betrayal, that date marked the beginning of a sustained and odious practice of our government lying to us about the Russians.  It appears that the Obama administration is determined to perpetrate a reprise of this practice.  Call it American Betrayal 2.0.

According to Ms. West, the betrayal syndrome began when FDR normalized relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of a written promise from the Kremlin not to subvert the United States.  Of course, the Soviets lied.  But, for years thereafter, so did our own government – with horrific effects – by insisting the Soviets were reliable friends, and even wartime allies.

Sound familiar?  Today, Team Obama is engaging in its own, serial and disastrous betrayals – from promising you can keep your health care to a deal that will allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program.  But two others regarding the Russians warrant special attention.

First, the New York Times reported on the eightieth anniversary of the infamous normalization deal (without, of course, noting the irony) that the U.S. Department of State was beavering away at a new arrangement that would allow half-a-dozen Russian facilities to be installed across the United States.  Ostensibly, these sites would be used to help the Kremlin build-out and operate its so-called Glonass satellite system, a counterpart to and competitor with America’s Global Positioning System (GPS).

There are several things wrong with this picture.  First, it is not clear why we would want to help the Russians compete with the GPS.  Second, the practical effect of the Red Army having its own global positioning system is that it may make ours a more certain target in the event of any future hostilities between us, or perhaps even between the United States and Russian clients.

Then, there is the problem that Glonass signals may interfere with those controlling our GPS satellites, especially if the Russian ground stations might be in proximity to the American ones.  Another serious concern has to be precisely what electronic equipment the Russians will put into these facilities.  Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently wrote three agency heads out of concern that, among other things, some of such gear might not actually be needed for Glonass – but be useful for espionage, electronic warfare or other activities inimical to our security.

According to the Times report: “For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

It is a travesty, but in keeping with past betrayals of America, that our State Department – presumably, with White House approval – believes that we need to make further concessions in response to bad behavior by the Kremlin.  The outrageousness of such an idea is compounded by the fact that the folks in Foggy Bottom neglected to secure its approval from either the Defense Department or the intelligence community.  Both are reportedly up in arms about it – as indeed they should be.  But will they prevail?

At the same time, the Obama administration has another betrayal in the works.  This one involves not only the nation as a whole, but several of its Democratic allies in the United States Senate.

It seems that Team Obama is intent on dismantling at least one squadron of fifty Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles as its preferred approach to meeting the reductions in nuclear forces required by the seriously defective New START Treaty with Russia.  A timeline provided to Congress indicates that, in order for that to happen by the “treaty compliance date” of February 5, 2018, the Air Force needs to begin the lengthy decommissioning process by launching an environmental impact assessment next month.

This should be a shock to Senators Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  They were assured by President Obama that the ICBM forces like those located in Montana and commanded by the Global Strike Command in Louisiana would not be affected by New START.  It was on the basis of such assurances that all three Senators voted for that accord.

These legislators and their colleagues from the other ICBM basing states – Republican John Hoeven and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming – should take the lead in amending the National Defense Authorization Act scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week to ensure that, as the President promised, the land-based leg of our nuclear Triad is not further weakened.  That is especially advisable at a time when the Russians are aggressively beefing up their nuclear threat to this country and its allies.

America needs a reset, alright.  It should feature not further concessions to the Russians, however, but an end to the betrayals of our people to the benefit of the Kremlin that have been perpetrated now for eighty years.  No more.