We Drove Saddam’s Yellowcake to the Baghdad Airport - Carter Andress

by Carter Andress

As someone who led the company that transported 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium—enough to make fourteen Hiroshima-size bombs—from Saddam’s nuclear complex in the Iraq War’s notorious “Triangle of Death” for air shipment out of the country, I know Baathist Iraq’s WMD potential existed. In early 2008, we secretly moved over several nights 140 truckloads carrying 5500 barrels of extremely heavy radioactive material provided to Iraq as part of the French-supplied Osiraq reactor destroyed by Israeli fighter bombers in 1981. The virulently anti-Semitic Saddam had announced “here begins the Arab bomb” and the Israelis took him at his word.

The recent article in the New York Times, however, caught us all by surprise. Random caches of old chemical weapons found post-invasion were old news, but not “roughly 5,000” warheads and bombs, many filled with still active, nerve agent. That’s an enormous quantity even if evidently left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. Just “antiques,” as the Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung quaintly put it at a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum on Iraq.

At the least, this shocker (after so many years of repetitious “Bush lied [about WMD], people died”) further points to the world’s inability to trust that the UN inspectors could ever realistically certify Saddam clean of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. He had to be deposed, and the only way to do it was for us to invade and overthrow his dictatorship. Here was a genocidal, expansionist tyrant who had used chemical weapons on his own people and that of a neighboring nation (Iran), publically celebrated 9/11, and allowed a chemical weapons laboratory affiliated with al-Qaeda to operate within his security forces’ reach inside his country’s borders in contested Kurdistan (Khurmal).

The article in the Times references the Duelfer Report that summed up the official American investigation of Iraq’s WMD as definitive in that there were no ongoing WMD programs pre-invasion, yet fails to mention that every section of the report on the different types of weapons of mass destruction concluded that the evidence gathered by investigators clearly indicated that once sanctions were removed Saddam would reinstate his WMD programs. In addition, the article mentions that the chemical weapons program was not active for over ten years, but not the biological weapons program, which extended into 1996 and was only discovered because Saddam’s son-in-law defected, even after five years of aggressive UN inspections.

There’s no question in my mind, Saddamist Iraq would have reconstituted its WMD programs once UN sanctions faded away—a push Security Council veto-wielding members Russia and France were actively working toward because of oil field opportunities. 
(Petroleum companies from both countries signed huge, new contracts with Saddam pre-invasion.) And given the yellowcake inventory, nuclear weapons with available Pakistani and North Korean technology might not have been far off. After over ten years in effect, the sanctions system was actively degrading with banned flights landing in Baghdad, the Oil for Food program corrupted, and, as a result, would have collapsed if we had not invaded—thus leaving Saddam free to threaten the world again with WMD.

The greater problem, however, of significant quantities of chemical weapons hidden at some date prior to the US invasion points to a current and growing threat. The leader of the neo-Saddamists allied now with ISIS is Izzat al-Douri, a former Iraqi army general and last member of the senior Baathist leadership not executed or imprisoned. There is a distinct possibility that Saddam’s minions hid these munitions with the intention of disinterring them for deterrent use once again. And in fact, this is why Saddam’s military and secret police leaders never ceased to believe Iraq possessed WMD and could therefore project terror onto the Kurds and the rest of the region (Israel and Iran, specifically) until the end because Iraq did possess WMD, even after the dictator’s death by hanging. The Iraqi army and security services did not handle “special” weapons without the knowledge of the regime’s leaders. So to think that Saddam and his immediate circle, including al-Douri, did not know the locations of the WMD discussed in the Times article begs credulity.

Much of the area where the “antique,” yet still potentially potent chemical weapons discovered by US forces is now in the hands of ISIS, the forces of al-Douri, and their allied Sunni Arab tribes undergirding the “caliphate” occupying almost a third of Iraq. With hundreds of Western passport holders fighting in Syria and Iraq, the most immediate threat to the United States is the spread of jihadi terrorism to Europe now that ISIS has a border with Turkey, a gateway to the EU.

Can one even imagine the impact of a weaponized sarin-gas attack in Paris?


Carter Andress is president of AISG, Inc. (American-Iraqi Solutions Group) and the author, with Malcolm McConnell, of Victory Undone: The Defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Its Resurrection as ISIS (Regnery, October 2014). 

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/carter-andress/we-drove-saddams-yellowcake-to-the-baghdad-airport/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egypt Trapped Between Two Wars - Osman Mirghani

by Osman Mirghani


Egypt is facing a fierce attack that aims to drag the country into a quagmire of chaos and instability that a number of other regional states have already fallen into. The terrorist attacks, which have escalated in recently, aim to weaken and destabilize Egypt, drowning it in a spiral of domestic crises that prevent any form of recovery. While Egypt’s armed forces are now especially being targeted as they are the sole guarantor of Egyptian security. 

Over the past few decades we have witnessed the systematic destruction of the region and its states—by terrorism, conflict or civil wars—to the point that many people in the region have completely forgotten the very taste of stability and security. Iraq was destroyed and is now facing the likelihood of partition and division. Syria today more closely resembles Berlin after the Second World War in terms of the extent of the destruction and displacement that has been visited on its population. Libya is drowning in destructive wars following the proliferation of arms and militias on the ground. Yemen is reeling from the advance of the Houthis and their control of key state institutes. Lebanon has suffered one setback after another and is beset by fears of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) advancement. The list goes on. 

Therefore nobody in the region today feels safe or reassured in the face of what is happening and the long chain of unending wars and terrorist attacks that we are witnessing. Even when one fire is put out, another is quickly ignited in another part of the Middle East and quickly spreads from state to state. 

There are major concerns over the fate of Egypt. The fear is that Egypt is the next target in this unending chain of regional crises which aim to weaken states. When a terrorist attack takes place, the main aim is to weaken the state, if not to completely topple it. This is because these terrorist attacks target a state’s stability, weakening its economy and security and shaking public confidence in its institutions. Egypt may have successfully dealt with terrorist threats before, but this new wave of terrorism is coming at a time when the domestic situation in Egypt is completely different, not to mention the situation in the region. 

The large number of soldiers who have been killed, and the nature of the battlefield in the Sinai Peninsula, confirms that Egypt’s war against terrorism will be a long, arduous and hard-fought campaign. These terrorists hope to repeat the ISIS scenario in Egypt and establish an Islamic “emirate” in the Sinai Peninsula where they can attract support and fighters from all corners of the world. This is precisely what ISIS has been able to do in Iraq and Syria, or what the Taliban and Al-Qaeda managed to do, for a time, in Afghanistan. The Egyptian state is well aware of this threat, as can be seen in the defiant statement issued by Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi to the Egyptian people following the terrorist operation that cost the lives of 31 Egyptian soldiers. Sisi explicitly stated to the Egyptian public that this is a “huge” war and an existential battle. 

Such long wars, of course, require patience and for the state to take action that not only directly affects the security side of things, but also other aspects such as pushing for domestic cohesion and uniting society behind the objective of throttling terrorism, targeting its financial resources and addressing its causes. We can read Sisi’s latest statements—in which he said that the war on terror must be a “comprehensive” effort that goes beyond the military aspect—as part of this objective. The Egyptian president said that this war on terrorism must be based on a holistic approach that also includes social and economic dimensions, particularly as there are well-known social and economic issues in the Sinai Peninsula that have accumulated after many years of neglect and this is also something that the people of Sinai have long complained of. 

The Egyptian state is well aware of all this. Part of its strategy in this war on terror in the Sinai may well be to work to address the dissatisfaction felt by the people there and deal with the problems that the terrorists are using to convert this massive landmass into a hotbed of conflict and terrorism. 

The problem is that some parties are continuing to talk about emptying the Sinai Peninsula of its inhabitants, albeit temporarily, in order to assist the Egyptian army in this battle against the terrorists that are present there. These calls ultimately do not serve Egypt’s war on terrorism, but will only serve to complicate the situation by angering the people of Sinai and inevitably helping the terrorists in their efforts to gain more recruits. So Egypt must seek to win over the people, not alienate them. What happened in Fallujah in Iraq is an important lesson, as Baghdad lost the support of the people there who ultimately backed the terrorists against the state. Although there are many differences between Sinai and Fallujah, and the situation in Egypt and Iraq, this is still an important lesson that Cairo must understand. 

There is another aspect of this war that requires careful consultation in order to ensure that the terrorists cannot exploit the Egyptian position. Here, I am talking about some of the actions taken by the state within the framework of addressing the Muslim Brotherhood’s plots and schemes and even with how it is seeking to confront and prevent terrorist operations. This has become the subject of controversy and criticism by some political and youth groups in Egypt that strongly backed the revolution and which nobody can say have any ties to the outlawed Brotherhood. For example, there is a lot of controversy surrounding Egypt’s anti-protest law, as well as the arrest and trial of a number of youth activists. This is not to mention criticism of security apparatus entering university campuses, the establishment of a “community police” force and some proposed amendments to Egypt’s anti-terror legislation which some fear could lead to restrictions on basic freedoms. 

Those who love Egypt and wish it the best—and they are many—want to see it overcome the current challenges and recover its traditional position, because this is something that would serve the interests of the region as a whole. The most important gamble, and the biggest challenge, is for Egypt to win this war on terror without either losing Sinai or the battle for freedom and democracy.


Osman Mirghani is Asharq Al-Awsat's former deputy editor and senior editor-at-large.

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/11/article55338076

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Going Dutch - The Psychometric Tool Against Jihadism in the West - Esam Sohail (IPT)

by Esam Sohail (IPT)


The famed laissez faire liberalism of the Dutch is only matched by their flinty commonsense. Two years after the brutal 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh at the hand of Islamist jihadists in Amsterdam, the Dutch government quietly introduced a form of personality testing for immigrants from certain backgrounds who wished to make the Netherlands their permanent abode. By showing a set of short video clips highlighting the culture of diversity, secularism, free speech, and gender equality to potential migrants from very different cultures and then allowing responsible officers to evaluate reactions of the audience, the Dutch government made a very business-like decision to ensure a proper fit for a person to his/her new home. The government of the Netherlands continues to monitor this new screening tool which went into effect as a pilot project in 2006 and will likely be rolled out on a larger scale in the years ahead.

Immigration, especially of people with high education and in their prime working years, remains vital to the economic prowess and social welfare systems of most developed countries. That said, that necessity is better coupled with wisdom. With tens of thousands of people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia moving to the Anglophone countries every year, the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia do not have the luxury of waiting to institute large scale and focused immigrant testing that small Holland does. While security safeguards have been heightened in all of these desired immigration destinations, the common flaw remains the same across the board in the English speaking democracies: all potential immigrants are treated to the same battery of standardized screening procedures which often evaluate the Christian fleeing victimization in Bangladesh and Pakistan along the same lines as an Islamist engineer wishing to plant the flag of Islam for himself and his children in Canada. Neither the standard questions of the type "have you ever been part of a terror group" nor the routine check of law enforcement agency reports is going to do much diagnostic good in this regard. The Dutch figured this out finally and, instead, decided to tentatively use the science of psychometrics to detect potential trouble before it becomes actual trouble.

Let us be brutally honest about immigration from countries where Muslims are in big majorities. Almost all of these countries have cultures where Salafi Islamism is ascendant, where free speech and gender equality are increasingly dismissed as parts of some Western plot, and anti-Semitism is a staple for the most popular conspiracy theories. Not all immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Malaysia, or the Arab world adhere to such Islamist tendencies. But many, including quite a few professional and educated types, do. And these are the ones that can quickly become the transmitters, organizers, sympathizers, funders, and even purveyors of jihadism in the civilized world (remember Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian and would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad?). In the age of shadowy ISIS sympathizers in Chicago, jihadist murderers on London streets, and Muslims converts on rampage in Ottawa, it only make sense to quarantine the Islamist virus at the entry point whether it is dormant, passive, or active. The Dutch have shown the path to do so; the rest of the civilized world should improvise.

Psychometrics is not an exact science and no psychological evaluation or personality test is fool proof. On top of such uncertainty, these things cost time and money which are realistic constraints for visa evaluators and Customs agents. Yet, these tools are increasingly sophisticated and used in human resourcing decisions by growing number of major businesses and public entities; at the disposal of well-trained immigration professionals who have the flexibility of discretion and a relatively narrow focus, such psychometric instruments can be vital weapons against potential jihadist terror.

Potential long term immigrants from certain areas should be instructed – even provocatively so – on the fundamental importance of free speech, dissent, apostasy, equality before the law regardless of religion or gender, and basic personal liberties. They should be evaluated on their reactions through well developed and professionally benchmarked tests and such evaluations should be allowed to inform an immigration official's decision to about a residency application. Indeed this kind of approach could lead to the penalization of certain beliefs; but if such beliefs include the rectitude of killing apostates and punishing women for wearing short skirts, should we be shedding too many tears? And even if we were to shed some tears at such scrutiny of those desiring to live in a pluralist society, isn't it better than the shedding of blood that could happen otherwise?


Esam Sohail is an educational research analyst and college lecturer of social sciences. He writes from Kansas, USA

Esam Sohail (IPT)

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4642/guest-column-going-dutch

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

ISIS and Iran's Regional Ambitions - Amir Basiri

by Amir Basiri

Until a few months ago, the Iranian regime had fed off the chaos in the region to further its dream of forming a “Shiite Crescent” extending through Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The West’s nonintervention and retreat policy along with failure to address the faltering situation in Syria and Iraq, had provided an expansionist Iran with a windfall, allowing the Iranian regime to assume full hegemony in both countries. Iranian authorities brazenly bragged about Iran’s growing influence in the region.

But Iran, which had previously enjoyed the position of being the main power broker in Iraq and Syria, was faced with a real dilemma as other players entered the region to deal with the global threat of the Islamic State. The Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) is an extremist group that has occupied stretches of land straddling Iraq and Syria and aims at establishing what it purports to be an Islamic Caliphate.

As the world readied itself to face the Islamic State in earnest, the Iranian regime attempted to lead the international community into believing that Iran and its allies would be crucial tin containing and eliminating the threat posed by the group. But Tehran’s agenda in reality was to reap the benefits of the international campaign -- or at least avoid further losing its clout and influence in the region.

To the Iranian regime’s dismay, though, it was excluded from international conferences in Jeddah and Paris that were held to address the Islamic State issue, and its name was later left out from the U.S.-led coalition assembled in late September to fight the Islamic State. 

With the war against the Islamic State turning into an international concern, the Iranian regime has seen its power plummet in the region. 

In Iraq, it was only after former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a staunch ally of the Iranian regime, relinquished his bid for a third term as prime minister that the United States got directly involved in the war against the Islamic State by conducting air-strikes against the group’s positions. Maliki, who had ruled Iraq for eight years under the thumb of Iran, was largely blamed for allowing the Islamic State to grow and flourish by adopting harsh sectarian policies and marginalizing the Sunni community to the benefit of the Iranian regime. With Maliki gone and his key officials and officers being forced into retirement, Iran is hard pressed to maintain its influence over the country.

In Syria, Iran had supported the embattled President Bashar al-Assad in the ongoing conflict and had taken advantage of the rise of the Islamic State to weaken the moderate, secular rebel forces that sought to dislodge the Assad dictatorship. Now that the fight against the Islamic State has been extended to Syria, the prospects have turned grim for Assad. The coalition has so far refrained from involving Assad in the fight and has instead opted to align itself with the moderate Free Syrian Army, which aims at toppling the Assad regime and replacing it with a democratic state.

In a confidential report obtained from within the regime by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) -- the first party to expose the Iran’s illicit nuclear program and its meddling in the Middle East -- the Iranian regime’s Supreme National Security Council has expressed worries about the outcome of the war against the Islamic State in Syria, which could eventually strengthen the Free Syrian Army and turn the tide against the Assad regime. The report states that Ali Khamenei, the Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader, has made it clear to his subordinates that Syria and Assad’s regime are Iran’s red line, and must be preserved at all costs.

After being spurned by the international community, the Iranian regime has gone to great lengths to save face and maintain a measure of its influence. 

In his speech at the UN General Assembly, Hassan Rouhani, the president of the Iranian regime, incriminated external actors for the violence in the region and indirectly asserted that the Iranian regime must take the lead in fighting the Islamic State.

Khamenei, visibly irked by events, questioned the motives of the newly-formed coalition and blamed the U.S. and UK for giving rise to the Islamic State.

Also, the notorious commander of the Iranian regime’s terrorist Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, who otherwise avoids media attention and tries to remain a secretive and mysterious figure, has posed for photo-ops in Iraq’s Amerli and Kurdistan region in an attempt to publicize Iran’s efforts to fight the Islamic State, and pose as a game changer and influential figure in the ongoing battle. Suleimani has also ratcheted up the activity of his Quds Force and his terror network in Iraq under the shadow of the fight against the Islamic State; Iran-backed Shiite militias are taking advantage of the confusion engulfing Iraq to commit crimes against the Sunni community and further drive a wedge into the sectarian divide that has torn the country apart in past years.

By all accounts, the byproduct of the international campaign against the Islamic State will be the unraveling of the “Shiite empire” of the mullahs ruling Tehran. The next few months will be decisive for the Iranian regime, which sees a strategic defeat looming on the horizon as all of its red lines in the Middle East are being trampled. According to Iranian authorities, if the regime loses ground in countries like Iraq and Syria, its strategic depth and defensive line will eventually retreat to within Iran’s own borders, triggering a crisis that will eventually bring about the undoing and collapse of the ruling regime.

Iran will definitely try to turn the tide and curb the international coalition’s efforts to its advantage, as it did during the first and second Gulf Wars. The outcome of such a venture -- if Iran manages to carry out the scheme -- will be more bloodshed and sectarian violence, further complication of the situation, and the elongation of clashes and conflicts that are contributing to the overall chaos in the region.

Whether it will succeed in doing so will depend on how far the international community is committed to fighting terrorism and uprooting the threat of fundamentalism and extremism in the region, which is rooted in Tehran.

Making the wrong choice will definitely result in a regional disaster that will demand a much higher price by the international community to fix. The West should think twice before believing the mullahs will be willing to cooperate and share power in the Middle East.


Amir Basiri is an Iranian human rights activist and supporter of democratic regime change in Iran. Follow him on Twitter: @Amir_bas

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/isis_and_irans_regional_ambitions.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Barack Bulworth Obama - Ed Lasky

by Ed Lasky

Last year, President Obama mused “longingly” of “going Bulworth” -- a reference to a 1998 Warren Beatty movie where a senator said what he really thinks, without restraint.  What the fictional Senator Bulworth thought, what he pushed for, was socialism. 

Barack Obama has a penchant for power.  The next two years will be very challenging for Americans concerned about their nation’s future.

Obama’s goal to exercise power with very few limits has been clear for some time to all but the most obtuse.  In early 2011 he told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.  He has not changed his views.  After losing control of the House of Representatives, he rejected compromise with Republicans by boasting he has a “pen and a phone” and would circumvent Congress and the Constitution (in other words, staying the course since his inauguration).  While strolling with the visiting French resident at Monticello he “quipped” that “the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.”  Jefferson would cringe that America, a nation he helped found, would be led by a man who had so little respect for our founding principles and fathers -- and for the American people.

What has followed has been a barrage of executive actions, signing statements, unilateral suspension of laws (Obamacare provisions, in particular), the abuse of prosecutorial discretion to enact a de facto suspension of many aspects of our immigrations laws, the use of regulations -- and the interpretation of the same -- to control, nee dictate, many aspects of the lives of Americans.

But we have seen nothing yet.

His anger at losing the House was palpable.  Imagine what will happen when he loses the Senate.

His rage will know no bounds.

After all, he personalizes politics as no other politician ever has: a toxic combination of his ego and his narcissism.  He was the person who said that while he may not be on the ballot, his policies were.  Earlier in his presidency he had reassured a wavering Democratic Congressman that merely by having Obama in his corner will shield him from repercussions for voting for Obamacare (“this time you’ve got me”)

A rebuke by voters will be a very visible rebuke of him.  

And he will respond accordingly because, as he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (caught on an open mic-so much for his repeated promises of running “the most transparent administration in history”):

"This is my last election.  After my election, I have more flexibility,"

We can assume the abuse of the Office of the President we have seen so far will just be a warmup for worse to come.  He will flex his power as never before, to impose his agenda on America and fulfill his promise to “fundamentally transform America.”

What can we expect to see in the 26 more months to come in his second term?  The mind boggles.

Barack Obama has tipped his hand already regarding some of his plans.  In a transparent bid (there’s the transparency!) to gin up the Hispanic vote, he has all but declared his intention after the midterms to declare an executive amnesty for the over 10 million illegal immigrants in our nation.  He will protect lawbreakers by failing to enforce immigrations laws -- slash the number of deportations and expand the de facto Dream Act he enacted by fiat; he may bring Ebola victims to America for treatment; expand the number of potential terrorist from the Middle East by granting them asylum in America. 

Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post about “Obama’s post-election plans for a secret radical agenda.”  Among the plans would be the aforementioned amnesty and work permit plans (the State Department has been looking for a vendor to produce 34 million blank green cards and work permits); the likely nomination of Thomas Perez, a radical race-baiting activist and a man who has a flexible concept of honesty (a job requirement for Obama’s appointees) and a proponent of using the widely criticized “disparate impact” theory to reengineer American society by race-based policies involving neighborhoods, affordable housing, loans; the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the transfer of terrorists to American soil -- if he does not just release many more of them than he already has to friendlier Muslim lands where they can plan more violence against their own people, as well as Westerners;  and the imposition of his climate change agenda on America-costs, higher energy prices, lost jobs-be damned (imagine many Solyndras to come-monuments to the folly of ideology over science). 

Indeed, Obama brought John Podesta into the White House as a top adviser in order to push the climate change agenda throughout America.  Podesta boasted that nothing could derail the Obama administration’s efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming -- that Congress would be, naturally, bypassed.  He has peddled this plan for a while, no doubt a mark in his favor from the power-hungry president who does not work well with others

Podesta authored a report in 2010 outlining ways the president could use his executive authority to push a progressive agenda, including unilateral actions on climate policy. 

Clearly, Obama will do whatever is necessary to save Obamacare, trying short-term patches to keep ahead of the news cycle even if it causes long term harm.  Or he may no longer even care about the media since he will not ever run for reelection.

Barack Obama will use every tool in his kit (hammers, axes, screwdrivers) to “spread the wealth” as he declared his goal to be back in 2008 and has been trying to do ever since then.  Now he can go into overdrive.  Among those Ways and means will be a full-blown regulatory assault and executive order blitz on businesses and those he has deemed in his infinite wisdom to have “earned enough,” as he said four years ago.

He will try to extend his doleful and pernicious legacy by nominating left-wing federal judges who will have lifetime tenure and be ideally positioned to do his bidding after he has left office.  Since Harry Reid abolished the filibuster in the Senate, Obama has been able to have his nominees  confirmed by the Senate with a great deal of success, since they control the chamber and Reid runs roughshod over everyone else and over long-held traditions that he (and Senator Obama)  said were sacred when Democrats were in the minority.

As Edward Whelan recently wrote in the Weekly Standard (The Senate and the Courts: The federal judiciary will follow the election returns):

With little fanfare, President Obama has enjoyed remarkable success in his project to remake the federal courts in his own ideological image.  How much more he achieves during his final two years in office depends in large part on whether Republicans win control of the Senate this November.
Obama’s success is most marked in the federal courts of appeals, the intermediate level of the national judicial hierarchy.  When Obama took office, only 1 of the 13 appellate courts had a majority of Democratic appointees.  Now 9 do.
Obama’s number of confirmed appellate nominees—53—only slightly exceeds President George W.  Bush’s six-year total of 51.  But according to a midyear Congressional Research Service report, Obama’s success rate in getting his appellate nominees confirmed is much higher than Bush’s—83.1 to 68.7 percent.  Even more notably, the pace of confirmations has increased dramatically since last November, when Senate Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower-court nominees.
The influence of appellate courts (also known as circuit courts) should not be underestimated.  They decide nearly 60,000 cases each year.  The Supreme Court’s total docket (including cases from state-court systems) contains fewer than 100 cases per year.  So the courts of appeals provide the final word in 99.9 percent of their cases.

 The takeover of the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a coup for Obama and his allies since that court reviews many cases related to federal law and regulations.  It is also the court that recently played a key role in trying to keep Obamacare on life support.  The Supreme Court will be called upon to examine the legality of governments using the dubious disparate impact standard to bring about massive change throughout America -- with no input from the rest of America.

Expect far worse to come if the Democrats keep the Senate, since they will be positioned to complete their plot to control America for decades to come.

Charles Lipson suggests other blows to come in Obama’s Post-Election Policy Blowout.  These include a decision to kill the Keystone pipeline project and a deal with Iran that will lead to that terror state -- with so much American blood on its hands -- developing nuclear weapons.  He will also, as has been a veiled threat, turn on Israel even more than he has so far.  This can take the form of letting the jackals at the United Nations run rampant, as well as imposing a Palestinian state on the Israelis -- their safety and security pales in comparison to becoming the founding father of Palestine -- a boast he can make while noting no other president has been able to accomplish that goal. (Qatar will be happy to fund the future Obama Presidential Library). 

Lipson notes these actions, as well as the entire modus operandi, of Barack Obama have constitutional implications:

The problem, as the Founders saw it, is to prevent the president or Congress from acquiring unchecked power, as they will inevitably try to do.  The solution was to divide powers between the executive and the legislature and hope that they would be constrained by countervailing institutional interests.  But Harry Reid is a “party man,” not a “Senate man.”

Liberal Law professor Jonathan Turley has made similar arguments about the entire nature of the Obama presidency: Obama “has become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.”   Truer words have rarely been spoken.

This is why it is imperative to cleanse the Congress as much as possible of Democrats who do Obama’s bidding -- that will open a lot of spots.  Barack Obama has rammed too much through with the connivance of the devious Harry Reid (who lately has been stoking racism to turn up black turnout) and the Democratic enablers who have empowered him.

Skeptics may ask: what can the Republicans do in the Senate? Fair question; no doubt there is a lot of dissatisfaction with Republicans and not an inconsiderable amount of it has been earned over the years.

But, last I checked, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and other stars of the Tea Party still consider themselves Republicans.  The more Republicans in Congress the more empowered they will become.

A GOP Senate can deny confirmation of Obama’s nominees to a wide range of positions, not just judges, also cabinet positions, and ambassadors. And the Senate can use their power to kill treaties he has signed with other nations.

Republicans can use the power of the purse to help control Obama.  Our military can be restored.  We can be respected again throughout the world, instead of held in contempt by our adversaries.  We can disable as much of the onerous ObamaCare as can be done by controlling the budget.  Tax rates can be fairer and be used to promote growth instead of being seen as a honey pot to spread the wealth.  Cheap energy prices through the opening of federal lands for exploration.  Podesta may tout the ability to circumvent Congress but budgets and well-drafted laws can put a halt to Obama’s end run around the Constitution and the American people.

They can exercise oversight as Congressman Darrell Issa and others have in the House.  Imagine the spectacle as Obama’s minions have to trudge over to both sides of the Capitol to explain their actions.  The House has been passing some bills that comport reasonably well with conservatives but Harry Reid has killed them in the Senate (it has been a do-nothing Senate, not a do-nothing Congress).  Reid has protected Obama and also Democratic Senators from having to cast votes that will reveal their true loyalties.  That shield will be stripped from covering them.  Bills should be passed as they used to be: with very detailed specificity so Obama and the bureaucratic fiefdom under his control will not have space or power to “interpret” rules as they wish.

Obama aspires to have as much power as he can so he can fulfill at least one promise “to fundamentally transform America.”  He has had an imperial presidency for six years.  It is time to end.  His response when cornered will be to vent even more rage -- and if he becomes incendiary, enough people will not be looking favorably on any Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) who may want to succeed him.  His true nature will be shown as he tries to defy the American people.

Benjamin Franklin could not have said it better.  When asked what type of government America would have at the end of the Revolutionary War and after the toil of creating our Constitution “Well, Doctor, what he we got a Republic or a Monarchy?”

Franklin answered in words that have echoed through the ages, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Can we?

Ed Lasky

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/barack_bulworth_obama.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Can NATO Afford a War on Two Fronts? - Peter Martino

by Peter Martino

Recently, Russian fighter planes and even bombers were spotted over the Baltics, Norway, the Netherlands, the Turkish part of the Black Sea and as far as the Atlantic Ocean.
Russia more than doubled its defense expenditure between 2007 and 2013, and plans to increase it again by 44 per cent in the 2014-2016 period.

It is always unwise to fight a war on two fronts, especially after defense cuts have undermined one's military. But that seems to be where the West is heading. The Western allies are fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, while at the same time tensions are rising between NATO and Russia. The question is whether NATO can afford both after the cuts in its defense budgets of the past two decades.

Strange things are happening on the international oil markets. In the past three months, the oil price dropped 25 per cent. The political situation in many oil-producing countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, is deteriorating. In normal circumstances, this would lead to rising oil prices. Exactly the opposite is happening. Economic growth in Europe, Japan and China is stagnating, while the United States is becoming one of the major oil producers while its oil demand is in decline. These trends would normally be corrected by a reduction in oil production. That is not happening, either.

Last month, the Saudis were pumping up 9.5 million barrels a day -- a break from their normal practice of reducing oil production by 1.5 per cent whenever the price drops by 10 per cent. The situation resembles what happened in 1985, when the Saudis raised oil production from 2 to 10 million barrels a day. As a result, oil prices dropped by two-thirds, forcing the Soviet Union out of the oil market. This change was one of the factors that lead to the collapse of the Soviet empire.

The Saudis' ability to influence the price of oil makes them into one of America's most valued strategic allies, despite their being untrustworthy and despising Western values of tolerance and freedom. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recently apologized for saying that Saudi Arabia had funneled weapons and other aid to terrorist groups in Syria that the U.S. is fighting. Nevertheless, it appears that, despite his apologies, what Biden had said was the truth.

It is possible that the Saudis are driving down the price of oil at the request of the American government, which hopes that a shortage of oil revenue would bring Russia to the negotiating table to sort out a deal on Ukraine. Russia's national budget is largely dependent on oil revenue. If the price falls below 85 dollars per barrel, Russia will feel the squeeze, especially as the price of Russia's gas deliveries to Europe is linked to that of oil. As this author wrote here earlier, "Europe, having made itself almost totally dependent on Russian gas and oil during the past decade, now wants America to come and save it from self-inflicted disaster."

The fall in prices may have convinced the Russians to adopt a more lenient position towards Ukraine. Last Friday, the Russians and the Ukrainians signed a temporary gas deal, valid until the end of March 2015, in which the Russians promise to deliver gas to Ukraine gas a price of $378 per 1,000 cubic meters until the end of this year and $365 in the first quarter of 2015. Apparently, the Russians are anticipating further price reductions.

America, however, will feel the squeeze, as well. President Obama hopes to make the U.S. independent of foreign oil and gas supplies in the near future. The increased exploitation of shale oil and gas is crucial in this regard. However, with an oil price below 85 dollars per barrel, the exploitation of shale gas is no longer profitable and America's hope to become energy independent seems unrealistic.

The Russia-Ukraine temporary gas deal does not signify that Russian President Vladimir Putin is softening his position. The lower the oil price falls, the harder Putin is squeezing the Europeans militarily. In the past months, Russian submarines and Russian airplanes have been violating the territory of European NATO members.

NATO military headquarters in Mons, Belgium, warns that Russian military planes are violating European airspace so frequently now that "interference with civilian air traffic" can no longer be excluded. This could even lead to "mid-air collision" with civilian aircraft. Last week, Russian fighter planes and even bombers were spotted over the Baltics, Norway, the Netherlands, the Turkish part of the Black Sea, and as far as the Atlantic Ocean, where the British and Portuguese air force had to intercept them. According to NATO, so far this year over 100 Russian planes have already been intercepted, which is three times as many as in 2013.

A Norwegian F-16 shadows a Russian air force Tupolev Tu-95 bomber. (Image source: Norwegian Air Force)

Europe's cuts in military expenditure in the past two decades are now being felt. NATO has only a limited number of Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) planes on standby to deter Russian aircraft from violating European airspace. Moreover, countries such as Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands currently deploy a substantial number of their operational F16 planes in the Middle East, fighting ISIS. The Dutch Air Force, for example, has only 25 deployable F16 planes, of which eight are currently deployed against ISIS. Russia, on the other hand, more than doubled its defense expenditure between 2007 and 2013, and plans to increase it again by 44 per cent in the 2014-2016 period.

If NATO wants to fight and annihilate Islamic terror groups in the Middle East, it might be wise to ponder whether it can afford to do so while tensions with Russia are rising. The impairment of Western militaries may soon lead to the question of which war NATO really needs to win: the war against Islamic jihad or the war against Russia over Ukraine?


Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4836/nato-russia-tensions

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Nuclear Deal with Iran would be Reckless, Israeli Official Warns

by Yoni Hirsch, Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff and Reuters

Top Israeli minister: Iran's refusal to disclose its nuclear past casts a heavy shadow over the future • Recording reveals high-level Obama administration official saying Iran nuclear deal would be "probably the biggest thing" Obama does in second term.

The Iranian nuclear facility in Arak [Illustrative] | Photo credit: AP

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, said Friday that Iran has stopped answering IAEA questions regarding "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear program.

"We cannot provide assurance that all [nuclear] material [in Iran] is for peaceful purposes," Amano said.

"What is needed now is action," Amano said, referring to the IAEA's unanswered questions about Iran's nuclear program. 

Israeli officials were very concerned by Amano's statements. International Relations, Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said, "Iran's refusal to disclose its nuclear past casts a heavy shadow over the future. Amano's grave words indicate, in fact, Iran's first violation of the interim nuclear agreement [of last November]. Signing a final agreement under these conditions would be a reckless act that world powers must avoid." 

Despite Iran's intransigence, the White House apparently views a nuclear deal with Iran as being of the upmost importance. In an audio recording obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was heard telling a group of liberal activists last January that Obama attributes as much significance to an Iran nuclear deal as he did to health care reform.

"Bottom line is, this is the best opportunity we've had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war," Rhodes said. "So no small opportunity, it's a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to put it in context."

Rhodes added that the Obama administration was looking for ways to avoid congressional scrutiny of an Iran nuclear deal.

"We're already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away," Rhodes said. "And there are ways to do that."

When asked on Friday to assess the chances of reaching a deal with Iran by the Nov. 24 deadline for a final agreement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "I honestly can’t give you odds, and I wouldn't. I think -- I'm hopeful, but it's a very tough negotiation. There are still gaps that are fairly wide on a number of subjects."

Kerry will meet in Muscat, Oman, next week with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and outgoing EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue ahead of the upcoming deadline for a final deal.

Last week, the top U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, said Iran would widely be seen as responsible if a comprehensive deal to curb its nuclear program was not reached.

Both sides say they still aim to meet the Nov. 24 deadline for a deal, despite doubts among many experts that they can reach an accord that would end the decade-old dispute over the Iranian nuclear program in just a few weeks.

Western officials say there are still differences in the positions of the two sides, especially over the future scope of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can have civilian and military uses.

The United States, France, Britain and Germany would like the number of enrichment centrifuges Iran maintains to be in the low thousands, while Iran wants to keep tens of thousands in operation. It now has about 19,000 installed, of which about 10,000 are spinning to refine uranium.

Iran and the six powers reached an interim deal last November, under which Iran received limited sanctions relief in exchange for halting the production of medium-enriched uranium. That six-month accord took effect early this year and was extended by four months in July.

Yoni Hirsch, Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff and Reuters

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=21137

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Some Background to the “Chickens**t” Controversy - David Bernstein

by David Bernstein

Jeffrey Goldberg has quoted an anonymous Obama Administration official as calling Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a “chickenshit” because Bibi refuses to make bold moves for peace that might endanger his electoral prospects.  Putting aside the incorrect use of the word chickenshit (which is not synonymous with “a chicken”), and the fact that it’s foolish to base a diplomatic strategy on assuming politicians won’t act like politicians, I think the underlying dynamic here reflects not just the general antipathy the Obama and Netanyahu administrations have for each other, but the continuing fallout from the Obama Administration’s initial gross misreading of the Israeli political scene.

Very succinctly, the Obama Administration came in to office thinking it could either force Netanyahu to make concessions, or force his government to fall.  Both the Shamir and the first Netanyahu governments made concessions and ultimately got tossed out by the voters after tensions rose with the U.S., so this was not a completely unreasonable  assumption.
However, Obama and his advisors missed several contrary factors.  The Israeli public never liked Obama, never trusted him due to his well-known associations with various anti-Israel leftists such as Rashid Khalidi. Israelis’ impressions were solidified by major blunders made by the Obama Administration, which did not get much attention in the U.S., but did in Israel. First, the Obama Administration informed the Israeli government that written assurances given to it by the Bush Administration about U.S. policy, given in response to prior Israeli concessions, were null and void. One of those assurances was that Israel would keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal, an assurance that ran counter to Obama’s first major initiative, a total settlement freeze. Undermining the promises of a president who was very popular in Israel, and making it clear that assurances from American governments have a very short expiration date, was not a way to win over Israeli public opinion.

Secretary of State John Kerry criticized reports that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is deteriorating. This comes after an anonymous U.S. official was quoted using profanity to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (AP)
 

Second, Obama went to Cairo in 2009, and not only didn’t visit Israel during his trip, but presented a narrative that Obama thought was sympathetic to Israel in that it invoked the Holocaust as showing the need for a Jewish state, but hit Israeli ears as adopting the Arab narrative that Jews are not indigenous to the area, but were only given a state in the Middle East to compensate for European Christian crimes.

The very popular (in Israel) Bill Clinton confronting an only mildly popular Netanyahu in 1998 played very differently in Israel than a very unpopular Obama confronting a popular Netanyahu over the last several years. And unlike in the Bush I and Clinton years, many in Congress vocally favored Netanyahu’s position, giving the president even less leverage.
I think the Obama Administration assumed Israelis that even if Israelis didn’t swoon over  Obama as much of the rest of the world did back in 2009, given Obama’s close ties to and huge support within the American Jewish community Israelis would presume good will, and that Obama therefore did not need to schmooze the Israeli public.  These assumptions proved wildly incorrect.

The Obama Administration also seemed to be caught off-guard by the fact that since the late 1990s, with one Intifada, one war in Lebanon, and one war in Gaza under their belts, all following previous Israeli withdrawals, Israeli public opinion had hardened against unilateral concessions, even when backed by the United States. (Note also that Netanyahu ultimately did agree to temporary settlement freeze, but Abbas then refused to negotiate until the last minute, and yet the Administration wasn’t nearly as critical of Abbas as of Netanyahu. Israelis noticed.)

Finally, there have been comments from Administration officials showing that suggest a very shallow understanding of Israeli politics. The most telling such comment is when an Obama Administration official in 2012 made the nonsensical assertion that Netanyahu is “essentially a Republican.” Charitably, this means that at least some in the Administration think about Netanyahu as a political enemy, which, moreover, is consistent with a remark made by Obama to Jewish leaders in 2008, to the effect that being pro-Israel doesn’t mean being pro-Likud, which happens to be Netanyahu’s party.  Uncharitably, it means that the nuances of Israeli politics, even the fact that you absolutely can’t coherently map Israeli politics onto American political divisions, are completely lost on them.

 
One could write an equally long post on the way the Israeli government has misjudged and misplayed its hand with regard to the Obama Administration.  But from the administration’s side, they expected Netanyahu either to concede to American wishes (i.e., “make bold moves for peace”), or be voted out by the Israeli electorate. Instead, Netanyahu has managed to stay his own course, and still is in no danger of losing his parliamentary majority. Hence administration frustration and “chickenshit.”

UPDATE: FWIW, I don’t think any concessions by Netanyahu would have made a difference, because I don’t think the Palestinians are willing to concede the “right of return”, and therefore there can be no deal. Nevertheless, to the extent the Obama Administration was banking on Netanyahu making “heroic” concessions a la Begin and the Sinai, what was their backup plan?

 

David Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/29/some-background-to-the-chickenshit-controversy/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The U.N. and Obama: Creators of a One-World Frankenstein - Janet Levy

by Janet Levy

In 2005, then Secretary General of the U.N. Kofi Annan observed that while the U.N. previously dealt only with governments, in the interest of global peace and prosperity the United Nations should extend its reach and partner directly with the business community, civil society and international organizations.  He envisioned the elimination of state sovereignty and nationalism to make way for global citizenship, ushering in a borderless world run by a U.N.-centered, international bureaucracy.  This world government with international institutions, global citizenship and a world code of justice would supplant individual nation-state governments to bring about a better world free of hunger, conflict and inequities.

However idealistic Annan’s vision, the reality would be darker and misshapen, like the grotesque creature put together by Dr. Frankenstein. Signing away of sovereignty and independence is a surefire route to tyrannical subordination of freedom and individual liberty. One-size-fits-all precepts imposed on all nations by an international body would ignore regional needs, interests and values.  World governance would eliminate the ability and self-determination of nations to protect their interests and act for the good and security of their people. These functions would be abdicated to an international body without direct consent of the people.  Further, if the U.N. became the world governing body, we’d be overseen by an organization dominated by state sponsors of terror, dictatorships and anti-Western forces.  For the United States, this amounts to what Joseph Klein, author of Global Deception:  The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom, called “the neutering of the Constitution and the nation it defines.”

Yet, the imperial presidency of Obama and his “I have a pen and a phone” executive overreach has been doggedly pursuing this perverse global vision.  Obama has sought to bring life to this Frankenstein creation of non-participatory globalist government that dismisses the constitutional order and the citizen self-government intended by our Founding Fathers. Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” program aligns with U.N. goals in its acceptance of open borders and expanded rights for illegal aliens, socialized medicine, income redistribution,  subordination of the American justice system to international law, unilateral disarmament and other policies designed to weaken America.

This globalist view that ignores national interests and the needs of individual communities has been evident in both U.S. and U.N. response to and management of the Ebola pandemic, illegal immigration and border control. For example, this week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon swiftly condemned New York, Illinois and New Jersey for enforcing mandatory, 21-day quarantines for health workers returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa.  Although more than 10,000 people have contracted the virus in Africa, the U.N. chief attacked as unjust the vigilance of U.S. state governments to protect their citizens by segregating potentially infected persons from the general populace. He judgmentally intoned, “Those who develop infections should be supported, not stigmatized.”  

In this inappropriate overreach into U.S. domestic affairs, the Secretary General of the United Nations criticized the disease control policies of those directly responsible for the welfare of the populations of New York, New Jersey and Illinois.  Remarkably, this blatant interference, which mirrored the position of the Obama administration, did not generate outrage by state authorities.  Instead, they readily modified their guidelines from mandated quarantines to voluntary self-monitoring. Curiously, no objections arose to an official federal policy instituting a 21-day sequestration and monitoring of American military personnel in Italy who had returned from West Africa.

In further accord with the U.N. position, Obama is reportedly preparing to relax immigration rules to permit foreign Ebola victims to receive treatment in the United States.  This plan was revealed this week on Fox News by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) who received the information from a government whistleblower.

This action on Ebola followed another push for global government that occurred earlier this year, focusing on illegal immigration. In July, after it became clear that the near-blanket amnesty for illegal aliens – the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill – would be rejected by the House, the U.N., “like the well-timed swoop of a falcon,” pushed a declaration to declare a humanitarian crisis on the U.S. border and afford internationally protected, refugee status for border crossers.  This from an international body that stood idly by while millions were slaughtered in Cambodia and Uganda in the 1970s and two to three million, mostly Black Christians, were driven from their homes in Darfur during the last decade. 

Armed with the rubber stamp of the United Nations and “his pen and his phone,” Obama is proceeding on the path toward executive amnesty despite congressional disapproval.  By changing immigration-law enforcement priorities and subverting state government authority, he has advanced his agenda to flood the country with illegal immigrants and move “forward” with his plan for the “fundamental transformation of America.”

Last week, former State Department officer, Jessica Vaughan, now an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., reported that the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a vendor requisition for the production over the next five years of up to 34 million blank green cards and work permits.  Ms. Vaughn noted that in 2013, the government issued a mere one million green cards, one million work permits and a half million replacement cards.

Further, Obama’s public statements have made clear his intent to implement the U.N.’s concept of “world citizenship.”  Obama recently told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, “I’ve said this before that…I would act to fix as much of our immigration systems as I can on my own, and meant what I said.  So this is not a question of if, but when.”

Obama’s pursuit of this goal has raised concerns from those whose job is to protect U.S. citizens as evidenced by a statement this week from Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, a union representing 12,000 immigration officers. “It is our job to ensure that terrorists, disease, criminals, public charges, and other undesirable groups are kept out of the United States,” Palinkas said. “Unfortunately, we have been blocked in our efforts to accomplish this mission…”

The “hope and change” that sold many voters on the Obama presidency has now become “the fundamental transformation of America,” a distorted monster of a political idea buttressed by the one world government/global citizenship agenda of the U.N.  This does not signal a step “forward” but a certain path to a less secure, less free, less independent America.  Ultimately, such policies endanger public safety, burden taxpayers and rob us of the liberty and freedom inherent in a sovereign nation.

Janet Levy

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/11/the_un_and_obama_creators_of_a_oneworld_frankenstein.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.