Hat Tip: BB
PM Netanyahu’s Speech in Congress (Transcript)
By: Alan Caruba
The strangest thing about Obama’s efforts to achieve friendly relations with Iran, something he has tried to do since he first took office in 2009, is that Iran has made it abundantly clear since its Islamic revolution in 1979 that it hates America and, in tandem, Israel as well.
In an Iranian naval drill on February 25, Iran blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier near the entrance of the Persian Gulf. It was a full-size replica of the USS Nimitz. This is the antithesis of friendship, but just to make their position clear, Iranian Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi, commander of its naval forces, let it be known that “We have the most advanced sea mines which cannot be imagined by the Americans.”
But the Americans—in this case the President of the United States and his negotiators—have been making every concession they can to get an agreement that would limit Iran’s ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. Dr. Norman Bailey, an adjunct professor of economic statecraft at the Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., recently wrote that “The U.S. looks set to present its allies with a dangerous fait accompli on Iran’s nuclear program.”
“The most recent deadline of March 24th means only one thing,” Dr. Bailey wrote in a World Tribune commentary. “A deal has been reached between the U.S. and Iran, which will be announced to the other five participants when the Obama administration decides it is convenient to do so.” The other five obviously have nothing to say regarding the negotiations. At one point, the French foreign minister stormed out of the initial meeting proclaiming “This is a fool’s deal.”
It’s worse than a fool’s deal. It is a deal that is predicated on the nuclear destruction of Israel and, after that, the U.S. is next. One might think that Obama knows this and one might be right. People like Mayor Rudy Giuliani have long noticed that Obama doesn’t seem to like America very much.
A commentary by Lawrence Sellin, PhD, a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the U.S. Army Reserve, and tours of service in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Major General Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army, retired, noted that the nuclear agreement did not include measures that would prevent any cooperation between Iran and North Korea or other rogue states. This has not gone unnoticed by the Israelis. Intelligence Minister, Yuval Steinitz, has noted that “We all know that Iran, Syria and North Korea are very close to each other.”
North Korea has its own nuclear weapons program and, as Dr. Sellin and Maj. Gen. Vallely, warned, “Unless specifically prohibited and enforced within the terms and conditions” of the deal, “Tehran may attempt to sidestep the protocols by ‘outsourcing’ parts of the bomb production process to North Korea, Iran’s long-term partner on everything from launch missiles to guidance systems to nuclear war head technology and other required components.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, a party to the negotiations with Secretary John Kerry, met with a visiting North Korean deputy foreign minister, Ri Gil Song, shortly after February 2014 Vienna discussions. Fars News reported that their meetings were devoted to “bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries’ bilateral ties.”
Anyone recall George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil”? It was Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.
In case you are less than confident of Iran’s intentions, in 2013 before the previous nuclear negotiations were concluded, according to the Fars News Agency, the regimes’ outlet run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, said “America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel).”
The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. On September 29, 2014, he addressed the United Nations. The message will be the same. Any deal with Iran will be a bad deal for Israel which has been in the crosshairs of the Iranians since they came to power in 1979. This isn’t an “existential” threat. It is a threat that can and will destroy Israel if permitted to occur. Obama’s negotiations will leave Israel no other option than to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
If the U.S. Congress has the means to deter and render Obama’s negotiations null and void, they had better do so. On September 26, 2007, the U.S. Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. The long record of Iran and its state-sponsored terrorism can be found by visiting Wikipedia.
What we are witnessing is a level of insane appeasement comparable to that of the 1930s when European nations refused to acknowledge Nazi Germany’s clear intention to conquer them.
Iran’s intentions are known to Obama and no doubt to our Congress. They are surely known to Israel and the Gulf nations. If history is any guide, these negotiations will put the world on the path to a cataclysm that defies the imagination.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
Ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress on Tuesday, the White House initiated a full-tilt public relations battle against the Israeli leader, both publicly and behind the scenes. Yet despite that lobbying by the Obama administration to dissuade some Democrats from attending Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, more than 75% of Democrats are defying the President, and plan to attend, whether out of cowardice or principle.
It’s hard to know which. Some, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), are attending, but are angry at Netanyahu and the Republicans for putting them in this position. It is a poor reflection on the President’s foreign policy that his own party has to choose between a long-standing ally and the President’s reputation.
The latest headline, as this column is published, states that 55 Democrats to skip Netanyahu speech to Congress. Considering that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 46 U.S. senators who caucus as Democrats (including two Independents), that is still less than a quarter of all congressional Democrats. This Congress, the 114th, has the largest Republican majority since the Congress of 1929 to 1931.
The New York Times reported on Monday about the “uninvited problems” that Netanyahu’s speech brings for Jewish Democrats, and refers to the “bruising political showdown” that his visit has initiated. But the paper’s readers are left with the impression that the blame lies with Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH) and Netanyahu, not President Obama and his administration’s ongoing opposition to the speech.
“Mr. Boehner—seemingly ready to try to separate Jewish voters from the Democratic Party they have long favored—remains resolute about his decision,” reports Jonathan Weisman for the Times. “He is also open about his hope that Mr. Netanyahu’s address will undermine the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate an accord with Iran that halts that nation’s nuclear program.”
“But to many Democrats, this time Mr. Netanyahu appears to have gone out of his way to alienate them,” reports Weisman.
On Monday, President Obama’s controversial Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period.” The use of the word “period” at the end of her sentence, for the purpose of emphasis, was an unfortunate reminder of President Obama’s repeated promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period” How did that turn out? It became PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year.
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC after Powers, and assured the world that he had no intention of insulting President Obama, and that their differences were similar to a family feud. But an Israeli news outlet is reporting that as a result of Netanyahu’s opposition to the Iran deal, the U.S. has cut off intelligence cooperation with Israel “in terms of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program.”
The opposition to Netanyahu’s speech has filtered down directly from the White House, even if the mainstream media refuse to report on this fact. They prefer to pin the blame for the current conflict all on the Israeli Prime Minister, and on Speaker of the House John Boehner (R\-OH). The media continue to misreport the timeline of events leading up to Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation from Boehner to speak before Congress. The White House was made aware of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted, as even The New York Times has acknowledged in a correction.
In early February the UK Daily Mail reported, “Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration.”
“I’m not saying the president called anyone personally,” David Martosko quotes the anonymous White House staffer as saying. “But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.”
The administration went on an outright “offensive against Netanyahu” at the end of February, according to Politico, through the words of Susan Rice, Press Secretary Josh Earnest, and Secretary of State John Kerry. But the day before Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, members of the Obama administration attempted to tone down their criticism a bit. Press Secretary Earnest said that the President believes each member of Congress should decide for him or herself whether or not to attend.
Vice President Joe Biden also will not attend the speech.
Despite all this, the vast majority of Congressional Democrats have chosen their side: Israel, and Netanyahu. More than 75% of Democratic Members from both chambers will be attending Netanyahu’s speech, as of this writing. It also turns out that many of those boycotting are among the most extreme left-wingers in Congress—no surprise there. As a matter of fact, 26 of the 55 who have announced they are not attending are either members of the so-called “Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)” or of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), or both. The DSA no longer publishes a list of its Congressional members, but there are many who are in both groups. Some even hold leadership positions within these groups.
Bret Stephens makes the case in The Wall Street Journal that “The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel.” He notes that “Over the weekend, a defensive White House put out a statement noting the various ways it has supported Israel. It highlighted the 1985 U.S.-Israel free-trade agreement and a military assistance package concluded in 2007. When Barack Obama must cite the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.”
Here is the list of those who will not attend PM Netanyahu’s speech, according to The Hill: Those who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have CPC after their name. All are Democrats, or caucus with the Democrats.
SENATE – 8 members
Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) CPC
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.D.)
Sen .Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)
HOUSE – 47 members
Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) CPC
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fl.) CPC
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Rep. Lois Capps (Cal.)
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.) CPC
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) CPC
Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) CPC
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.) CPC
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.) CPC
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) CPC
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) CPC
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Tex.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) Co-Chair, CPC
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) CPC
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio) CPC
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Co-Chair, CPC
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) CPC
Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Tex.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) CPC
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) Whip, CPC
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) CPC
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) CPC
Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) CPC
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wisc.) CPC
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) (non-voting Member) CPC
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine) CPC
Rep. David Price (N.C.)
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) CPC
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) Vice Chair, CPC
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) CPC
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.
A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.
Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”
As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.
The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.
Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”
To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”
He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”
This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.
De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”
De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.
“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”
He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.
In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.
What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”
For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”
De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.
Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.
On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.
For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.
It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.
By: Retired Adm. James A. Lyons
Accuracy in Media
President Obama’s adamant refusal to link the barbaric atrocities committed by the Islamic State and affiliated al-Qaeda militias to Islam is an insult to the intelligence of all thinking Americans. His insistence that these atrocities are the result of “violent extremism,” not associated with Islam, lessens his already diminished credibility. The Quran and Islamic Law (Shariah) prove him wrong since there are 109 verses in the Quran that can be considered to sanction violence. Furthermore, chapter 2, verse 106 (on abrogation) makes it clear that the later violent verses take precedence over the earlier, less violent ones.
In February, President Obama hosted a White House Summit on countering “violent extremism.” As it turned out, it was essentially a public relations media event that had nothing substantive to offer in terms of countering the Islamic State’s barbaric acts of terrorism. Instead, it was more of a leftist, progressive agenda sympathetic to “Islamic sensibilities and grievances.” It cited lack of education and job opportunities as part of the root cause that enables IS to attract young Muslims. Mind boggling, particularly when Christians, women, and children are having their heads chopped off and are being buried alive.
If it were to have been a serious summit, you would have expected the Director of the FBI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be full participants. However, they were not invited. Instead, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its front organizations were full participants, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both unindicted co-conspirators for funding terrorism from the 2008 Dallas, Texas Holy Land Foundation Trial. Another MB front organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was also represented.
The question must be asked: how can the Obama administration continue to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood when its declared creed, verified by the FBI, is to destroy the United States from within by our own “miserable hands,” and replace our Constitution with Islamic “Seventh Century” Shariah Law?
The MB today, with its deep penetration of all our national security and intelligence agencies, has now been institutionalized. With its carte blanche entry into the White House, it has, in effect, become a defacto cabinet member. All Americans should understand that there is no difference between the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Their objectives are all the same, it’s only the methods they use to achieve it that may be different. It is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination (same as Communism), with Islam the dominant religion and Shariah the law.
The policies of the Obama administration in countering the Islamic jihadists of IS are clearly confusing to our allies. To understand President Obama’s strategy, everything this administration does must be viewed through the prism of his stated objective: to “fundamentally transform America.” This strategy is clear. It is anti-US and anti-Western—but pro-Islam, pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. With his Marxist background, it can be assumed that Obama does not view American power and influence as a force for good in the world. Otherwise, why would he want to fundamentally transform America? Therefore, anything that undercuts US military power and influence is viewed as being “objectively progressive.” President Obama’s refusal to provide legitimate defensive weapons to Ukraine falls under this category. The net result is the emasculation of NATO.
The “leading from behind” strategy announced at the start of the Libyan war, and the unilateral disarmament of our military forces, also fall under this category. A defining moment in the Libyan war was when the Obama administration switched sides in the global war on terror and provided weapons and material support to al-Qaeda and MB-controlled militias. Furthermore, as we now know, the Libyan war was unnecessary since Muammar Gadhafi was prepared to abdicate.
The Middle East today is a disaster area with failed states in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and now Yemen. What’s astonishing is that we are now a de facto partner with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. By so doing, we are enhancing the expansion of Iran’s hegemony throughout the Middle East at the expense of our long term allies—Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The Obama administration’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq gave Iran a clear signal that we would not contest their influence over Iraq. It was a foolish, or worse, attempt to obtain a nuclear weapons agreement with the evil Ayatollah Khamenei regime. Today, Iran is already a nuclear threshold state that has sufficient enriched uranium to make 8 to 12 nuclear weapons within a few months. Furthermore, a reliable source has informed me that Iran secretly bought four nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Muslim Republic of Kazakhstan in 1992. They were said to have been transferred to Iran and stored in the Lavizan military site near Tehran.
More recently, it was reported by Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, on 26 February, 2015, that Iran is operating another secret advanced, uranium underground enrichment site northeast of Tehran that was previously unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
With thousands of American lives lost due to Iran’s more than 35 years of aggression against the United States, it is inconceivable that any American administration would agree to enter into such a critical agreement, like the one currently being negotiated with such an evil regime.
When you consider all of the above, as well as the Obama administration’s abuse of power and the many scandals including Benghazi, the IRS, Operation Fast and Furious, Obamacare, and the immigration fiasco, any other administration would be brought up on charges of threatening the security of the United States. America, it’s up to you to influence your representatives to hold President Obama accountable.
Hat Tip: Dick Manasseri
Sound The Alarm – The Betrayal Papers
U.S. Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood
- Monday March 2nd 5 PM EST – The Greg Marshall Show
Listen Live http://bit.ly/1M1ujM3
- Saturday March 7th 7:35 AM EST – The Abolitionists’ Roundtable
Listen Live http://bit.ly/1htkiuQ
- Wednesday March 4th 9 AM EST – The Mike Hewitt Show
Listen Live http://bit.ly/1F0OgQJ