Displaying posts published in

March 2017

Iran Is Progressing Towards Nuclear Weapons Via North Korea By Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dr. Refael Ofek and Lt. Col. (Res.) Dr. Dany Shoham

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This analysis argues that Iran is steadily making progress towards a nuclear weapon and is doing so via North Korea. Iran is unwilling to submit to a years-long freeze of its military nuclear program as stipulated by the July 2015 Vienna Nuclear Deal. North Korea is ready and able to provide a clandestine means of circumventing the deal, which would allow the Iranians to covertly advance that nuclear program. At the same time, Iran is likely assisting in the upgrading of certain North Korean strategic capacities.https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-progressing-nuclear-weapons-via-north-korea/

While the Vienna Nuclear Deal (VND) is focused on preventing (or at least postponing) the development of nuclear weapons (NW) in Iran, its restrictions are looser with regard to related delivery systems (particularly nuclear-capable ballistic missiles) as well as to the transfer of nuclear technology by Iran to other countries. Moreover, almost no limits have been placed on the enhancement of Tehran’s military nuclear program outside Iran. North Korea (NK) arguably constitutes the ideal such location for Iran.

The nuclear and ballistic interfaces between the two countries are long-lasting, unique, and intriguing. The principal difference between the countries is that while NK probably already possesses NW, Iran aspires to acquire them but is subject to the VND. Iran has the ability, however, to contribute significantly to NK’s nuclear program, in terms of both technology (i.e., by upgrading gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment) and finance (and there is an irony in this, as it is thanks to its VND-spurred economic recovery that Iran is able to afford it).

This kind of strategic, military-technological collaboration is more than merely plausible. It is entirely possible, indeed likely, that such a collaboration is already underway.

This presumption assumes that Iran is unwilling to lose years to the freeze on its military nuclear program. It further assumes that NK is ready and able to furnish a route by which Iran can clandestinely circumvent the VND, thus allowing it to make concrete progress on its NW program. And finally, it assumes that the ongoing, rather vague interface between the two countries reflects Iranian advances towards NW. The following components and vectors comprise that interface.

From the 1990s onward, dozens – perhaps hundreds – of NK scientists and technicians apparently worked in Iran in nuclear and ballistic facilities. Ballistic missile field tests were held in Iran, for instance near Qom, where the NK missiles Hwasong-6 (originally the Soviet Scud-C, which is designated in Iran as Shehab-2) and Nodong-1 (designated in Iran as Shehab-3) were tested. Moreover, in the mid-2000s, the Shehab-3 was tentatively adjusted by Kamran Daneshjoo, a top Iranian scientist, to carry a nuclear warhead.

Furthermore, calculations were made that were aimed at miniaturizing a nuclear implosion device in order to fit its dimensions and weight to the specifications of the Shehab-3 re-entry vehicle. These, together with benchmark tests, were conducted in the highly classified facility of Parchin. Even more significantly, Iranian experts were present at Punggye-ri, the NK nuclear test site, when such tests were carried out in the 2000s.

Syria served concurrently as another important platform for Iran – until the destruction by Israel of the plutonium-based nuclear reactor that had been constructed in Syria by NK. According to some reports, not only were the Iranians fully aware of that project in real time, but the project was heavily financed by Tehran. Considering Iranian interests, it was probably intended as a backup for the heavy water plutonium production reactor of Iran’s military nuclear program, and possibly as an alternative to the Iranian uranium enrichment plant in Natanz in the event that it is dismantled.

Donald Trump’s Boffo Speech to Congress Politically and theatrically brilliant. Bruce Thornton

Move over, Howard Stern. Donald Trump is the new “king of all media.” His address to Congress was politically and theatrically brilliant, confounding his media critics–– even the virulently Trumpophobic ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and the other usual suspects gave it positive reviews––and exposing the sore-loser Democrats for the partisan hacks they are. You knew the Dems were in a panic when they scurried from the hall at the end of the speech so they could start spinning the journalists waiting outside.

We are witnessing a profound shift in presidential politics, but whether it will lead to significant reform of our soft-despotic state remains an open question.

After a campaign and first month in office filled with caustic tweets, petty squabbles, heated rhetoric, and seeming disarray, Trump spoke in the disciplined, lofty, aspirational, conciliatory tone we expect of presidents. But the Democrats mostly sat on their hands, even when Trump promised to create jobs and help curb the slaughter in blighted black neighborhoods, boons for the Democrats’ constituents. They did rouse themselves when, like Nero in the Colosseum, they gave the thumbs-down to Trump’s proposals to repeal and replace Obamacare, or destroy ISIS, or actually enforce federal immigration laws. Given how much Americans dislike the failing health-care entitlement behemoth, fear metastasizing jihadist terror outfits, and want illegal alien criminals deported and our borders secured, it was bad optics for Dems to churlishly remain seated, their scowls and silence implying to viewers that they value illegal alien murderers, an imploding Obamacare, and avoiding “Islamophobia” over the security and interests of American citizens.

The highlight, of course, came when Trump acknowledged the widow of slain Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, killed during a raid in Yemen. Questions about the raid have been raised by Owens’ father and the Dems, giving the hostile media another pretext for attacking Trump. But all the debate about the value or success of the raid has been eclipsed by the minute-and-a-half standing ovation given to Owens’ widow, who wept as she occasionally lifted her gaze upward and silently spoke to her lost husband. Critics are carping about “exploitation” and “political theater,” something they didn’t mind when Hillary exploited a grieving “Gold Star” couple at the Democrat convention. But their complaints won’t reach a fraction of the millions who witnessed that powerfully moving moment.

Law and Order, Under New Management President Trump and Attorney General Sessions offer hope for a turnaround in public safety. Heather Mac Donald

Reprinted from City-Journal.org.

President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired a double-shot of reality yesterday at the Black Lives Matter narrative about policing. Trump laid down broad markers for a change in law enforcement policy and tone from the White House during an address to a joint session of Congress. Sessions fleshed out more crime-policy details earlier that day in a speech to the National Association of Attorneys General. Together, both speeches provide hope for a significant turnaround in the nation’s rising violent-crime rate.

Trump’s promise to restore law and order was a centerpiece of his campaign. That theme drove the mainstream media and liberal politicians to a state of near apoplexy. Every time Trump brought attention to the increasing loss of black life in the Black Lives Matter era, the media responded that there was nothing to be concerned about, because crime rates were still below their early 1990s levels. President Barack Obama dismissed the rising inner-city carnage as a mere “blip” in a few cities. That “blip” in 2015, however, was the largest single-year increase in homicide—11 percent—in nearly half a century, as Trump pointed out last night. The victims were overwhelmingly black. Over 900 more black males were killed in 2015 compared with 2014. And the increase in street crime has not abated. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that murders in the 30 largest U.S. cities were 14 percent higher in 2016 compared with 2015, a stunning increase coming on top of 2015’s already-massive homicide rise. While it is true that a two-decade-long violent-crime decline has not been wiped out in two years, if current trends continue, we could find ourselves back to the city-destroying anarchy of the early 1990s soon enough.

Last night, Trump refused to back down on his central civil rights concern: that “every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community.” The media have—astonishingly—called him a racist and Hitler for making that assertion. On the left, it is only acceptable to speak about the loss of a black life if a police officer is responsible. But police shootings, overwhelmingly triggered by violently resisting suspects, cause a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. It is criminals, not the police, who are responsible for the tragic fact that blacks die of homicide at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. Nevertheless, the false narrative that we are living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings has led officers in high-crime areas to disengage from discretionary proactive policing, with the result being greatly emboldened criminals.

Trump last night set out to change that narrative. To ensure that inner-city children enjoy the same safety that other Americans take for granted, “we must work with—not against—the men and women of law enforcement,” Trump said. He continued:

We must build bridges of cooperation and trust—not drive the wedge of disunity and division.

The Lessons Of The Hamas War Israel’s strategic mistake. Caroline Glick

The State Comptroller’s Report on Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s war with Hamas in the summer of 2014, is exceedingly detailed. The problem is that it addresses the wrong details.

Israel’s problem with Hamas wasn’t its tactics for destroying Hamas’s attack tunnels. Israel faced two challenges in its war with Hamas that summer. The first had to do with the regional and global context of the war. The second had to do with its understanding of its enemy on the ground.

War between Hamas and Israel took place as the Sunni Arab world was steeped a two-pronged existential struggle. On the one hand, Sunni regimes fought jihadist groups that emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement. On the other, they fought against Iran and its proxies in a bid to block Iran’s moves toward regional hegemony.

On both fronts, the Sunni regimes, led by Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Saudi regime and the United Arab Emirates, were shocked to discover that the Obama administration was siding with their enemies against them.

If Israel went into the war against Hamas thinking that the Obama administration would treat it differently than it treated the Sunni regimes, it quickly discovered that it was mistaken. From the outset of the battle between Hamas and Israel, the Obama administration supported Hamas against Israel.

America’s support for Hamas was expressed at the earliest stages of the war when then-secretary of state John Kerry demanded that Israel accept an immediate cease-fire based entirely on Hamas’s terms. This demand, in various forms, remained the administration’s position throughout the 50-day war.

Hamas’s terms were impossible for Israel. They included opening the jihadist regime’s land borders with Israel and Egypt, and providing it with open access to the sea. Hamas demanded to be reconnected to the international banking system in order to enable funds to enter Gaza freely from any spot on the globe. Hamas also demanded that Israel release its terrorists from its prisons.

President Trump Saves a CIA Agent The truth about the CIA and the covert war at home and abroad. Daniel Greenfield

Last month, President Trump stood in front of the CIA Memorial Wall and declared that Islamic terrorism “has to be eradicated just off the face of the Earth.” It is front of this wall where, as Vice President Pence said, “we remember 117 who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom”, that real change in how we treat those who fight terrorism must begin.

The vast majority of the men and women added to that wall in the last few decades were killed by Islamic terrorists. They include Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods who were murdered in Benghazi. And who were abandoned by their government, by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, before their deaths.

The media made much of the resignation of Edward Price. Price had started out as an analyst under Bush. Under Obama, he shot up to spokesman, senior director and special assistant to the president. In this capacity, he insisted that the CIA should research Global Warming and sold the Iran nuke sellout.

Price’s resignation was meaningless. He was an Obama loyalist embedded in a senior national security position to push propaganda. And now there was no future under Trump for his old line of work.

But the media wept crocodile tears for the “career CIA official” whose work involved endangering national security and manipulating the media. It has shown distinctly less interest in the plight of a CIA agent who actually took risks on the ground to secure the capture of Islamic terrorists.

While the media portrays the White House as being at war with the CIA, the Trump administration prevented the extradition and imprisonment of Sabrina De Sousa. De Sousa was in the airport about to be extradited to Italy, but an agreement was reached to release her instead.

“I can confirm that this wouldn’t have happened without extraordinary help from the Trump administration,” Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra said.

De Sousa had been working a secretary in the United States Embassy in Rome. She is allegedly one of a number of CIA people accused by Italy of having helped capture a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s murderous organization, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya or the Islamic Group, led by the Blind Sheikh who was involved in the World Trade Center bombing and plots to bomb landmarks across New York City.

Considering the leftist slant and general incompetence of Italy’s legal system, it is not clear if Sabrina De Sousa was even involved in the operation. Furthermore the United States government’s position is that De Sousa’s job at our embassy made her arrest a violation of international agreements. Italy convicted 26 Americans in absentia. These convictions are worthless here, but Sabrina De Sousa found herself under arrest while flying to visit her sick mother.

The Democrats and the media, who of late have strived to portray themselves as the defenders of the intelligence community, have no interest in the case. If anything they are covertly cheering it on.

Ever since 9/11, they declared war on the CIA personnel who were capturing and interrogating the terrorists. They have targeted them and exposed them to aid the Islamic terrorists at war with us. The left bemoans the Obama loyalists elevated to top national security posts while writing off the lives of the men and women on the ground. That is what happened in Benghazi and across the War on Terror.

The Democrats have recently learned to love the CIA, as they attempt to exploit anti-American leftists planted in the Agency in their war against the democratically elected President of the United States.

But their sudden respect for the CIA is a very recent one.

Early in Obama’s term in office, Democrats tried to threaten CIA interrogators with 15 years in prison if they interrogated Muslim terrorists too harshly. A year earlier, Attorney General Eric Holder had named a prosecutor to investigate the CIA’s interrogation of Islamic terrorists. The investigation, with its efforts to bring criminal charges, dragged on through much of Obama’s first term, without yielding anything.

But the Democrats were still determined to punish the men and women who had kept us safe. The release of the partisan Senate report two years later, not only endangered American lives and smeared the CIA wholesale, but allowed the families of terrorists to target assorted personnel, including the psychologists who had worked with the CIA on the interrogation program, for lawfare campaigns.

Obama’s own CIA director had charged Democrat Senate committee members with stealing sensitive documents. The names of these psychologists had been leaked through a Senate report which had used the names and pseudonyms of CIA officials. Even the pseudonyms could be used to identify CIA people.

Among their top targets was the CIA official who was the inspiration for Zero Dark Thirty’s Maya whose real life counterpart headed the Global Jihad Unit. Despite every effort by the CIA, the media insisted on publishing her name. Taking the lead in this illegal act was the Washington Post. “Maya’s” name still appears on the website a top Senator Democrat who had called for a special investigation into the Valerie Plame affair. Indeed the media had recreated a real life version of the Plame affair except this time, unlike Plame, their target was actually hunting Islamic terrorists in trouble spots.

And, equally predictably, no one in the media or among the Democrats went to jail for it.

Sessions Recuses Himself From Russian Nothing-Burger The AG won’t handle the “election interference” case. Matthew Vadum

“As they try to lynch Sessions to appease their crazed base, Democrats are holding a Hypocrisy Olympics right now.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions officially recused himself yesterday from the nonsensical, possibly even nonexistent, federal probe into claims of Russian interference in the election – claims that for all we know were invented by President Trump’s enemies in the intelligence community and the Democratic Party.

Despite the oceans of mass media hysteria, there is still no publicly available trustworthy evidence that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with the Russian government last year. Sources in newspaper articles are never identified. There is not a scintilla of proof of improper conduct. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. All we have is the alleged say-so of faceless CIA spooks whose motives are questionable, to put it charitably.

President Trump called out his predecessor for meddling this week. Accusing Barack Obama of being “behind” the unruly town hall protests and maybe the leaks coming out of the White House, too. A New York Times article from Wednesday stated that in the dying days of the Obama administration officials “spread information” about the alleged Russian tampering in the election and supposed ties between that country and Trump associates “across the government.” Some have called the clues Trump-hating spooks left behind as “intelligence bread crumbs” planted to be discovered later.

It needs to be said that even the theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trying to undermine the public’s faith in American democracy is suspect. The KGB veteran delights in being seen as a puppet master who throws his weight around in other countries. As a few voices in the wilderness have suggested, if Russia is trying to manipulate the American political process, it is in an attempt to shore up Putin’s position at home. In other words, it is a propaganda campaign aimed at Russians in Russia, and the Left is only too happy to help out in order to hurt Trump.

The Sessions-is-a-Russian-traitor story came about just when the Trump administration was basking in the glow of the president’s historic speech to Congress. How convenient. Suddenly good news about Trump evaporates in the news cycle. Poof.

As CNN’s resident self-described “communist” propagandist Van Jones was forced to admit, President Trump’s widely praised address was a game-changer. Trump “became president of the United States in that moment, period.” Jones was moved during Trump’s tribute to fallen Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, a Navy SEAL, and his widow Carryn Owens. Trump looked towards a visibly emotional Mrs. Owens and said, “Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity … thank you,” a comment that was followed by a stand ovation that lasted two minutes.

“That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics,” Jones said. “If he finds a way to do that over and over again, he’s going to be there for eight years.” Not surprisingly, Jones’s simple acknowledgment of reality earned him the wrath of professionally unhinged MSNBC-reject and dead-ender Keith Olbermann and a chorus of other radicals.

Returning to the Sessions story, at a press conference yesterday the attorney general stressed that a recusal is far from an admission of guilt and that the Department of Justice does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations.

Sessions is mindful of the important aphorism that over time has hardened into a legal maxim: “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”

Doug Hurst A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

We all have them, friends who believe the planet is on a CO2-fuelled collision course with a catastrophe that can only be averted by directing large sums to rent-seeking wind farmers and the like. If you know someone like that, here’s a simple, handy guide to the climate scam.
A school teacher I know tells his pupils that ‘Saying does not make it so’, that facts are the key to knowledge, not opinions. Nowhere is this truer today than in the so-called ‘climate debate’. Here, much fails the facts test. Topping the list are claims of unprecedented warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Resultant droughts, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe storms and other catastrophes are assumed. A switch from CO2-producing fossil fuels to renewable energy, especially wind and solar, is deemed essential.

Similar dire climate predictions have been around since the late 1970s. And in all that time, none has come true. None at all. Undeterred, the climate soothsayers ignore their failures and carry on as if nothing had happened. The fact that good science should produce good predictions, and this is not happening, is also largely ignored. Instead, impending climate doom, and what must be done to avoid it, is orthodox thought in much of government, academia and environmental groups everywhere. This thinking is much at odds with key facts.

A most important fact is that Earth’s four and a half billion year history tells us we are now cooler than average, not warmer. Indeed, for 80% of that history Earth had no ice caps and dinosaurs lived near the South Pole for millions of years. There were ice ages, too, with thick ice down to the Canadian border and across northern Eurasia. Indeed, this was the norm for the last 800 000 years, with ice ages, separated by warmer interglacial periods, coming and going each 100 000 years or so.

We are in the Holocene inter-glacial period now. It officially began 11 700 years ago, but not in a clear-cut way. Gradual warming followed the ice age peak about 25,000 years ago until a cold spell 14,000 years ago chilled things down again and temperatures swung wildly by 5C or so until the current warmer times began about 12,000 years ago.

During the last ice age, sea levels were some 130 metres lower than today, thanks to water locked-up in ice caps. With warmer times, some ice melted and seas rose to near current levels in just a few thousand years. Today, they are rising by only 16cm or so per century; a tiny change compared with the rapid changes in the early Holocene days and some contrary claims today. The lower sea levels exposed our continental shelf, joined Australia to Tasmania and PNG and left the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) high and dry for tens of thousands of years. Then, as the ice melted, Tasmania and PNG became islands and the GBR re-generated some 8,000 years ago in its previous position.

Similar things happened throughout the world. Rising Holocene waters separated England from Europe, formed the Dardanelles and the Black Sea and remade the world map. Humans flourished in the warmer climate, with 60% of the Holocene averaging 2C higher than today. The hottest time was some 7 000 years ago, with other peaks at 4000, 2000 and 1000 years back. Although there were no thermometer readings in these times, reliable proxies are available using lake sediments, pollen fossils and such, and evidence of what crops grew where and tree-lines on hills and in marginal areas. Indeed, the old joke that the Roman Empire went only as far north as wine grapes would grow has some truth to it. In fact, they grew grapes and citrus in parts of England that until recently would not support either crop. The Chinese too grew crops along the Yellow River in those times that won’t grow there today. And, for history buffs, Hadrian’s route across the Alps could not be used today as it is permanently closed with ice and snow.

Thus, we know that Holocene temperatures were often warmer than now and varied constantly – and wild temperature swings occurred just prior to the Holocene period. When we take this longer view, the recent temperature increase of about 0.8C since 1880 falls well within the limits of previous natural change, and is neither unprecedented nor dangerous.

The West Submits to Blasphemy Laws Forward to the Middle Ages! by Judith Bergman

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning…” — Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Samer Majzoub, Canadian Muslim Forum.

The motion still does not offer any definition or any statistics to support its claim that “Islamophobia” is a problem in Canada.

However, it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government measures.

The West is submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971. Denmark’s Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a Quran.

In the West, blasphemy as a criminal offence has for centuries generally been considered a relic of the past. In a largely godless society, few people take offense to blasphemous comments or acts. Christians do not descend upon alleged blasphemers with guns and knives, and publishers do not worry about “offending” Christians.

In 1997, Danish public service radio financed an artist burning a Bible and broadcast it on national television. No one was charged, even though there were complaints and the state prosecutor investigated the case.

Yet, a Danish man will be prosecuted. He burned his own Quran in his own garden and then posted the video in a public Facebook group, “Yes to freedom, No to Islam,” with the accompanying text, “Consider your neighbor, it stinks when it burns”. Attorney General Jan Reckendorff stated:

“It is the prosecution’s view that the circumstances of the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Qur’an implies that in some cases it may be a violation of the blasphemy provision, which deals with public mockery or scorn against a religion. It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case require that it should be prosecuted in order for the courts to have the opportunity to take a position on the matter.”

The Attorney General may have been mentioning the Bible only out of politeness. After all, no one has been prosecuted for burning the Bible in Denmark, as not even burning it on national television was considered sufficiently offensive. The Quran is clearly a very different matter.

The decision has caused renewed debate about abolishing the blasphemy provision in Denmark — an issue that regularly pops up.

In Norway, the provision against blasphemy was abolished in 2005. A poll conducted in January showed that 41% of Norwegian Muslims believe that blasphemy should be punished, and 7% believe that the penalty for blasphemy anywhere should be capital punishment.

In Britain, at least one man has been prosecuted and sentenced for burning the Quran (in 2011) and several arrested in 2010 and 2014 .

The enforcement of blasphemy provisions, so out of place in a largely post-Christian Europe, brings back the Middle Ages, when blasphemy was ferociously prosecuted by the Church. Is that really an era for modern European society to be aspiring to after centuries of fighting for freedom of speech?

In Canada, meanwhile, anti-Islamophobia motions, aiming gradually to prohibit all criticism of Islam — and part of Muslim blasphemy laws — are being passed. The Ontario Provincial Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion in February. The motion called on the legislature to “stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance; rebuke the… growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments” and “condemn all forms of Islamophobia.” Needless to say, no such motions were introduced to protect Judaism or Christianity.

U.S. Senator Colludes With Russians to Influence Presidential Election By J. Christian Adams

Yes, a United States senator really did collude with the Russians to influence the outcome of a presidential election. His name was Ted Kennedy.

While Sen. Al Franken (D-Ringling Bros.) and other Democrats have the vapors over a truthful, complete, and correct answer Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave in his confirmation hearing, it’s worth remembering the reprehensible behavior of Senator Ted Kennedy in 1984.

This reprehensible behavior didn’t involve launching an Oldsmobile Delmont 88 into a tidal channel while drunk. This reprehensible behavior was collusion with America’s most deadly enemy in an effort to defeat Ronald Reagan’s reelection.

You won’t hear much about that from CNN and the clown from Minnesota.

To recap, from Forbes:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

Among the promises Kennedy made the Soviets was he that would ensure that the television networks gave the Soviet leader primetime slots to speak directly to the American people, thus undermining Reagan’s framing of the sinister nature of the USSR. Event then, the Democrats had the power to collude with the legacy media. Kennedy also promised to help Andropov penetrate the American message with his Soviet agitprop.

That’s right, folks. Even 30 years ago, Democrat senators were colluding with America’s enemies to bring down Republicans.

Nutty Defense Secretary wants Islamists, Obama leftovers in senior posts By Ed Straker

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis wants to fill the most senior posts at the Defense Department with people sympathetic to Islamists, or almost as bad, people sympathetic to Barack Obama.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis wants to tap the former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, as his undersecretary of defense for policy, but the Pentagon chief is running into resistance from White House officials, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

As ambassador to Egypt between 2011 and 2013, Patterson worked closely with former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and his Islamist government. She came under fire for cultivating too close a relationship with the regime and for discouraging protests against it—and White House officials are voicing concerns about those decisions now.

For Mattis’s part, he has “put her name forward and he doesn’t quite understand why people have an objection,” the person said.

How can he not understand? She was an enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s a radical Islamist group. And in her incompetence, the embassy she ran played a prelude role to the carnage in Benghazi.

Transition officials swatted down Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration and who was Mattis’s top choice to be his deputy; she eventually took herself out of the running for the position.

Why would he pick someone close to Obama for such a crucial role? It’s totally inconceivable.

Apperently, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis wants people sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and whatever brotherhood Barack Obama belongs to at the most senior levels of government. If these people reflect Mattis’s philosophy, we have the wrong man at the Defense Department. Mattis is also opposed to waterboarding terrorists and enhanced interrogation techniques.

Can somebody in the comments section please explain to me why Donald Trump picked this bozo for Secretary of Defense?