Defense Archives – Page 5 of 8

In the wake of the courageous takedown of a would-be (likely) jihadist on a Paris-bound train by three Americans, the New York Times published a piece on the Spanish mosque to which Ayoub El Khazzani belonged.

I think the following excerpt speaks for itself:

But while the authorities point to the mosque as a crucial part of Mr. Khazzani’s transformation from onetime petty hashish dealer to someone suspected of being a radical, Mr. Mohamed Ahmed said the preaching here was not to blame.

“Women are also allowed to pray here,” he said, “which certainly wouldn’t happen if this was a radical place.”

Methinks that Mr. Mohamed Ahmed is lacking in self-awareness.

Ahmed’s defense of Khazzani is perhaps even better:

The Ignored Influence of the Iran Lobby on Obama’s Useful Idiots

By Ben Weingarten

On August 27, 2015

In Defense, Foreign Policy, Government, Politics

The incomparable Daniel Greenfield has the story:

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

But will the Democrats who lavished the world’s largest state sponsor of jihad with billions of dollars, provided cover for its nuclear activities and spat in the eyes of America’s servicemen and women maimed and murdered by Iran and its proxies, along with the craven Republicans who willfully engaged in failure theater, actually pay a price for their treason?

Featured Image Source: PBS.

99 Things Worth Reading Every Day If You Possibly Could

By Ben Weingarten

On August 21, 2015

In Defense, Economy, Government, Media, National Security, Politics

One question I get asked frequently by friends and colleagues is, “What do you read?”

CHECK OUT MY “BIG IDEAS WITH BEN WEINGARTEN” PODCAST FEATURING COMPELLING CONVERSATIONS WITH EXCEPTIONAL THINKERS AND DOERS

Without fail, this leaves me fumbling for my phone as I pull up my RSS feeds on Feedly — perhaps a good reflection of the fact that we care more about content these days than brands, plus are incapable of memorizing anything thanks to the moral hazard of smartphones.

Instead of fumbling, I have decided to compile some of my favorite sources into one post that from this point forward I can easily share.

Here are the sources:

Newsletters

1)	Ben Domenech’s The Transom
2)	Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt
3)	Matt Levine’s Money Stuff
4)	Omri Ceren’s Email Distribution

Websites

1)	Abnormal Returns
2)	Ace of Spades HQ
3)	Algemeiner
4)	Althouse
5)	American Thinker
6)	Andy McCarthy
7)	Ann Coulter
8)	Breitbart
9)	Business Insider
10)	Cafe Hayek
11)	Caroline Glick
12)	Commentary Magazine
13)	Conservative Review
14)	ConservativeHQ
15)	Daniel Greenfield (Frontpage, Sultan Knish)
16)	Debkafile
17)	Diana West
18)	Drudge
19)	Eli Lake
20)	FiveThirtyEight
21)	Free Banking
22)	Free Republic
23)	FT Alphaville
24)	Gates of Vienna
25)	Gatestone Institute
26)	Gateway Pundit
27)	Gavin McInnes
28)	George F. Will
29)	Ginni Thomas
30)	Hot Air
31)	Instapundit
32)	Jeffrey Lord
33)	Jihad Watch
34)	Johnson’s Russia List
35)	Josh Rogin
36)	Judicial Watch
37)	Kurt Schlichter
38)	Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
39)	Lucianne.com
40)	Melanie Phillips
41)	MEMRI
42)	Michelle Malkin
43)	Monica Crowley
44)	Mosaic Magazine
45)	National Review Online
46)	New York Sun
47)	New York Times Editorial Page
48)	New York Times Upshot
49)	Noisyroom
50)	Pajamas Media
51)	Patrick Poole
52)	Patterico’s Pontifications
53)	POLITICO Magazine
54)	Powerline
55)	RealClear Books
56)	RealClear Markets
57)	RealClearPolitics
58)	Reason Magazine
59)	RedState
60)	Richard Epstein
61)	Roger Kimball
62)	Seeking Alpha
63)	Small Wars Journal
64)	Spengler
65)	Steve Coughlin
66)	SteynOnline
67)	Tablet Magazine
68)	The Altucher Confidential
69)	The Big Picture
70)	The Daily Caller
71)	The Daily Reckoning
72)	The Daily Signal
73)	The Federalist
74)	The Freeman
75)	The Hill
76)	The Long War Journal
77)	The Pragmatic Capitalist
78)	The Reformed Broker
79)	The Times of Israel
80)	The Volokh Conspiracy
81)	The Washington Times
82)	The Weekly Standard
83)	The XX Committee
84)	TheBlaze
85)	Thomas Sowell
86)	Townhall
87)	TrevorLoudon
88)	Truth Revolt
89)	Twitchy
90)	Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
91)	Walter E. Williams
92)	Washington Examiner
93)	Washington Free Beacon
94)	Watchdog.Org
95)	Zero Hedge

If Jews Are ‘Emotional’ About the Iran Deal, Then What Does That Make the Obama Administration?

By Ben Weingarten

On August 10, 2015

In Defense, Foreign Policy, Politics

Kerry: Let me put this in very precise terms. Look, I’ve gone through this backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets. And I believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.

Goldberg: So why do you think you can’t convince the majority of Israelis, or the majority of the organized Jewish community, of this?

Kerry: Because there’s a huge level of fear and mistrust and, frankly, there’s an inherent sense that, given Iran’s gains and avoidance in the past, that somehow they’re going to avoid something again. It’s a visceral feeling, it’s very emotional and visceral and I’m very in tune with that and very sensitive to that. – John Kerry’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic

So just to be clear, Secretary of State Kerry and the Obama administration have cut a deal in which Iran will be subjected to no inspections, no disclosures, no verification and no sanctions, that will equip the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with billions of dollars, and requires that the U.S. help protect its nuclear infrastructure, among many other travesties, but Secretary of State Kerry believes that critical Israelis in particular and Jews in general are responding “emotionally,” as opposed to rationally with fear and loathing?

Contrast the reaction of Jews, Christians and others who comprise the majority of Americans who oppose the Iran Deal with the Obama administration that claims that its political opponents are siding with Iran’s “hardliners” — that is, the mullahs to whom President Obama has not only capitulated but in effect made common cause.

In a parade of horribles chronicled in a powerful editorial in the Jewish magazine Tablet (no enemy of President Obama mind you), the publication’s Editors write:

Brad Thor Talks “Code of Conduct,” Islamic Supremacism vs. the West and Rick Perry 2016

By Ben Weingarten

On June 12, 2015

In Books, Defense, National Security, Podcast, Politics

Full Interview

Former Fed Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy on Islam and Free Speech, the Patriot Act and Foreign Policy

By Ben Weingarten

On May 29, 2015

In Books, Culture, Defense, Government, Media, National Security, Podcast, Politics

Full Interview

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical and Totalitarian War on Free Speech

By Ben Weingarten

On May 20, 2015

In Defense, National Security, Politics

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has suggested that a key litmus test in evaluating prospective Supreme Court appointees would be their willingness to challenge “the right of billionaires to buy elections.”

Presumably, a suitable judge would indicate a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision that struck down a ban on political expenditures by corporations and unions ruled to violate the First Amendment protection of free speech – a case coincidentally centered on Citizen United’s attempt to advertise for and air a film critical of none other than Clinton.

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. Clinton conceded that she should have used a government email to conduct business as secretary of state, saying her decision was simply a matter of "convenience." (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

In light of recent allegations swirling around the presidential favorite, Clinton’s support of such a position is highly ironic.

For while the former secretary of State may oppose the rights of the wealthy to spend money on politics, she seems to have no such concern with the wealthy spending money on the Clinton Foundation and her husband Bill – all while Hillary served in the Obama administration.

Would Clinton seek a Supreme Court justice who would protect the rights of the likes of Carlos Slim and James Murdoch to contribute to the favored cause of a politician and shower the politician’s spouse with millions for speaking engagements?

If so, this apparent hypocrisy can be read in one of two ways:

Clinton believes that money does not have a corrupting influence so long as it is funneled through “indirect” channels
Clinton believes that the wealthy and powerful ought to bypass funding elections and simply pay politicians outright.

Appearances of impropriety aside, there are a few substantive questions around political speech that Clinton should be required to address.

Why does Clinton believe that the government has a compelling interest in stifling the political speech of any American, rich or poor?

How does Clinton square her supposed advocacy of human rights with her belief in inhibiting the right to free speech — which facilitates the robust and vigorous debate essential to a liberal society?

More generally, given a system in which millions of dollars are spent on losing causes each election cycle on both the left and right, what have Americans to fear about spending so long as laws are enforced equally and impartially regarding “pay-to-play” schemes and other politically corrupt activity?

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Iran Literally Fired a Shot Across an American Ally’s Bow, But Obama Won’t Dump His Disastrous Deal

By Ben Weingarten

On April 29, 2015

In Defense, Foreign Policy

What, if anything, would cause President Barack Obama to step away from the negotiating table with Iran?

This is the question I find myself pondering in light of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy Patrol’s unchecked act of aggression on Tuesday against America’s interests in the Straits of Hormuz – an act that in a sane world would in and of itself put an end to the president’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.

As of this writing, reports indicate that the Iranian Navy Patrol fired shots at and ultimately seized a commercial cargo ship, the M/V Maersk Tigris, which flies under the Marshall Islands flag. Some believe Iran was even targeting a U.S. vessel.

An Iranian warship takes part in a naval show in 2006. (Photo: AP)

In a helpful dispatch, commentator Omri Ceren notes the significant implications of such an action given that the U.S. is: (i) Treaty-bound to secure and defend the Marshall Islands, and (ii) Committed to maintaining the free flow of commerce in the strategically vital waterways of the Middle East — as affirmed just one week ago on April 21 by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf and Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren.

The U.S. fulfilling its obligations to its protectorate, and acting to ensure vital shipping lanes remain open are not trivial matters.

Further, this act can be seen as a brazen test of the sincerity of U.S. resolve, as it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Senate’s debate on the Corker-Menendez Iran bill.

Yet there is a broader and perhaps more important context in which to consider what Ceren calls an act of “functionally unspinnable Iranian aggression.”

Even if we ignore the history of Iranian aggression against the U.S. and its allies since the deposal of the Shah in 1979, the firing upon and seizing of the Tigris marks the latest in a long series of such provocations that Iran has undertaken in just the last few months. Consider:

On February 25 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard blew up a replica U.S. aircraft carrier during defense drills
On March 24 it was reported that the Iranian regime had increased its naval threats against the U.S., including “[T]hreats to take over and sink American aircraft carriers and other warships; to close the Strait of Hormuz and Bab El-Mandeb; to carry out large-scale missile attacks inside and outside the Persian Gulf; and to mine the Persian Gulf”
On March 31 Basij militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable”
On April 1 it was reported that an Iranian military observation aircraft had “buzzed” an armed U.S. navy helicopter over the Persian Gulf during March 2015
On April 12 it was reported that Iran had been working to deliver surface-to-air missiles to the Houthis in Yemen
On April 13 it was reported that Iran had increased arm shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas
On April 14 Russia lifted its ban on the sale of missiles to Iran, no doubt with the firm support of the Iranians
On April 17 it was reported that Iran was sending an armada of seven to nine ships – some with weapons – toward Yemen
On April 18 Iran celebrated Army Day with calls of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”
On April 19 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s deputy leader Gen. Hossein Salami declared that there would be no inspections of military sites under any nuclear deal, threatening “We will respond with hot lead [bullets] to those who speak of it…;” and
On April 24 the Iranian Navy Patrol intercepted the Maersk Kensington, a U.S.-flagged vessel

This rhetoric and action comports with Iran’s historic hostility toward the U.S. since the fall of the Shah. Lest we forget, this list of atrocities includes, but is certainly not limited to:

The 1983 bombing of the U.S. army barracks in Beirut
Aiding and abetting Al Qaeda with respect to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on our nation
Funding, training and arming terrorists responsible for slaying American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Would Iran’s most recent actions in the Strait of Hormuz coupled with the litany of other recent and historical bellicose acts lead one to question whether it is in the United States’ interest to continue negotiating with the mullahs?

Put more directly: In what respect can the U.S. consider Iran to be a reliable, honorable negotiating partner?

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Why We Are Losing to Jihadists: In-Depth With The Pentagon’s Leading Expert Stephen Coughlin on Islamic Law/National Security

By Ben Weingarten

On April 10, 2015

In Books, Defense, Foreign Policy, Government, Media, National Security, Podcast, Politics

Full Interview

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

By Ben Weingarten

On April 6, 2015

In Defense, Foreign Policy, National Security

Today the men and women who walk the morally decrepit corridors of the White House and State Department of our Republic-turned-social democracy are aiding, abetting and enabling evil.

We find ourselves at a time in history when all of our foes from Islamic supremacists to the Russians and Chinese are ascendant, while America at best retreats and at worst sides with the most dangerous of them.

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Our enemies do not fear or respect us, our allies do not trust us and little indicates that the American people are cognizant of the size and scope of the perils that face us.

We are reliving Winston Churchill’s gathering storm in an era when it is questionable whether the majority of American citizens even know who Churchill is, let alone what he did. Many of those who do likely see him first and foremost as a dead white European male.

And unlike in World War II, today we are challenged by Nazis (insofar as Islamic supremacists are genocidal, Jew (and Christian) hating monsters who seek to dominate the world) and Communists (in their Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping-led manifestations.)

In the face of all this, America’s left exhibits two traits that together are fatal: hubris and ignorance.

Leftists have the hubris to believe that they can and should create a world according to their progressive vision – for the good of the people and their own aggrandizement.

Leftists have the ignorance of history and man’s nature that renders them unable to anticipate the dire consequences of their course.

Underlying their actions is the belief that all people are animated by the same goals and aspirations.

Yet different peoples are different. Evil cannot be appeased or assuaged. The world must be seen as it is, not as we wish it to be.

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Ben Weingarten

Reader. Writer. Thinker. Commentator. Truth Seeker.

Category: Defense (Page 5 of 8)

No Worries, the Would-Be French Train Terrorist’s Mosque Wasn’t Radical…Women Can Pray There

The Ignored Influence of the Iran Lobby on Obama’s Useful Idiots

99 Things Worth Reading Every Day If You Possibly Could

If Jews Are ‘Emotional’ About the Iran Deal, Then What Does That Make the Obama Administration?

Brad Thor Talks “Code of Conduct,” Islamic Supremacism vs. the West and Rick Perry 2016

Full Interview

Former Fed Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy on Islam and Free Speech, the Patriot Act and Foreign Policy

Full Interview

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical and Totalitarian War on Free Speech

Iran Literally Fired a Shot Across an American Ally’s Bow, But Obama Won’t Dump His Disastrous Deal

Why We Are Losing to Jihadists: In-Depth With The Pentagon’s Leading Expert Stephen Coughlin on Islamic Law/National Security

Full Interview

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

PURCHASE BEN’S NEW BOOK

Subscribe to Ben’s Newsletter

LISTEN TO THE BIG IDEAS WITH BEN WEINGARTEN PODCAST

Support the Big Ideas with Ben Weingarten Podcast

Follow Ben on Twitter

Follow Ben on Facebook

Archives

Categories

Subscribe

AMAZON AFFILIATE DISCLAIMER

COPYRIGHT

Reader. Writer. Thinker. Commentator. Truth Seeker.

Category: Defense (Page 5 of 8)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Full Interview

Share this:

Full Interview

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Full Interview

Share this:

Share this:

PURCHASE BEN’S NEW BOOK

Subscribe to Ben’s Newsletter

LISTEN TO THE BIG IDEAS WITH BEN WEINGARTEN PODCAST

Support the Big Ideas with Ben Weingarten Podcast

Follow Ben on Twitter

Archives

Categories

Subscribe

AMAZON AFFILIATE DISCLAIMER

COPYRIGHT