Because of this, and because of America’s weak foreign policy, Japan is now contemplating transferring its weaponry to other Asian countries in order to work with them as allies against China’s growing militancy. In a meeting with representatives of the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Japan addressed the question of China’s “unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force.”26
To give you a sense of how much the balance of power in the world has shifted away from the United States, when the United Nations Security Council—the United States, China, France, Great Britain, Germany, and Russia—began to participate in negotiations with Iran, which country do you think actually stood up and spoke out against the pending Geneva agreement? It wasn’t the United States. The normally meek and unassertive French negotiators assured Israel that they would stand firm against an Iran deal.27
Adding to the mess of U.S. foreign policy is the spreading scandal at the National Security Agency. German chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of Europe’s most economically powerful nation, vented her anger at the administration for turning the U.S. spy agency against America’s allies. This was in response to the revelation that the NSA had been tapping Merkel’s private phone conversations for years, even before she became chancellor.28
It doesn’t stop there.
The day before talks were scheduled to begin in Geneva in mid-February 2014, Iran declared once again, “The Zionist regime is an illegitimate and bastard regime.” At the same time, Pakistan was said to have nuclear weapons ready to deliver to Saudi Arabia so that it could defend itself against a possible Iranian nuclear attack.29
With the foreign policy of the United States in shambles, our traditional enemies, from Iran to China to Russia to North Korea, are emboldened. To them we appear weak, uncertain, and unable to decide whether we support our traditional allies, including Israel and the European Union nations, or not.
Even the Pentagon is concerned.
Chinese military technology advances are proceeding at an alarming rate. It recently tested an ultra-high-speed missile that will enable it to send nuclear warheads to targets around the world at hypersonic speeds. The technology amounts to what one U.S. official describes as a “jet-powered, atmospheric cruise missile” which can reach speeds of nearly 8,000 miles per hour.
Although we’re still far and away the number one military power on the planet, China has its eyes on our perch, and with the advances it’s making in military technology, we may not hold that position for much longer.30
Sir Hew Strachan, a senior security advisor from Great Britain, said this about the United States’ foreign policy: “Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world.”31
We know that Saudi Arabia has been supporting Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons and that the Saudis have already ordered nuclear missiles from Pakistan. Pakistan is prepared to deliver those weapons to the Saudis at a moment’s notice. The Saudis have found it necessary to develop a new source for protecting their borders from invasion, because the United States has effectively deserted Saudi Arabia as we move toward what appears to be a U.S.-Iranian alliance against Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.
Our negotiations with Iran—our secretly lifting sanctions against our avowed terrorist enemy—represent the clearest indication of how far we’ve moved from being an ally of Israel, and yet the Jewish community in the United States is silent today.
In fact, with the United States seeming to desert Israel, the Jewish state is left with only one choice: to exercise its military strength against Iran. Such an attack—which, because of the U.S.’s secret negotiations with Iran, would have to be done on its own—would make Israel look like a warmonger. It would make the Israelis outcasts among the nations of the world.
Israel had the chance to attack Iran and stop that country’s development of nuclear weapons years ago, but it failed to exercise that option. I believe that the reason Israel did not attack Iran was that they feared they would insult and offend their American ally.
Look what that loyalty got them.
In my view, that American ally has turned its back on Israel and formed an alliance with the most dangerous terrorist nation in the world.
While the administration effectively neutered an Israeli military response to Iran, it is entirely possible that U.S. foreign policy has set the stage for a confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. If that happens, Saudi Arabia—formerly protected by its alliance with the United States—may well have to respond alone to an Iranian military attack. If that scenario occurs, Saudi Arabia will surely lose. It would likely lose because Iran would not hesitate to use its nukes against the Saudis. It is also possible that with the Saudis’ possessing nuclear weapons, the Middle East could be the staging ground for a broader nuclear war.
Couple the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite factions with the dramatic increase in radical Islamist violence against the West and the United States’s ongoing withdrawal from the region, and you have the ingredients for a cataclysmic event. With a future that includes a nuclear-armed Iran, that event could be biblical in scope.
The NSA and American IN-Security
If there is anything to the old adage that information is power, and I think there is, then the NSA is already the most powerful entity known to man. Its mission is to simply achieve and maintain control over the private information of every citizen and every business and governmental organization in the world.
The question is: Despite the fact that we’re capturing so much information, much of it about the activities and communications of Americans, are we actually decreasing the chances of terrorist attacks against America?
In early 2014, California senator Dianne Feinstein claimed that 54 terrorist “events” had been “interrupted” by the NSA, including 13 on American soil, 25 in Europe, 11 in Asia, and five in Africa.
Even then-NSA director general Keith Alexander couldn’t let that lie stand. He corrected Feinstein, admitting that at most one terrorist plot had been thwarted.
Do you know the details of the “terrorist event” that the NSA had intervened on? It involved a cab driver in San Diego who sent $8,500 to a group in Somalia that had been identified as a terrorist group.32
The NSA is defining terrorism downward in order to justify its existence as an illegal data-grabbing behemoth.
As information is said to be power, power is said to be intoxicating. Barack Obama campaigned initially on “transparency in government.” Now he oversees and defends an illegal entity that gathers Americans’ private information and has a budget three times the size of the CIA’s. Let me tell you again how big the NSA is. It can intercept and capture communications that contain as many words as there are in the Library of Congress. It does that incomprehensible feat every six hours. The agency’s Fort Meade headquarters consists of a campus that covers five thousand acres, and its electrical bill is over $70 million a year.33
That’s the transparency that the president promised.
To put the administration’s priorities in perspective, while it was collecting and stockpiling our most personal information, it didn’t spot a convicted terrorist who attended a meeting in the Cannon Office Building on Capitol Hill—even though he was still under house arrest.
It happened on December 5, 2013.
A group called the Egypt Freedom Foundation held a conference protesting the ouster of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. Ahmed Bedier, the group’s president, had long been associated with the Council on American-Islamist Relations (CAIR), another group that has gained a foothold with the current administration.
Here is what several prominent U.S. public figures have to say about CAIR:
Sen. Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.” Sen. Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Steven Pomer
antz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, notes that “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”34
And this infiltration of Capitol Hill pales in comparison with what’s going on in the White House itself.
In 2004, the FBI uncovered the intentions of Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States to infiltrate our government and undermine it “from within” in a document seized during a raid on the home of a suspected terrorist.35
Ten years later, as many as six suspected Islamist sympathizers are advising this administration on foreign policy.
One of these advisors is a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council who attends meetings in the White House despite the fact that he supports the Muslim Brotherhood and has tweeted that he considers “the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”36
My take is that we have an Islamically compliant administration.
And in February 2014, Barack Obama held a meeting in the White House with a Muslim Brotherhood member with connections to Hamas. He was ostensibly attending the meeting to serve as a translator for another attendee, but it’s difficult to see the need to let a man with such connections into the White House just so another Muslim can make himself understood.
When asked about the presence of a person who has strong associations with the Muslim Brotherhood, the White House referred the question “to the Iraqi government.”37
There are at least four others working in the administration on sensitive antiterrorist projects who are alleged to support and associate with Islamist terrorist organizations.38
There is a great body of evidence that suggests the Obama administration gives preferential treatment to Muslim Brotherhood members when they travel to the United States. These people were given “port courtesy” at Minneapolis Airport and at New York’s John F. Kennedy and Washington’s Dulles airports. According to a State Department directive, these Muslim Brotherhood members could “not be pulled into secondary [screening] upon arrival at a point of entry.” In other words, they were not to be subjected to what any American might encounter when boarding a flight: TSA pat-downs, secondary screening of carry-on luggage, and hand inspection in order to uncover possible explosives.39
While Muslim Brotherhood members are granted free travel access anywhere in the U.S., the United States is rejecting Israeli applications for tourist visas and denying Israeli tourists membership in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. In 2013, nearly 10 percent of Israelis applying were rejected, almost double the 2012 level and nearly four times the number of rejections in 2007 during the Bush presidency. And Israel still hasn’t been granted the same rights as thirty-eight other countries who are members of the Visa Waiver Program have received. The reason Israel has been denied membership is because of the way it treats Arab-American travelers to its country and because the current administration feels Israel is slowing down progress in Middle East “peace talks.”40
This was made clear when an e-mail from White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes explained the message the Obama administration would be sending out to the public in Susan Rice’s Sunday morning television appearances immediately after the Benghazi killings:
We’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.41
As the White House routinely plays host to people with Islamist radical ties and sympathies, its surveillance activities indicate that it’s redefined who our enemies are.
Do you need proof of this?
The U.S. secretary of state threatened to boycott Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Doing the rounds on Sunday morning TV, Kerry insisted that a campaign to ostracize Israel would grow if peace talks with the Palestinians failed. In other words, if Israel refuses to give up its own borders, language, and culture and refuses to allow itself to be overrun and conquered by Arab neighbors who will never enter into a peace agreement with Israel.42
At the same time, Kerry admitted in a behind-the-scenes meeting with members of Congress that U.S. policy relative to Syria was a failure. In late December 2013, it was revealed that Syria was far behind schedule in its promised removal of chemical weapons that the Kerry-inspired “breakthrough” agreement promised.43
Given Kerry’s statements, should Israel consider the United States its enemy? Our secretary of state has been decidedly one-sided in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians—and the side he’s on isn’t that of our longtime ally. “Does Israel want a third intifada?” Kerry said. Are these the words and policies of a friend?
Meanwhile, in Syria we know that forces fighting Assad are rife with terrorists who hate the United States. How do we know this? Because the administration admits it.
In February 2014, newly appointed DHS secretary Jeh Johnson declared that Syria had become a matter of homeland security. His rationale? U.S. and Canadian citizens are going to Syria in order to fight on the side of Syrian rebels against the Assad government.44
In other words, once they’re finished in Syria, they may return to the United States and Canada and try to stage terrorist attacks against us. Johnson is admitting that those fighting against Assad are likely to be Islamist terrorists.
When Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai was asked what he thought would be the best outcome of his country’s relationship with the United States, he replied, “It is favorable if they surrender to us.”45
Karzai’s contempt for and his refusal to cooperate with the current administration by immediately signing a status of forces agreement with the United States is an indicator of how far U.S. prestige has fallen among world leaders, whether they are enemies or friends.
“You’re not to be trusted” is the message we’re getting back from them.
It’s the message American citizens themselves are sending to the administration as they realize that they’re being treated with the same level of suspicion as known terrorists are treated.
But the corruption and ineptitude that mark what I see as this administration’s national security failures pale in comparison to how we handled Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian aggression. Let me make it clear from the start: It was the United States, and not Russia, that engineered the uprising against the elected Ukrainian government. The Obama administration spent billions to enable radical right wingers to stage a phony revolution in Ukraine, then complained when Putin stepped in and drew a real red line in the sand, daring the United States to challenge him.
Let me make sense of what happened in Ukraine for you. The legitimately elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich was ousted and the country placed in the hands of rebel forces spearheaded by Chechen Islamist radicals.
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, along with Obama advisor Susan Rice, are neoconservatives. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.
The Ukrainian “revolution” was fostered and encouraged by Nuland, Rice, and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Over the weeks leading to the February 2014 uprising, these three were instrumental in staging a destabilization campaign. Working with Ukrainian rebels, they fostered the Ukrainian uprising that caused Yanukovich to flee from Kiev.
In fact, it was Nuland herself who selected the new Ukrainian prime minister. She had this lined up three weeks before the insurrection in Ukraine started. Nuland’s famous “f——the EU” was leaked early in February, and it was a covert admission made public that we were on the side of the insurgents. That recording revealed that the administration favored installing Vitali Klitschko—referred to as “Klitsch” in Nuland’s phone conversatio
ns—as their choice to be deputy prime minister of Ukraine, with Arseniy Yatseniuk—“Yats” as they referred to him—being their choice as Prime Minister.46
Arizona senator John McCain was also part of this duplicity. McCain went to Kiev in December 2013 and helped incite the mobs who would ultimately overthrow the legitimately elected president. If there were such a thing as a Nobel Anti-Peace Prize, McCain would win it hands down for his work in Egypt and Syria, topped off by what he’s done in Ukraine. McCain was proposing nothing less than that we stage a military intervention in Ukraine, as he’s done many times before. McCain was in Syria, secretly backing rebels there, rebels who turned out to be Islamist radicals, supposedly our sworn enemies. McCain also made a covert trip to Libya, where he received an award from the military. This happened on the very day Shariah law was declared in that country, the same day McCain arrived. While he was in Ukraine, he met with a number of rebels who were intent on regime change in that country, and he expressed regret that he wasn’t having success, saying, “I do not see a military option and it’s tragic.”47
The U.S.-supported insurgents took over Kiev and held the Ukrainian people hostage as the United States stood down and Putin amassed forces on the Russia-Ukraine border. As this was happening, Barack Obama mouthed the emptiest of words—there would be “costs” to Russia for military action against the insurgents—while the United States found that its hands were tied.
In the early days of the rebellion, former Ukrainian president Yanukovich met with the rebels staging the uprising, and the two parties agreed to stop the violence and make an orderly transition to a new government chosen in a new set of elections. Instead, the right-wing rebels ignored the agreement and took over Kiev by force, with their armed patrols maintaining control through violence.
Stop the Coming Civil War: My Savage Truth Page 21
