The Denise Simon Experience – 12/08/16

The Denise Simon Experience

Hosted by DENISE SIMON, the Senior Research / Intelligence Analyst for Foreign and Domestic Policy for numerous flag officers and intelligence organizations.

SEGMENT 1:  U.S. Army Colonel Allen West (ret) chatted with Denise on who Obama will or will not pardon before he leaves the White House including Bowe Bergdahl. The Colonel also spoke to the ability to achieve victory on the battlefield with a new Trump administration.

SEGMENT 2:  Lisa Curtis, former CIA analyst for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Institute explains Trump’s opening to address continued hostilities in the region with al Qaeda, Haqqani and the Taliban.

SEGMENT 3 & 4:  Trevor Louden, successful author and film-maker of ‘Enemies Within’ chatted with Denise on what the Marxist, Left and Progressives are going to do for a mission to destroy all things Republican and the Trump administration.




Khizr Khan, the Media and the Rest of the Story

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media


When Khizr M. Khan took to the stage at this year’s Democratic National Convention, he was a virtual unknown. But his message struck a chord with many people.

On stage Khan challenged Donald Trump’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and said that “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

Khan’s comments struck a chord with anyone who ever had a son, daughter, husband or wife, or parent who ever served overseas in a war zone. He and his wife lost a son who died performing a heroic act to save his fellow soldiers in Iraq. Democrats opportunistically saw this as yet another cudgel to use against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, to undermine his influence among Americans, particularly the military. The media saw a great opportunity to finally bury the candidacy of Trump. But as with many of these stories, the Khans turned out to be more than initially meets the eye. In this case, much more.

Trump, ever supremely confident, stepped into the media minefield, and agreed to an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who, as we’ve previously pointed out, worked for the Clintons for years as one of their hit men. He was the communications director for Bill Clinton. And as the host of ABC’s This Week, Stephanopoulos failed to reveal an obvious conflict of interest—namely that he was a donor to the Clinton Foundation, and a featured speaker at their events. Despite these circumstances, Stephanopoulos attempted to discredit Peter Schweizer and his book, Clinton Cash, which documents many of the deals and pay-for-play that led to the Clintons raising about $3 billion. Yet the Clinton Foundation uses about 10 percent of its revenues for the causes they claim to be helping, or “direct charitable grants.”

Trump joined Stephanopoulos on his show, and was unprepared. “How would you answer that father? What sacrifice have you made for your country?” queriedStephanopoulos. As a result of his comments Trump is now accused of attacking Mrs. Ghazala Khan—but what he questioned was why she stood by silently. He actually called the Khans’ son a hero on Twitter, and said to Stephanopoulos that Khizr Khan looked like a “nice guy.” Trump’s criticisms were aimed at Islam, where women and gays are second class citizens—at best.

“Okay—so Trump’s remarks, which arguably were touching upon the whole Islamic submission of women angle, were terrible,” writes Matt Vespa for Townhall. “Yet, let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton also criticized a Gold Star mother. During the Democratic debate on March 9, Clinton pretty much called Patricia Smith, mother of slain U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, a liar….”

Here was that exchange during the March debate between moderator Jorge Ramos of Univision and Mrs. Clinton. But first a video clip was shown of Patricia Smith, the mother of information officer Sean Smith, who died along with Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the terrorist attacks at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

PATRICIA SMITH: Hillary and Obama and Panetta and Biden and all of—and Susan Rice, all told me it was a video, when they knew it was not the video. And they said that they would call me and let me know what the outcome was.


RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, did you lie to them?

CLINTON: You know, look. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can’t even imagine the grief that she has for losing her son, but she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong.

Actually, three other family members of the Benghazi heroes remember Mrs. Clinton’s words similarly to Patricia Smith.

Mr. Khan went on CNN’s State of the Union and described Trump as having a “black soul,” and being unfit for the presidency. While Mr. Khan quickly became a causecélèbre for the Democrats and the liberal media, Patricia Smith says that she “was treated like dirt. I don’t think the Khan family was treated that way. But I was treated like dirt, I was called a liar.”

Information has now started coming out about Khan’s own background. Amid the heightened scrutiny, Mr. Khan took down his website, which showed that he specializes in “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.” He explained to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the website came down because “there is a risk that somebody will damage it, somebody may hack it. I asked them [the web host] what do you suggest. They said under such circumstances, we normally keep it offline when this madness will go away, we will bring it back. I asked them to do that.”

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000,” Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Washington Examiner.

Khan’s website indicates that he used to work for the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Washington, DC from 1998 to 2007. Hogan & Hartson became Hogan Lovells in 2010. “That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters ‘firm wide’—back in 2004,” writesMatthew Boyle for Breitbart. The law firm, “as Breitbart News has demonstrated is highly connected with the Clinton apparatus and with the Saudi government.”

New York Times reporter Nick Confessore accused Breitbart of conducting an “oppo dump,” or opposition research for one of its articles on Khan. New York magazine’s Annie Lowery also tweeted that the Breitbart research was an “oppo dump.”

Is it opposition research to look into the background of those in the media spotlight? I thought that was called good reporting.

It also turns out that Mr. Khan supports Sharia law, which runs counter to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

“In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called ‘Human Rights In Islam’” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement,” reports Paul Sperry for Breitbart News.

“Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to ‘beat’ wives who act ‘unseemly,’” continues Sperry. “Of course, such cruel and unusual Sharia punishments, ranging from stonings and floggings to beheadings, would be a flagrant violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Mr. Khan aimed to lecture Trump about a Constitution which he himself apparently believes should yield to Islamic Sharia law. Khan’s 1983 paper, “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,” states that “The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah. …All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”

In that same previously referenced CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Khan statedthat “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.”

“No one believes all Muslims represent an inherent threat to the safety and security of the American people. That would be foolish,” writes Joseph Farah for WorldNetDaily. “But to ignore the global pattern of violence and terrorism perpetrated on a daily basis by radical Islamic terrorists and state agents—not to mention oppressive tyranny of the most repulsive kind by many nation-states that deprive women, religious minorities and others of all their human rights—is simply the worst kind of disingenuousness.”

How did the folks at Breitbart discover these facts about Khan? Google. Apparently other media organizations didn’t take the time, or make an effort to find out who Khan is. Or maybe they did and just don’t care. I also want to recommend reading Allen West’s powerful message to Mr. Khan. Mr. West is a retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel and former U.S. congressman from Florida, as well as a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


Colonel Allen West Talks About Black Lives Matter

By: Alex Nitzberg | Accuracy in Media

Allen West

The Black Lives Matter movement is a tool used by the left to maintain their “…90 percent plus hold on the black political electorate,” according to Colonel Allen West.

“I think that their whole existence is just a liberal progressive socialist movement to make sure that they keep the black community on the 21st century economic plantation that’s been created by the left.”

While the organization purports to protest societal discrimination and violence against black Americans, Colonel West exposed the movement’s hypocrisy by noting its profound silence on a multitude of issues wreaking havoc in black communities.

“If it really was about black lives mattering, then they would be in Chicago, they would be at many of the inner cities, they would be talking about better education opportunities, they would be talking about the fact that since Roe versus Wade there have been 13 to 15 million black children who have lost their lives, been killed.”

Continue reading


The 21st Century “Peace Through Strength” Mandate

Hat Tip: Rita Wiese
Lt. Col. (Retired) Allen West
Accuracy in Media

We will not be successful on the 21st Century battlefield unless we have a 21st Century plan, a mandate. And I believe it must be “peace through strength.” The enemy we are facing, global Islamic jihadism, understands only strength. We will not have peace without it.

When I ponder the current conflagration in which our nation – actually the world – finds itself, I am reminded of this quote by Sun Tzu, from The Art of War:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

First of all, let’s get one thing straight. We are not in a “War on Terror.” A nation cannot fight a tactic, which is what “terror” is – a means to an end. It would be the same as if we referred to World War II as the “War on the Blitzkrieg” or the”Battle Against the Kamikaze.” In failing to identify the enemy, which some feel is unnecessary, we find ourselves at a clear disadvantage in achieving victory, as Sun Tzu would postulate. As well, when we fail to recognize the global Islamic jihadist movement, we lack the lucid ability to understand the history, goals, and objectives of this enemy who consistently articulates their designs, only to be discarded or dismissed strategically.

So the question becomes how does the United States of America face ISIS, an unlawful enemy combatant on the modern 21st century battlefield? Let us use the quote of Sun Tzu to present a policy direction and solution to engage and defeat not just ISIS – but the global Islamic jihad.

In order to defeat ISIS and the global Islamic jihad movement we must develop strategic imperatives, which, at this time, we lack. By simply stating tactical level tasks from a strategic venue we are deceiving ourselves. It’s quite easy to throw out words like degrade, defeat, destroy and not realize each of those words has a very different definition to a military planner. If we will admit to ourselves who this enemy is and their desire is to control territory, we can begin to assert our understanding of their intent.

Right now, we’re repeating a terrible mistake as we did in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to come to power and hold territory. Their local movement became allied with the global intentions of Al Qaeda and one Osama bin Laden. The result was not just the establishment of a savage, barbaric 7th century state but also the exportation of a vile ideology rooted in the execution of terrorist activities.

Therefore, the first strategic imperative is to deny the enemy sanctuary. This simply means we must commit to enemy-oriented rather than terrain-oriented operations. We must go where the enemy is seeking to establish its base of operations. Where we have failed to this point is focusing on nation building and not the conduct of simultaneous strike operations. The message we must send to the enemy – whom we must define – is that we will not be deterred from engaging if they seek respite within defined national borders.

Also, let’s be honest. Drones are an asset but not a strategic panacea and certainly not a strategy. Drones are a tool that should be employed at the operational or perhaps even the tactical level. The last thing that we need is a repeat of Vietnam when airstrikes were being approved from the White House. We must employ the greatest advantage we possess which is our strategic mobility – not Whack-A-Mole – but area denial. One of the critical facts we accept about the enemy is that we must be willing to take the fight to them if they do not respect borders and boundaries.

The second strategic imperative to achieve victory against ISIS and the global Islamic jihad is to cut off their flow of men, materiel and resources. We must interdict their lines of communications and support. Any enemy must be able to replenish its ranks and we must find those transit routes and sever them. This is where we must come to understand this is not just about the non-state, non-uniform belligerents, it is also about the nation-states which sponsor them and support their activities. We have to follow the money. At the strategic level, this is where we employ our economic national power to cut off the support to these jihadist groups such as ISIS – but also Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Abu Sayyaf, and all the rest. We should work with allies to develop a better system to track the movements of jihadists seeking to enter into designated hot zones, such as the Syrian area of operations, which has become the base of operations for ISIS.

The third strategic imperative involves the second element of national power – information. We must win the information war. Our reticence in the West to castigate an enemy, such as ISIS, in a negative perspective is confounding. Our own media sources spent more resources droning on about Abu Ghraib in Iraq than firmly focusing on who ISIS is and the atrocities of Islamic jihadism. We continue to use the worn out excuse that we do not want to “offend Muslims.” We do not have to do that, but we cannot abdicate the responsibility to win the war against their propaganda. We cannot be successful and victorious against this enemy if we lack the intestinal fortitude to simply declare who they are and what they do as evil.

The last strategic imperative necessary to achieve success against ISIS and the global Islamic jihad is to cordon off the enemy and reduce their sphere of influence. We must shrink the enemy’s territory. Sadly, we are not effective in disallowing the promulgation and proliferation of Islamist ideology. And, mistakenly here in the United States, we are allowing this ideology a base of operations under the guise of freedom of religion, not wanting to recognize when an ideology is in conflict with our fundamental principles and values. Case in point: the continued characterization of Nidal Hasan’s attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence” – when the truth has been uncovered in his trial. If we do not cordon off the exportation of Islamic jihadism, you will have movements, such as ISIS, grow even more widespread.

These four strategic imperatives could translate into operational theater imperatives, as well. We must grasp the concept that we do not have a war in Afghanistan or a war in Iraq. We have combat theaters of operation and those commanders need concise, strategic level guidance in order to develop their own. Ask yourself right now, who is the operational theater commander in the Iraq/Syria AO (area of operations)? When we have clear strategic and operational level imperatives, then we have better guidance to issue to tactical level commanders.

At the tactical level there are five imperatives: find, fix, engage, destroy and pursue. These imperatives are nested in the overall strategic and operational level objectives. We must utilize our intelligence assets to find the enemy and deny them sanctuary. When the enemy is found we must use strategic and operational level assets to fix the enemy in place, interdicting their flow of support. When the enemy is fixed in place and denied the ability to re-position, it becomes easier at the tactical level to engage them with available weapon systems and achieve the desired effect of destroying them in place. However, that is not the end. We must support our tactical level forces in pursuing the enemy to bring about its complete destruction, not allowing the enemy to escape, which is what happened in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan.

These strategic, operational and tactical imperatives are enemy-focused and their success depends on our knowing the enemy – not dismissing their goals, objectives and declared intentions.

We can no longer become mired down in the business of nation building. We must redesign our focus on conducting strike operations, simultaneously across the battlefield. This means we must move toward a power projection force instead of a Cold War era forward deployed force structure. One of the most immediate things we need to do is restructure our military, not based on budget dollars, but rather geographic Area of Responsibility of the Combatant Commanders (PACOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM). This can be done in a fiscally responsible way and must be based upon deployable forces from maritime and aerial platforms. Sadly, we are going in the wrong direction by decimating our armed force structure. We need to construct a 21st century military that can contend with the fluid situation of state and non-state actors across the combatant commands. If you look at our force structure we are playing a shell game, shifting forces here and there instead of having dedicated forces which will be able to conduct operations to deny the enemy establishing itself. Again, this is not about developing large bases but the ability to launch and strike the enemy with lethal and ferocious force, as we saw in a 90-day campaign that dislodged the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan.

A critical aspect of knowing ourselves and redesigning our military is the solidification of strategic partnerships. We don’t need to show up with massive 100,000 force structures. Remember, our goal is no longer nation building. But, by utilizing Brigade/Regimental combat task force formations, we can work with other nations and bring to bear a potent capability and capacity. The Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) has to become a model for deploying force structures. So here is my recommendation: the U.S. Army needs to move toward the same type of structure. It is time to break the phalanx and think differently. An Army Brigade task force needs to have a multiple force component and yes, I believe we should transfer the A-10 Warthog to the U.S. Army to ensure we have timely, close air support for the ground commander; remember the tactical imperative to engage the enemy with available weapon systems. And, anyone telling me the U.S. Army cannot learn to deploy from maritime assets has forgotten when the U.S. 10th Mountain Division was loaded onto an aircraft carrier for a potential operation into Haiti.

We must understand peace does come through strength, and the ability to have capable forces deployed at the ready is a deterrent. I do not subscribe to being a global police force but these are extraordinary times where we have an enemy beheading and crucifying innocents. This enemy is forcing a mass migration of civilian personnel that will have domestic ramifications for Western nations. ISIS and the global Islamic jihad can be defeated and its ideology delegitimized, but someone has to lead and that responsibility does fall to the United States.

I believe a critical, determining factor in the redesign of our military is not designating our Department of Defense leadership positions as rewards for political patronage, but instead finding leaders who understand the three levels of warfare and have been on the receiving end of an AK-47 during a firefight.

We must have elected officials who understand that not every dollar in Washington, D.C. is equal and that our military cannot be the bill payer for inane fiscal irresponsibility. We produce strategic reviews and studies that create mountains of paper that few read and no one implements. We have a defense industrial complex that tells the military what it needs based on the whims of Congressional members who are concerned with jobs programs in their respective districts and states. We have a research and development, acquisition, and procurement system heavily weighed down and constrains our warfighters’ ability to get timely weapon systems.

I close by repeating Sun Tzu’s quote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

In this current conflagration against ISIS and the global Islamic jihad, we refuse to know the enemy. We struggle to know ourselves, and are decimating our military capability and capacity. Therefore, we find ourselves not winning the battle. We lost in Vietnam, not from the tactical level, but from the strategic level. Let us not allow history to repeat itself.


The “Stop Iran Now” Rally in Times Square Sent a Powerful Message

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

President Barack Obama’s disastrous deal with Iran paves the way for this totalitarian regime to attain nuclear weapons, ones which Iran’s dictators could then aim squarely at the United States, Israel, and our allies. But the complicit media repeatedly join the administration in championing the deal, which both falsely claim is the only viable alternative to war.

In order to stifle opposition to this narrative, the mainstream media have mostly offered the public misleading information and punditry. After an estimated 12,000 people gathered in New York City’s Times Square on July 22 to fight the Iran deal, the media did what they do best in the face of inconvenient truths—marginalize the opposition, or ignore the facts.

“Speakers, including Republican politicians, called on Congress to throw it out, whipping up the crowd that included supporters of right-wing Jewish and evangelical Christian groups,” reported AFP about the Times Square rally. Similarly, the widely distributed Associated Press article reported that “The event…consisted mainly of pro-Israel supporters, though organizers said it represents Americans of all faiths and political convictions.”

In other words, move along, nothing to see here but a bunch of right-wing crazies who want war with Iran. There’s no popular protest against the Iran deal, we are told, and opposition to the deal is not actually bipartisan. Yet notable Democrats who spoke at the rally included liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former CIA Director James Woolsey.

The complete list of speakers included:

  • John Batchelor, Radio Host WABC-AM
  • Anne Bayefsky, President of Human Rights Voices
  • David Brog, Executive Director, Christians United for Israel
  • Monica Crowley, Political Commentator
  • U.S. Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ)
  • Steven Emerson, Founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Frank Gaffney, Founder of the Center for Security Policy
  • Caroline Glick, Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post
  • Kasim Hafeez, Christians United for Israel’s Outreach Coordinator
  • Pete Hoekstra, Former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee
  • Richard Kemp, Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan
  • Tony LoBianco, Actor and Activist
  • Herbert I. London, President London Center for Policy Research
  • Clare M. Lopez, Center for Security Policy
  • U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, Former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
  • Kevin McCullough, Radio Host from WMCA and 970 The Answer
  • Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan District Attorney from 1975 to 2009
  • George Pataki, former Governor of New York
  • General Paul Vallely, Chairman of Stand Up America
  • Col. USA (Ret.) Allen West, former Congressman
  • Genevieve Wood, The Heritage Foundation
  • Mortimer Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report

The New York Times’ decision to report on a minimum wage protest with far fewer attendees, and to splash that article onto the front page, reflects the cursory, feigned ignorance adopted by many in the media about this protest. The thousands of attendees apparently weren’t “enough people to catch the attention of The New York Times, who feature a $15 an hour minimum wage protest of a couple of dozen people on the front page, but not thousands rallying against the Iran deal,” notes Rick Moran for The American Thinker.

That pro-minimum wage hike article by the Times was titled, “Push to Lift Minimum Wage Is Now Serious Business,” and featured on page A1 of the July 24 issue. Instead of covering the Iran protest, and doing some genuine reporting on what was happening on their own doorstep, the Times instead featured the widely cited Associated Press article.

Clearly, the media aren’t going to tell the public the truth about the Iran deal—which is actually between the P5+1 nations and Iran—or why people oppose this debacle.

The many speakers at the rally provided compelling insights into why this is such a bad deal, and the video of this three-hour-plus rally can be viewed online. Speaker after speaker explained why this deal with Iran is inherently flawed and should be rejected.

One consistent theme throughout this powerful and emotional rally was urging people to contact their congressmen and women to try to get them to vote against the deal when it comes time for Congress to vote. Congress has 60 days to consider their vote, and that period began on July 20th.

The main focus of the event was on Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Schumer hasn’t committed either way, and is in a difficult position. He hopes and plans to succeed Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Senate Minority Leader (and eventually Majority Leader), and wants to be loyal to President Obama, and the party. But this conflicts with his longstanding support for Israel, which strongly opposes this deal.

The message from many of the speakers was that this is a moment of truth for Schumer. It won’t be good enough, they said, to wait until enough Democrats are lined up to assure that President Obama’s anticipated veto won’t be overridden, and then be able to make a safe vote against the deal. This crowd expects Schumer to lead the fight against the Iran nuclear agreement, which may be the only way for Congress to be able to defeat it. Even then, with the United Nations having already voted to lift its sanctions on Iran, based on certain conditions, it may not matter anyway. But it would definitely send a message.

There were too many great speeches to document here. I attended the event to be there in person, and to support my fellow members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB). Below are the speeches of the six CCB members who spoke there, providing the story that the media refuse to tell.

Steve Emerson:

“The reality is this arrangement, this deal with Iran is the worst negotiation the United States has conducted in history. … This agreement will actually free known terrorists who have killed Americans, Israelis, Europeans, Westerners and Muslims. An agreement that doesn’t give anything to the United States except the fact that it levels the playing field for Iran to dominate the Middle East, equate itself as a superpower, and ultimately become a power that has the ability to destroy all of its neighbors in the Middle East.”

Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra:

“We stand united in believing that this is a bad agreement for America and the rest of the world, and we stand united knowing that America is strong. And in our history when we see evil we will confront it, contain it, and we will defeat it. … We have never, and we will never, accommodate it.”

“We know what’s in a good agreement, and people and this president say, ‘But it’s all we could get.’ It’s a sign of weakness.”

Former Congressman Allen West:

“This is the simple message that we should be sending to Iran. When Iran stands up and they chant, ‘Death to America!’ all we need to say is, ‘You first!’ … Well let me tell you something, the United States of America is about victors. The United States of America is about champions. The United States of America does not surrender to a bunch of black-robed crazed clerics that want to see us destroyed.”

Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons:

“This traitorous group traded our national honor. … They humiliated this great nation before our friends, our allies, and most importantly our enemies. This surrender document must be thoroughly rejected by Congress, and then Congress must exercise its authority to start impeaching executive officials, starting with Secretary Kerry and following [with] President Obama for his illegal and unconstitutional acts.

“There’s only one sure way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon capability and that’s with a military strike—and you can take that to the bank.”

Clare Lopez:

“And, oh by the way, we just learned there are two new side deals to this deal with Iran, and those deals have to do with a place called Parchin, where Iran was testing explosives for its nuclear warheads, says the IAEA. And the other one [is] about the ‘possible’ military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs. These two side deals—not going to be made public, not going to be shared with Congress, not going to be shared with the American people or anybody else.”

“The last thing that Iran gets to keep, they’re keeping four American citizens hostages. … Until these hostages are set free we should not be having one word of negotiations with this Iranian regime.”

Retired General Paul Vallely:

“I am tired of the deception, I am tired of the lies that come out of the White House and our government. …Let’s stick together, stand up, and kill this deal!”