Eighteen months after the 2016 presidential elections, the United States of America finds itself in the throat of a most destructive existential crisis. The over two hundred forty years old Republic has been placed in this dangerous situation by the illegal manipulations of the political and legal systems of the extremely politicized Obama appointed political elite, in cohut with the entrenched Republican establishment, and not by the actions of the Trump Administration. These two political groups have been afraid of being exposed as conspirators to overturn the verdict of the majority of the American people against their steadily growing bureaucratic dictatorship. Hence the unending barrage of baseless allegations and outright lies to paralyze and ultimately overthrow the legitimately elected President of the United States of America.
The glaring contradictions between the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and the gross abuses of bureaucratic powers by the Obama Administration have caused too many hatred and fears across all elements of American society. This toxic mix of hatred and fears has obscured the very real difference between right versus wrong, has made a mockery out of the rule of law, has introduced insanity as the new normal in the general discourse, and has destroyed basic morality in public life.
Nobody can ever wholly escape the mixture of positive and negative influences of his or her times and country. Neither are politicians across the globe exempt from the deeply ingrained ethical, cultural, and intellectual foibles and prejudices of their respective societies. Accordingly, trust among political leaders of all ages and places has always been either non-existent or of short supply. This dearth of trust, fundamentally rooted in a mutual failure to comprehend the other nation’s mentality, has characterized the over two centuries old history of US-Russia relations too. Avoiding the temptation of expanding on this history, suffice it to state that as Russian domestic and foreign policies could not be understood by the pragmatic, result oriented American mind, so has been the emotional mindset of the Russians mostly incapable to objectively judge the domestic and foreign policies of the United States of America.
The “Cold War” ended with several agreements between the two states. At the Malta summit in December 1989, then President George H. W. Bush assured Mikhail Gorbachev that the United States of America will not take advantage of the unfolding events in Central and Eastern Europe. The same assurance was echoed by then Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of the Federal Republic of Germany on January 31, 1990, in the Bavarian town of Tutzing. Less than a month later, Continue reading
After almost four decades of ruthless oppression of the Iranian people, the indiscriminate terrorization of the greater Middle East and beyond, the absolute reign of the Shi’a Mullahs is nearing to its well deserved inglorious end. Bleeding from multiple, mostly self-inflicted wounds, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as envisioned by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini, has turned out to be an unviable hybrid – neither Islamic nor Republican.
To the eternal embarrassment of God, the existing Constitution implies that it has been given the Iranian nation by the Almighty God Himself: “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful” intones the first sentence of the Preamble. In a follow-up provision God appears to speak directly to the devouts: “We have sent Our Apostles with veritable signs and brought down with them scriptures and scales of justice, so that men might conduct themselves with fairness.” Accordingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a perfect political regime, because it is religiously correct. Yet, in spite of God’s so-called direct assurances, justice and fairness have not been the guiding principles of the Iranian Mullahcracy.
As every revolution before the Iranian of January 1979, the establishment and the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been analyzed and interpreted ad nauseum from both political and emotional perspectives. Yet, perhaps the most poignant verdict came from the late President Anwar Sadat who in a remarkable speech before the Egyptian People’s Assembly in 1981 compared the Iran of pre-1979 to the post-1979 era. In his speech he pointed out that under the Shah Iran imported one-third of its food supply from Israel and earned $250 million from oil exports daily. Two years into the Mullahcracy the regime struggled to feed the people and the latter could only obtain fuel on their personal ID cards.
From its inception, the regime has relied on extreme violence against its own people for the sole purpose of retaining absolute power. Having showed no mercy even for children as young as twelve years of age, the regime has executed during its almost four decades of existence tens of thousands of Iranians and foreigners. All this internal terror has been based on Khomeini’s sick rhetoric
that differentiates among three foundations: theocratic power embodied in the doctrine of Velayat-e-Faqih, Islamic ideology corrupted by Marxist and Bolshevik dogmas, and spiritualism based on discrimination between the Shi’a Muslims who follow the correct Islam and the misguided masses who adhere to the satanic ways of disbelief, such as the Sunni Muslims, the Jews, and the Christian powers and their allies. In Khomeini’s political and religious dictionary the righteous Shi’a Muslims have been the oppressed victims of both the East and the West. In one of his frequent public speeches he said: “….when we say we want to export our revolution, we mean we want to export the spirituality that dominates Iran…. We shall export Islam when we assist Islam and Islamic ethics grow in every country.” In other words, Khomeinism called for global and permanent revolution in the mode of Leo Trotzki, one of the leading Russian Bolsheviks, a century ago.
A simple examination of the Iranian Constitution shows that the only real authority resides in a single person, namely the Leader, also called the Imam. He possesses all the powers of a despot. He plans and sets the policies of the Islamic Republic. He is the Supreme Supervisor of implementing those policies. He issues decrees, declares war and peace, is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints, dismisses and retires the clerics of the Council of Guardians. He is the Supreme Judicial Authority. He is the head of the radio and television. He is the Leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. He can dismiss the elected President of the Islamic Republic. Finally, he has the power of pardons. In summary, the Leader is an unelected, absolute potentate whose status makes a mockery of all the fake democratic institutions of the theocratic state, such as the Council of Guardians, the National Exigency Council, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, also known as the Majlis, etc. For these reasons, the President and all the seemingly august institutions of the Islamic Republic have no more power than any unelected or unappointed non-governmental body or any ordinary citizen.
Indeed, Khomeini sought political legitimacy of his earthly religious kingdom in two conflicting principles – one religious and one political. While he declared God the sole sovereign, he claimed himself the monopoly to be self-appointed as God’s omnipotent earthly despot. This clearly is an inadmissible contradiction. Moreover, the subjects who are forced to live under such an inadmissible contradiction, constantly feel that their intelligence and morality are insulted daily. The problem for the regime
has been that it could not disguise itself any more from the critical eyes of the majority of Iranians, because the latter have discovered the Mullahcracy’s real nature. A terrible situation in which the incurable agony of the regime causes the people to seek redemption in no-holds-barred violent revolts.
Violent eruptions by the oppressed masses in Iran have been the ever present hallmarks of the Mullahcracy’s reign since its very inception. Indeed, Khomeini’s Iran has never known peace and stability. The ubiquitous restlessness and ever present anger, not only against the Mullahs and their coterie, but also against Khomeini and his successor Khamenei, have established a chain reaction of official terror and public counter terror across Iran. Clearly, both Khomeini and Khamenei have been accused as the individuals almost exclusively responsible for the many miseries of the Iranian people. They have been the despots who have designed the ruinous scheme of foreign interventions that have demanded the lives of hundreds of thousands and that have pushed the Iranian economy to the brink of bankruptcy. To wit, they also have been instrumental of transforming the country into a living cemetery. It has been in this general atmosphere of mutual hatred that the 2009 and the currently ongoing riots have shown that the Mullahcracy has lost its quest for the hearts and minds of the people. What is left appears to be nothing but a political, religious, spiritual, cultural, economic, and financial vacuum that cannot be filled by lies, idiotic accusations, and blind terror any more.
Khomeini’s invention of Velayat-e-Faqih is for all practical purposes dead. The odor of its stinking corpse has contaminated the air throughout the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Gaza strip are dying too. Meanwhile, the appeasement policies of the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and particularly Obama administrations have ended in spectacular failures. Collectively, these presidents have learned nothing from the disastrous Munich Agreement of 1938. As the West betrayed the countries that they created in 1918 in Versailles, the totally incompetent former President Barack Hussein Obama abandoned the United States’ friends in the pursuit of an idiotic utopia with a denuclearized Iran.
Over a millennium ago, a Persian by the name of Jabir Ibn Hayyan penned a book with the title “Book of Stones.” In it he claimed to have created by a secret script and even more secret codes a human-like, artificial creature called “homunculus.” Following the Shi’a dogma of takiya, which roughly translates to concealment, the author hoped to mislead everybody, but those Shi’a Muslims who truly believed in Allah. Throughout the next centuries his version of takiya has taken on a life of its own to be resurrected in the late 20th century by the Mullahcracy. While the Islamic Republic of Iran is a militarily weak economically exhausted, and financially bankrupt regime, its leaders pretend that their country is the hegemon of the greater Middle East. Yet, the only area that they enjoy an advantage is in employing terrorist and paramilitary tactics.
Facing unending nationwide protests, the Mullahs are in a state of extreme panic. For this reason alone appeasement is not an option. The anti-Shah movements of 1978 and 1979 were about the establishment of a Republic based on justice and freedom. In Khomeini’s Mullahcracy there is neither justice nor freedom. Therefore, the Iranian people must be assisted in their attempt to accomplish the noble objectives of the pre-Mullahcracy era.
By Peggy Grande • Fox News
Now that his summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is back on for June 12 in Singapore, President Trump will benefit from some important lessons he appears to have learned by studying the success of President Reagan in dealing with the Soviet Union’s final leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.
This should give all Americans comfort.
Few predicted Ronald Reagan would win the Cold War without firing a shot. In the same way, few imagined that Donald Trump – who, like Reagan, entered the White House with little foreign affairs experience – would bring North Korea to the negotiating table to discuss the elimination of its nuclear arsenal and future nuclear capabilities.
We know President Reagan succeeded. We hope President Trump will as well.
As he prepares for his summit with Kim Jong Un, President Trump should heed the Russian proverb that President Reagan embraced in his nuclear disarmament negotiations with Gorbachev: “Doveryai, no proveryai,” which means “trust, but verify.”
Just as promises made by the Soviet leader were meaningless without verification, the same is true with North Korea. Kim Jong Un, along with his father and grandfather who ruled North Korea before him, has a long record of broken promises.
President Trump knows from his extensive career in business that without binding agreements, clear penalties for violations and established methods for verification, the words of the North Korean leader are worthless.
President Trump is also wisely continuing President Reagan’s belief in “peace through strength” – both in military capability and in economic capacity. President Trump knows the sanctions have been working to apply pressure to a fragile and failing North Korean economy, which puts him in a position of strength at the negotiating table.
In fact, the seal of the president of the United States has an eagle in the center clutching the olive branch of peace in one talon – and the arrows of war in the other. President Reagan in the 1980s and President Trump now extends an olive branch of peace first, with the hope that the arrows of war will not be needed. Yet both presidents have been unafraid to make their counterparts aware that America has the capacity, and the will, to defend itself if provoked.
At the Reykjavick, Iceland summit on nuclear disarmament, President Reagan eventually walked away from the negotiating table because Gorbachev wanted America to put an end to its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) – the missile defense program some dubbed as “Star Wars.”
Stating that SDI was non-negotiable for the U.S., President Reagan refused further discussion and got up and walked out. While the summit was deemed a failure by many in the media because no agreement was reached on that day, President Reagan’s strong stance moved talks forward to a point where they could be resumed a short time later.
The groundwork was laid at the summit for much of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev, eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons.
President Reagan was committed to putting America’s interests first and would rather have no deal than a bad deal that weakened the United States. With his America First foreign policy, President Trump clearly is taking a similar position.
President Reagan knew the importance and effectiveness of face-to-face diplomacy and believed there was nothing that couldn’t be resolved if two leaders sat down across the table from each other to discuss their differences, as well as their shared goals. President Trump is committed to having a face-to-face conversation with Kim Jong Un, which will be a diplomatic milestone with global importance.
History is judging Ronald Reagan as one of our greatest presidents, while Donald Trump is still writing the record of his presidency by which history will ultimately judge him. But by looking to the diplomatic and negotiating success of President Reagan and following in his footsteps, President Trump has wisely chosen an outstanding leader to emulate.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman • Fox News
Security expert Ryan Mauro comments on ‘Fox & Friends First.’
The Iran nuclear deal is dead – and the mullahs who rule the Islamic Republic have only themselves to blame.
There is no need for President Trump to even announce that the United States is pulling out of the deal. Iran killed the agreement through its own willful actions and blatant lies, even before the deal was officially implemented on Jan. 16, 2016.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry – who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran and the European Union, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – heaped praise on the agreement when it was reached in July 2015, ignoring its fatal flaws.
The premise of the deal, which was designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, was simple: Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear activities and said it would provide Continue reading
By Bill Gertz • Washington Free Beacon
The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that Chinese nationals fired lasers near a military base in east Africa against U.S. military aircraft in the region, injuring several pilots.
Pentagon Press Secretary Dana White said the U.S. government made diplomatic protests to the Chinese government over several recent incidents of laser firings near China’s first overseas military base at Djibouti.
“These are very serious incidents. There have been two minor injuries. This activity poses a threat to our airmen,” White told reporters.
“We have formally demarched the Chinese government, and we’ve requested that the Chinese investigate these incidents,” she added.
The number of incidents is “more than Continue reading
by Bill Gertz • Washington Free Beacon
The Trump administration on Thursday imposed economic sanctions on 19 Russians and two Russian intelligence agencies for their role in the 2016 election meddling and costly cyber attacks and penetrations.
The Russian spy agencies included the Federal Security Service and the GRU military intelligence service, along with six GRU officers.
No FSB officers were named in the Treasury Department list of sanctioned Russians, although 13 Russians indicted last month in a separate action, were named.
The Russians are linked to the Internet Research Agency, a St. Petersburg operation that used social media to interfere with the presidential election.
Government officials did not say whether the Internet Research Agency was a front organization for the Russian government.
Officials also revealed that Russian cyber actors conducted reconnaissance into industrial control systems related to the U.S. electrical grid in a bid to obtain sensitive information that could be used in future attacks aimed at shutting down power networks. Continue reading
By Adam Kredo • Washington Free Beacon
Iran announced on Monday that it has begun mass-producing a new weaponized drone that carries smart bombs capable of precision strikes, according to the Islamic Republic’s military leaders.
Iran, which has engaged in a massive military buildup since receiving billions of dollars in cash windfalls as a result of the landmark nuclear deal, says that these advanced new drones will be delivered to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, which has been coordinating war efforts across the Middle East, including most controversially in Syria, where Iranian-backed forces have attacked U.S. troops.
The new drones, dubbed the Mohajer 6, are “equipped with the smart Qa’em precision-striking bombs and different electro-optical explorers and different warheads, [and] can trace, intercept and Continue reading
Recent developments in Turkey and Russia have raised the strategic importance of the Republic of Bulgaria for the United States, NATO and the EU. This past summer, NATO staged major exercises in the county, involving more than 25,000 troops from 20 allied countries. Yet despite increased military cooperation in recent years, current political dynamics in the country threaten to undermine Bulgaria’s relationship with the military alliance and provide the Kremlin with a new foothold in the former Soviet satellite.
Economic and political challenges have set the table for the current political environment. Although the country has undergone both political and economic transformation since 1990, Bulgaria remains the poorest nation within the European Union. Its current GDP is only a meager $152 billion. The annual per capita income translates to an employed individual bringing home $456 per month, not even half of the average for the EU. Unemployment is almost 11 percent, well above the EU average, which is less than 10 percent.
In order to grow their economy, the country must address three major economic issues. The first is economic diversification — actively encouraging the emergence of mid-and small size enterprises. Second, Bulgaria will have to raise productivity significantly both in industry and agriculture. Finally, Bulgaria must solve demographic challenges that are similarly affecting a whole host of European nations.
by Jerry Hendrix • National Review
President Trump today unveiled his new National Security Strategy (NSS), exceeding the expectations of the national-security community by producing a remarkably coherent NSS within his first twelve months in office. President Obama took 16 months to present his vision, and President George W. Bush, dealing with the disturbance of 9/11 to his strategic considerations, took 20 months. Clearly guided by the vision enunciated by the president during his 2016 campaign and validated by that national election, the team of Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, Dina Powell, and Nadia Schadlow has crafted a “sustainment” strategy supported by a peace-through-strength defense buildup. What is very clear is that this strategy is not a break from the nation’s post–World War II–era national-security policy but rather a realistic distillation of that policy tailored to the challenges the nation faces today.
However, in a break from his post–Cold War predecessors, President Trump readily announces that the United States is presently in a great-power competition and names the nation’s prime competitors as Russia and China. While appeals to American values remain, and in fact are strongly stated, it is the promotion of American interests that emerges most starkly. The president states that he plans to compete aggressively in the economic sphere by pursuing free, fair, and reciprocal trade on a bilateral basis while also confronting nations that violate the free-trade agreements signed in the past. Additionally, the new NSS breaks from the language of the Obama administration by overtly promoting American exceptionalism and presenting the United States as a force for good in the world. As such, the new NSS emerges as a true amalgam of Theodore Roosevelt’s warrior approach to the world and Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to be its priest.
From the perspective of pure defense analysis, President Trump and McMaster, his national-security adviser, have taken a new path. Rather than continue to pursue a pure capabilities-overmatch acquisitions strategy within the Department of Defense, the Trump NSS seeks a balance between capabilities and capacity by continuing to invest in cutting-edge technologies while also expanding the force and improving readiness. It seeks to accomplish this by investing in high-end, cutting-edge combat systems to win wars while also providing for larger numbers of personnel and buying cheaper legacy combat systems to maintain the peace. Clearly, President Trump’s commitment to a 355-ship Navy falls within this approach. The president also firmly commits the nation to recapitalizing the nation’s nuclear-deterrent force and renewing all three legs of the nuclear triad. This strategy is enabled by the president’s call for increased defense spending, a goal that is shared by Armed Services Committee members in both the House and the Senate.
by Megan G. Opera • The Federalist
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent shockwaves through the foreign policy establishment this week when he suggested that the United States is prepared, for the first time, to come to the negotiating table with North Korea without any preconditions or promises from Pyongyang that it would halt, even if just temporarily, its nuclear program.
Tillerson’s startling comments, which mark a major departure from U.S. policy and part significantly with President Trump’s views on the North Korea crisis, signal that Pyongyang is truly on the cusp of having a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), and that a military conflict might be fast approaching.
On Monday, an analysis was released by “38 North,” a U.S. website specializing in North Korea, indicating Pyongyang may be getting ready to test another nuclear weapon. The country’s last test, in early September, was estimated to have been 17 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
The September test resulted in a fresh round of international sanctions, which, apparently, have done nothing to deter the hermit kingdom from moving ahead apace with its nuclear program. North Korea is similarly catapulting forward with its ICBM program, making steady progress and demonstrating this year that it now has the capability to reach the entire continental United States.
China Is Making Contingency Plans Continue reading
by Susannah George • Military.com
BAGHDAD — As Iraq emerges from three years of war with the Islamic State group, the U.S. is looking to roll back the influence of neighboring Iran and help the central government resolve its dispute with the Kurdish region, the American envoy to the country told The Associated Press.
U.S. Ambassador Douglas Silliman took up his post in Baghdad in September 2016, just weeks before the start of the operation to retake the northern city of Mosul. With ISIS now driven out of all the territory it once held and Iraq’s declaration that the war against the extremists is over, he says Washington is focused on keeping the peace and rebuilding, and sees Iran’s influence as a problem.
“Iran simply does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors,” Silliman said. “The Iranians have — to some extent — assisted the government of Iraq in defeating ISIS,” he said. “But frankly I have not seen the Iranians donating money for humanitarian assistance, I have not seen them contributing to the U.N. stabilization program.”
Most Americans are worried about our domestic crises. Obama left office after doubling the debt to $20 trillion. Near-zero interest rates over eight years have impoverished an entire generation of seniors — and yet remain key to servicing the costs of such reckless borrowing.
Over the last eight years, GDP never grew at 3 percent annually, the first time we’ve seen such low growth since the Hoover administration. Obamacare spiked health-care premiums and deductibles while restricting access and reducing patient choices. Racial politics are at a nadir and make one nostalgic for the environment before 2009.
Red-blue tensions are at an all-time high, and suddenly there is talk of 1860s-like Confederate nullification of federal laws. It’s now the norm for prominent commentators to call for the murder, forced removal, or resignation of the current president. A New York Times columnist asked the IRS to commit a felony by sending him Trump’s tax returns, and then he boasts by providing his own address. Continue reading
by Jeremy Lott • The Federalist
The foreign policy consensus in Washington DC is so stubbornly pro-intervention that our most recent president—who dragged the country into several foreign entanglements and whose military dropped 26,171 bombs last year alone—is seen as, at best, a ditherer. The World Politics Review summed up his legacy by saying, “The problem with Obama’s foreign policy has been inaction, not weakness.”
Get outside of DC and the estimation of what we ought to be doing is much different. Americans who are actually stretched to pay for those wars and whose children may be serving in the military are not as gung-ho about going there.
That is my takeaway from the latest Charles Koch Institute/Center for the National Interest poll of American attitudes toward foreign policy. A majority of those surveyed in late January turned out to be deeply skeptical that what America has been doing has been working. It’s hard to argue they don’t have a point. Continue reading
by Morgan Chalfant • Washington Free Beacon
The government of Afghanistan lost almost 15 percent of its territory last year, as Taliban insurgents continued to launch attacks amid declines in U.S. and allied military personnel.
The figure is included in a government watchdog’s latest assessment of the security situation and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. The assessment comes as the Donald Trump administration grapples with how to move forward in what has become America’s longest war.
“Analysis of the most recent data provided by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan (USFOR-A) suggests that the security situation in Afghanistan has not improved this quarter,” states the latest quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR. “The numbers of the Afghan security forces are decreasing, while both casualties and the number of districts under insurgent control or influence are increasing.” Continue reading