On this edition of Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Frank is joined first by Jennifer Rubin with Commentary magazine on the recent peace process, Tony Blair’s thoughts on Iran and the Gates replacement. Next up is retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, who will be speaking on the presiden’ts speech concerning Iraq and another military officer who is refusing to deploy on the grounds that Obama is not the rightful Commander-In-Chief. Finally, Frank will be joined by Claire Lopez who will be speaking on Iranian intelligence.

September, 3 2010 Monologue

General Jim Jones, the president’s National Security Advisor laid out earlier this week in the wall street journal, an initiative that is apparently imminent to streamline what are know as export controls. As General Jones put it in a wall street journal editorial, these are legacies of the cold war. A point of fact, what export controls are all about, is trying to ensure that our enemies, whether the Soviet Union in days of old or contemporary advisories like China, Iran, North Korea or perhaps Venezuela, are not able to take advantage of military relevant technologies that are vital to specific capabilities like ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and the kind of super computing that is vital for both.

            What President Obama is planning on doing, is dramatically simplifying the export control process, reducing the number of good, products, technologies that are continued to be subjected to export controls and streamlining the mechanisms by which applications to export even those technologies are considered and adjudicated. I’m the first to admit there have been some ponderous some regulations and processes that have in fact encumbered the export control process and efforts to move sophisticated but not dangerous technology overseas, especially to friends and allies of his country. So in principle efforts to simplify all of this is unobjectionable, but in practice what he have seen again and again from the advocates of export decontrol are companies that are anxious to expand their export market’s some in the defense sector some not. Also people who seek to make a buck by facilitating in the sales of sensitive technologies.

Hey! Let’s just put a bigger fence around smaller number of these technologies sounds seductive but we have been doing that for years. What is left in the export control arrangement is not an accessible large amount of technologies that we can simply pare down in the beliefs that as long as it is not cutting edge it doesn’t matter if our enemies have them. I strongly suggest that this is an opportunity, this new Obama initiative, to do some serious stocktaking on Capitol Hill, in out to be done in several respects.

We need a mechanism that evaluates the costs of the decontrols are being proposed, not just the punitive benefits, in terms of sales of products and earnings by companies. I have argued before and I argue again and I hope congress will give a serious look at this, let’s have a national security impact assessment for each of these. We find that in the past some of these technologies are materially helpful to our enemies, the costs to our national security will vastly exceed the punitive benefits. We also, I’m afraid, face the prospect that if we decontrol some of these products, we will ultimately encourage companies that manufacture products here to go elsewhere, maybe China, perhaps gaining access to rare earth minerals that the Chinese are keeping from the rest of the world. When I asked Gordon Chang, he said simply ‘Yes!” Our congress, when asked to consider these set of proposals by the Obama administration, needs to think hard about this and so do you because in the end it might be your lives, your security and your nation on the line.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, former senior Pentagon official during the Bush Administration, Doug Feith, will weigh in on President Obama’s speech and strategy towards Iraq and the START treaty. Next, Frank will be talking to Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, on the growing threat of drugs, weapons and other threats coming across the  Mexican border. Finally, Sara Carter will be discussing how the president’s speech is playing with the troops.

Powered by Podbean.com

September 2, 2010 Monologue

Some thoughts from me first about the anniversary of a famous quote by Theodor Roosevelt certainly one of our most colorful presidents and at the time the youngest. In 1901  he was then vice-president of the United States, he made a statement at a state fair out in the Midwest which he called to mind an adage at the time ‘Walk softly and carry a big stick.” A turn of phrase that conjured to mind the image of then a rising power in the United States, not one to bully but one have especially when Teddy Roosevelt became president and began a major ship building program which became to known as the Great White Fleet which he sent around the world to showcase American strength.

All of this was sort of an agenda that served this country well, not being boastful, aggressive but being formidable. At the time he put it, that this would give rise to a capacity to defend our hemisphere against the intrusions from outside. This best known and identified as the Monroe Doctrine, to keep non hemispheric states out of this continent. A policy that we no longer observe, witness the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Hezbollah and others very much at work inside our hemisphere. The notion that Teddy Roosevelt that sort of espoused in that very phrase I think is very much apiece with the philosophy that we espouse out the Center for Security Policy and Ronald Reagan espoused is peace through strength.

Whether it’s a big stick or strength in a more generalized way, the notion that the world is a safer place when American power is more formidable is so time tested, so certain based on historical experience that it is unimaginable to me that we are once again going to see this country do what it has done time and time in the past. To cut down that stick, to throw it away, to dissipate that strength deliberately as often enough as favorably as he heard in the President’s speech this past week, diverting to job one, our domestic priorities.

I have to say there is very much in the tradition of America and the minds and hearts of so many of us a profound desire to lay down the desires of our global interests. Come home America as George McGovern famously put it, to revert to an isolationist position, a more boisterous more spoken policy, just essentially giving up on the world. Saying if we leave them alone they will lead us alone. History is replete with this and it is wrong and sadly has cost us dearly and the worlds at large even more profoundly requiring American aid and assistance and military capabilities and the loss of life. To reverse the departure from the strategy of peace through strength, to reverse the practice that supplants carrying a big stick and speaking softly.

I fear that in this election cycle if we do not ensure that the American people are equipped with information they need to understand d the stakes we may find coming out of it an unholy alliance between the left and right.  Playing to this default setting in our culture, coming home America, isolationism. It sets the predicate for the next horrific conflict if we yield to that temptation, we mustn’t do it and we refuse to here at Secure Freedom Radio and I hope as you less you feel compelled to act. Throughout the Peace Through Strength Platform for one thing, Peacethroughstrength.com and let us know what you think. Securefreedomradio.com is one way to do it.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio, Ambassador Ettinger joins Frank to discuss today’s Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. Then Jim Hanson of Blackfive.net  weighs in on the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the President’s speech. All this and more on Secure Freedom Radio.

Powered by Podbean.com

I want to give you a couple thoughts of my own about the speech. It was partly a well deserved tribute to our troops. I think the president presumably was heartfelt in expressing his appreciation for their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. Well deserved, much needed I am sure. It was made somewhat less persuasive by virtue of the fact that he seemed so unclear about whether their sacrifice was going to be made in vain, whether as a result of the steps he was taking to disengage from Iraq, namely our combat forces most immediately, but he seems quite clear about everybody come the end of next year. The troops are in fact appreciated as I think he hoped they would. That was probably made further true by the fact that the President resisted any number of appeals to go beyond acknowledging George Bush’s patriotism, but recognizing the single contribution he had made against the advice of Barack Obama to surge troops to ensure that we actually maintain a level of control and of security for the folks in Iraq, that some of the things Obama points to today as to justifying our withdrawal possible.

 The President’s speech was also calling on Iraqis to step up to the plate to do what they now need to do to determine their own destiny. I think again, it failed to acknowledge that it has made vast more difficult by the uncertainties that our departure, the vacuum of power that we are creating is conveying to the people of Iraq and as to how that vacuum is being filled. That vacuum, by those Al Qaeda elements, the Baathists elements, and certainly Iran, are all very troubling stuff and again an argument against the plans of steps that the President was taking with such great fanfare

 A third of the speech was devoted to the domestic agenda. The President reflexive appeal to the American people to come home, to spend money, to spend time on the President’s priorities on the domestic political equation, gives rise to my major take away from this all and my real concern. I fear that we are on the cusp of repeating past mistakes, mistakes among other things that has caused us to be obliged to wage wars in Afghanistan and in my view Iraq. We created conditions through cutting defense spending reallocating priorities presidential or otherwise to domestic programs. We engaged in a strategic retreat from the world. We did so in the interest of pandering to domestic political elements and considerations. We fail to understand the nature of the enemy. Let alone to articulate and act effectively on a correct understanding that it wasn’t just Al Qaeda we were up against, that it was in fact those who practice and seek to impose on the rest of us with the authorities of Islam called Sharia. The President still has not got it right anymore than his predecessors did, and I believe this gives rise to the Obama doctrine, much evidence in this speech, much of the evidence in the decisions he has taken that he spoke last night.

 He is in fact emboldening our enemies and undermining our allies, by disengaging by withdrawing, by creating a vacuum in Iraq, not just in the immediate context with Iraq, but I am afraid more generally. I think our allies are looking at this and saying “is the United States a reliable friend? Should we take risks to be on its side, can we count on it in a pinch to help defend us as it has promised to do?” All of these are questions we don’t want our allies to be thinking or for that matter our enemies to benefit from.

All in all there is the third part of the Obama doctrine that I think is much in evidence in last nights speech. Diminishing our country, by signaling a lack of reliability, by signaling an impatience, by signaling that we are indeed now going to come home   America. We are, I am afraid, reducing American standing in the world, and the confidence that both friends and allies have that we will be a force for good. What history teaches us, what the past hard experience with these mistakes has taught us, I think, is that that does not conduce to security either for the  American people or freedom loving folks more generally. To the contrary, it breeds conflict it breeds calamity, we can not afford that. We need your help folks in turning it around.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio, Frank Gaffney talks about climate change with Steve Milloy, and immigration challenges with Congressman Ted Poe of Texas. Then he discusses the war within Islam and against the United States in a form of stealth Jihad with David Yerulshami. Then, Claire Berlinski discusses her book, There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters, and the state of play in Turkey.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Christine Brim from the Center for Security Policy discusses her article on U.S. tax dollars going to Sharia. Next, Frank Gaffney is joined by Jim Pinkerton from the New America Foundation who will discuss his Peace Through Strength Platform and President Obama’s folly on his approach to nuclear disarmament. In the final segment, Gordon Chang will report on U.S. banks fleeing the U.S. dollar for Chinese currency.

Powered by Podbean.com

August 30, 2010- Monologue

First, as sort of a precursor to what we will be hearing from Christine Brim about a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at the Agriculture Department for the purposes of breaking into the U.S. piggy bank if I can use that word. This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of steps taken by President Obama since he came into office which I have to tell you, I have a feeling maybe giving rise to the growing perception among Americans that the president is a Muslim. Eighteen percent according to a Pew Center poll recently are now of that view. He of course denies that, I am not here to say one way or another what the truth is, but I think what is significant is that the public is looking at the following kinds of things and is drawing a not unreasonable conclusion.

For example, on day one of his presidency, Mr. Obama announced the Untied States was a Christian and Muslim nation. It also was a nation of Jews, Hindus and non-believers. But the ordering was unmistakable, Muslims, with all due respect, have just simply not been part of this nations history, its culture, its success to the extent that Jews have historically been. To suggest otherwise, let alone go on as the president did, announce that the United States was one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, is signaling, particularly to the sorts of people he is spending a lot of time with, namely the Muslim Brotherhood. Which is an organization as we often discuss here, has as its mission, eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by there hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Gods religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Now that’s from a document that was introduced into evidence, uncontested from the Holy Land Trial back in 2008. So this is the mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood themselves. So why was it in Cairo, in a speech that the ground zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says he actually wrote for the president? Why in that famous outreach to the Muslim community, did President Obama insist that Muslim brothers be present? Why did President Obama include in his speech a commitment to ensure that the practice of Zakat, that is to say a charitable tithing by Muslims, not be impeded? Well the reason it has been impeded to the extent it has, which is probably not very much, has been because some have used it as material support for terrorism. So the president makes this sort of commitment that’s not only a signal to the Muslims brothers that there’s going to be more money for us to use for that kind of purpose. It also signals submission, as does his decision to agree in September of last year to cosponsor a resolution in the Human Rights Council proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, kind of Muslim Brotherhood on steroids, that basically would prohibit free speech to the extent it might give offense to Muslims.  That’s kind of a problem if you believe as I do and most of us do, that the First Amendment grantees our right to free speech.

Then we have the Obama Administration contesting in court the proposition that U.S. government ownership of AIG, the largest purveyor of Sharia compliment insurance products in the world is unconstitutional. Well manifestly it’s unconstitutional, given the separation of church and state in our constitution. Then the public was amazed to learn the president had told the NASA administrator a few months ago that his primary mission is to ensure that Muslims felt better about themselves and their place in history. By the way, that’s what we will be talking about with Gordon Chang, they should have more access to our space related technologies which many have much to offer in terms of military capabilities. The president, of course, also endorsed the ground zero mosque and the Muslim brotherhood has been very happy about that. They were present, in some numbers, at the Iftar Dinner at the White House. Another signal, and then there’s the point we will get into with Christine Brim in just a moment. The president is signaling it is o.k. for these Iftar Dinners to be turned into a fundraiser for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is perhaps evidence of the president’s particular personal religious feelings. What it is certainly is evidence of policies unacceptable, inconsistent with national security and probably in many cases unconstitutional. We mustn’t have it and we need your help in stopping it.

Today on Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom Radio, CBN Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck reports on the money and ideology behind the trend to build mega-mosques across the U.S.  and updates Frank on Hezbollah’s activity in Lebenon.  Then, Bill Gertz of the Washingtontimes discusses Al Qaeda’s training activity in Yemen.  Finally, Foundation for Defense of Democracy Executive Director Mark Dubowitz weighs in on Iran.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio; Frank weighs in on Iraq.  Defense budget expert, Mackenzie Eaglen, of the Heritage Foundation illustrates the highly consequential defense cuts of Secretary Robert Gates.  It’s not just wasteful spending.  Then Cheryl Miller of the American Enterprise Institute discusses her latest peice in the Wall Street Journal on the human make up of our Armed Forces.  Finally, Washington Examiner ace national security reporter, Sara Carter, shares her findings on incredible mispending and graft by contractors in Afghanistan.

Today on Secure Freedom Radio; Vice Admiral Bob Monroe discusses his piece in today’s Wall Street Journal on the new START treaty.  New York Post columnist and author Ralph Peters weighs in on Iraq and Pakistan.  Then, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post reports from the front lines of freedom in Israel.  Finally,  Jim Hanson of Blackfive.net reports on his reporting at the Ground Zero Mosque protest form the weekend.  All this and more on today’s Secure Freedom Radio.

Today on Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom Radio: Stephen Coughlin and Frank connect the dots between Imam Faisal Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Rowan Scarborough offers new insight into the implications of a policy change towards homosexuals in the military.  Andy McCarthy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy discusses the role of the moderate Muslim.

Today on Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom Radio; Dr. Peter Pry discusses the threat of Electro-Magnetic Pulse attacks on the U.S. Beth Gilinsky defends the N.Y. homefront. Claudia Rosett reports on the U.S. tax payer funded adventures of Imam Rauf. Finally, Monday’s regular Gordon Chang explains how Chinese tech firms are stealing U.S. technology.