<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Secret</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/secret/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:51:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Ronald Kessler on the Secrets of the Secret Service</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/ronald-kessler-on-the-secrets-of-the-secret-service/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ronald-kessler-on-the-secrets-of-the-secret-service</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/ronald-kessler-on-the-secrets-of-the-secret-service/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 05:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret service]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Investigative reporter discusses his fascinating new book "The First Family Detail."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Editor&#8217;s note: Below are the video and transcript to Ronald Kessler&#8217;s address at the Freedom Center&#8217;s Dec. 10, 2014, gathering of the Wednesday Morning Club. </em></p>
<p><strong><em>To order Ronald Kessler&#8217;s &#8220;The First Family Detail,&#8221; click <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Family-Detail-Presidents/dp/0804139210">here</a>. </em></strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/114316988" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Thank you so much for having me.  And it&#8217;s a real honor to be with such sophisticated people who understand everything, know everything.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And as you can tell from the titles of my books, I like to probe secret organizations, secret subjects.  And this sometimes gets me into trouble.</p>
<p>One of my books, called &#8220;Moscow Station,&#8221; revealed that a KGB archivist had defected from Russia to the FBI.  And I knew that he was safe, and revealing this would not jeopardize him.  But nevertheless, the FBI started a leak investigation.  And I heard about it from the inside.  I heard the agents were going to come out and try to interview me.</p>
<p>And I went through in my mind how I would greet them &#8212; I would offer them coffee, I would schmooze them.  And of course, I would try to develop them as sources.</p>
<p>And a few days later, I was in my house in Potomac, Maryland, which is a quiet suburb; very few people ring the bell.  And I had this idea &#8212; since I&#8217;ve written so many books about the FBI, and covered it for so long, and interviewed so many agents, that I have an idea of what FBI agents look like, which is pretty silly.</p>
<p>But nevertheless, the bell rang, I opened the door.  And there were these two very intense-looking young men with narrow ties, white shirts.  And I said &#8212; well, where have you guys been?  I&#8217;ve been expecting you, come on in.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And they looked at me a little &#8212; almost a little afraid, a little strangely.  And they held out these pamphlets, the &#8220;The Watchtower.&#8221;</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>I like a challenge.  The fact that these are secret organizations, and also very important organizations that can engage in abuses that are so important to our national security &#8212; all that attracts me.  And in the case of the Secret Service, it is really the most secret of all the organizations, even more so than the CIA or the FBI, both of which I&#8217;ve written about.</p>
<p>And I began with a tip about mismanagement by the Secret Service.  And then, as I got into it, I found that was really the tip of the iceberg.  But at the same time, I got the cooperation of the Secret Service.  I think they felt that I would tell an honest story, which is what I try to do.</p>
<p>For example, with the FBI, when they do good, as they have since 9/11 &#8212; we have not had a successful foreign terrorist attack since 9/11, and it&#8217;s largely because of the FBI that I say that.  And that is unusual in journalism today, even though I&#8217;m actually much younger than Michael thinks.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But on the other hand, when they engage in abuses, I reveal that.  In the case of the FBI, I revealed that William Sessions, the FBI director, had been engaging in abuses of all kinds, and I exposed that.  And that led to his dismissal by President Clinton.</p>
<p>In the case of the Secret Service books, I&#8217;ve now written two.  They both reveal the deficiencies in the agency and also what agents see behind the scenes.  I know this is too tawdry for all of you to hear, but there&#8217;s quite a bit that they see.</p>
<p>For example, actually before the first chapter, I began with a prologue which reveals that Bill Clinton has a mistress who has been unofficially codenamed by agents &#8220;Energizer.&#8221;</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And Energizer was chosen because the first letter of every family&#8217;s codename is always the same.  So in the case of the Clintons, Bill is &#8220;Eagle,&#8221; and Hillary is &#8220;Evergreen.&#8221;  And so the mistress, busty blonde mistress, became &#8220;Energizer.&#8221;</p>
<p>And as soon as Hillary leaves the home in Chappaqua, Energizer shows up.  Unlike Hillary, who&#8217;s so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment &#8211;</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>&#8211; the mistress is very nice to agents.  She&#8217;ll even bring them cookies sometimes.</p>
<p>One day, during the summer, she brought cookies, she drove up to the gate.  The agents are instructed not to ever ask for her ID or log her in, whereas even Clinton relatives have to be logged in.  And she held out this platter of cookies through the window of her vehicle to the agent.  And he noticed that she was wearing a low-cut tank top.  And he described in great detail her breasts, that they&#8217;re enhanced.  There was no question in his mind.  And so we have every single detail in this book, &#8220;The First Family Detail.&#8221;</p>
<p>In the case of Hillary, she&#8217;ll just make life miserable for agents.  She&#8217;ll blow up at them.  They can never do anything right.  She&#8217;ll even complain when the limousine goes over a bump in the road.  Being assigned is considered the worst assignment in the Secret Service to be assigned to Hillary&#8217;s detail.</p>
<p>And so yes, these stories are titillating; yes, they&#8217;re revealing.  But they also tell you something about our leaders and who we should be electing for President.  Should we elect someone who treats other people in such a shabby way, who at the same time claims to be compassionate, to care about the little people?  She&#8217;s going to be a champion of the middle class?  And yet, she cannot treat agents who are there to protect her, and even take a bullet to protect her, with decency.</p>
<p>And people just, you know, sort of ignore this.  They look at how well someone speaks, they look at what someone promises.  They&#8217;ll ignore the track record &#8212; for example, the fact that President Obama spent 20 years listening to the anti-white, anti-America, anti-Israel rantings of Reverend Wright.  People just &#8212; you know, they&#8217;re in denial.</p>
<p>My most liberal friends, my most liberal family members, say they would&#8217;ve walked out if they&#8217;d heard that, in any situation.  And yet, Obama exposed his kids to that, as well as, of course, Michelle, who was even more entranced by Reverend Wright.</p>
<p>Joe Biden &#8212; he goes back to his home in Wilmington several times a week on Air Force Two.  And that has cost our taxpayers $1 million since he took office.  And this is in the book.  I got it from the Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act.  And yet, nobody in the mainstream media has picked this up.</p>
<p>You know, it&#8217;s one thing to go back home a few times a year.  But he has a job in Washington, he has a home, paid for by taxpayers, in Washington, with five navy stewards who make pastries every night and cater to all of his wishes.  Both homes have pools.  He has no business going back and forth, sometimes even twice a day, on Air Force Two.  Sometimes, he&#8217;ll even go back to Wilmington, and then come back just for the day to play golf with Obama at Andrews Air Force Base, and then go back to Wilmington.</p>
<p>The fact that he has a pool is intriguing.  Because he has a habit of skinny dipping.  And this offends female Secret Service agents.  They signed up to take a bullet for the President, but not to see Joe Biden run around naked.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And on top of all that &#8212; and this is probably the worst of all &#8212; when he goes up to Wilmington, Biden instructs his agents to keep the military aide with the nuclear football for unleashing a nuclear counterstrike at least a mile behind in the motorcade.  Biden, like most politicians, is fixated on his image.  He wants to maintain the image of the regular Joe, working-class guy.  So he doesn&#8217;t want to have a long motorcade when he goes to Wilmington.</p>
<p>But the result is that if Obama were taken out, we would be defenseless against a nuclear attack.  Because, of course, there wouldn&#8217;t be time for the nuclear football to catch up with Biden.  Height of irresponsibility.  The worst judgment you can imagine.  And again, the mainstream media have ignored this revelation in the book.</p>
<p>The book is nonpartisan.  It says that Obama and his wife do treat agents with respect and consideration.  On the other hand, agents have been dismayed to overhear Michelle urge her husband to be more aggressive in attacking Republicans and in siding with blacks in racial controversies, which of course we see him do over and over again.</p>
<p>And I think that certainly has contributed to the violence and the rioting.  Because he&#8217;s essentially sanctioning the idea that we&#8217;re all racists.  And of course, that goes back to Reverend Wright.  That was exactly his mindset.  And we&#8217;re seeing it now with President Obama.</p>
<p>Going back to President Johnson &#8212; he was probably the most outrageous of all.  When he was Vice President, he was late for an appointment with JFK.  The agent was driving him along Pennsylvania Avenue &#8212; it was rush hour.  And he told his agent to drive up on the sidewalk to get there faster.  Well, the sidewalk was full of people coming out of office buildings.  The agent refused, of course, as he should&#8217;ve.  And Johnson took a newspaper and hit this agent on the head and said &#8212; you&#8217;re fired.  This is all on the record; at least half of the material in the book is on the record.</p>
<p>Johnson was having sex with five of his eight secretaries.  One time his wife, Ladybird, caught him having sex in the Oval Office with one of his secretaries.  And Johnson blew up at the Secret Service and said, you should&#8217;ve warned me, and insisted that they install a buzzer system to warn him in the future, if he was having sex and Ladybird was in the area.</p>
<p>He would also sit on the toilet and defecate as he&#8217;s being briefed by aids.  He would give press conferences in Texas and begin urinating in front of female reporters, as well as male reporters.  Of course, none of this was ever reported at the time.</p>
<p>The first time that the press began to report the sexual activities and other unpleasant activities of presidents and candidates was with Gary Hart, with the Donna Rice incident.  But actually, that was just the tip of the iceberg.  Agents who were protecting Donna Rice found that Hart&#8217;s buddy, Warren Beatty, would arrange to have these gorgeous starlets show up at Warren Beatty&#8217;s home in LA.  And Hart would go there, and they&#8217;d all jump in a hot tub.  Not with Warren Beatty, just the girls.  And Gary Hart &#8212; they&#8217;d jump in the hot tub, the girls would undress.  They&#8217;d stay overnight.  And the agents would go &#8212; there&#8217;s a 10, there&#8217;s a 9, there&#8217;s a 10, there&#8217;s a 9.  They were just totally overwrought by the gorgeous starlets.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter, again, was this guy who pretended to be a jolly peanut farmer, a man of the people, a populist.  But behind the scenes, he was so nasty to agents that he would tell them he didn&#8217;t want them to say hello to him in the morning on the way to the Oval Office.  It was just too much bother to say hello back to another human being.  What kind of a person is that?</p>
<p>And he would pretend to carry his own luggage in front of the cameras, to try to show that he&#8217;s a man of the people.  But then, as soon as the cameras were gone, he would give the luggage to aides to carry, or the luggage was empty in the first place.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>Carter would sometimes show up in the Oval Office at 5:00 in the morning and tell the Press Office to tell the press that he was in there working hard for the American people at 5:00 a.m.  But then he&#8217;d nod off to sleep on the couch in the Oval Office.</p>
<p>So, you know, again and again, we fall for these charades.  And the press just keeps focusing on the horserace.  They don&#8217;t look at character.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s something that we look at in our daily lives all the time.  We don&#8217;t choose a friend who would be nasty to other people, we don&#8217;t choose a new employee who would treat other people indecently.  And yet, here we have people who, you know, just cannot be trusted.  And it comes out eventually in their policies and in the way they interact with the country.  The other side is that the &#8212; in this book &#8212; the Secret Service has become so lax, and engages in so much corner-cutting, that everywhere you look, they&#8217;re really risking an assassination.</p>
<p>One thing in the book that hasn&#8217;t been picked up by the press is that on a regular basis, agents under pressure from either the Bush or the Obama White House or from campaign staffs will let people into events without magnetometer or metal detection screening.  It&#8217;s just like letting passengers into an airplane without doing that.  And if everybody did that, they would be fired and possibly prosecuted.</p>
<p>But the Secret Service management &#8212; it&#8217;s the management that&#8217;s at fault, not the agents, who really are brave and dedicated; they&#8217;ll take a bullet for the President &#8212; but the management has this arrogant culture that says &#8212; we&#8217;re the great Secret Service, we can take care of any problem.  We don&#8217;t have to even lock the front door of the White House.  And therefore, we can let people into events without magnetometer screening.</p>
<p>And when I confronted a high-ranking Secret Service official about this, he hemmed and hawed.  First he was saying &#8212; you know, now we have magnetometers, it&#8217;s much safer.  And I said &#8212; well, what about the times when you don&#8217;t use them, when you let people in under pressure?  Because there&#8217;s a line outside, and the staff says &#8212; let them in, let them in; and sure enough they let them in.</p>
<p>And then he started making excuses.  They&#8217;re wonderful at making excuses.  And he said &#8212; well, you know, if someone comes in without magnetometer screening, we keep those people further back.  Well, of course, in one second, you could have five terrorists come in with grenades and run from the back of an event and take out the President.  These are things that are just common sense.</p>
<p>And when you see what the Secret Service said after the penetration of the White House by Gonzales, which was &#8212; first of all, they lied about where he was apprehended &#8212; they said that he was stopped at the door; he actually penetrated the whole White House. They said he was not armed; that was a lie, he was armed with a knife.  And then they said &#8212; the Secret Service director, Julia Pierson, said that the agents exercised tremendous restraint in not killing him.  Well, is that what they&#8217;re there for, to exercise restraint?</p>
<p>I can tell you, FBI officials were horrified at that comment and laughing at it.  Because absolutely, he could&#8217;ve had explosives, he could&#8217;ve had WMD.  They wouldn&#8217;t know it until the White House was blown up.  And you have to use lethal force if everything else has failed.</p>
<p>And why did it fail?  Well, the guy who was supposed to release a canine unit, as they call them &#8212; and I did interview a canine unit when I was doing the book &#8212; they introduced me to one, and he went around and found explosives &#8212; that guy was on a personal cell phone call in his van.</p>
<p>But why would all this happen?  Why would you have agents hiring prostitutes?  Why would you have the uniform division letting the Salahis, the glamorous couple, into the White House; along with a third intruder, Carlos Allen, which is a story that I also broke &#8212; why would they be doing that?  Because you have this broken management culture.  And these agents say &#8212; well, management is breaking the rules.  They&#8217;re taking risks with assassinations; why should we do whatever we feel like doing?</p>
<p>This is just basic in any organization, that if you don&#8217;t maintain the right standards at the top, the whole place is going to crumble.  And that includes the infrastructure.  They don&#8217;t polygraph agents the way the FBI does, they don&#8217;t have the latest intrusion devices at the White House itself.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s this myth that somehow if you push the perimeter of the White House gate further back, somehow we&#8217;re not going to have access to the President.  Hey, nobody has access to the President, unless they have an appointment and have been cleared by the Secret Service.  And I don&#8217;t see that there&#8217;s anything to be lost by pushing that perimeter back.</p>
<p>You could have 30 ISIL terrorists come in with grenades from all directions.  And to keep the perimeter where it is now is simply asking for trouble.</p>
<p>The question often is asked of me &#8212; how do I get them to cooperate?  Usually, I water-board them, that works pretty well.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But I think that, as I said before, I do tell an honest story.  They respect that.  I think it&#8217;s pretty unusual in journalism today, given all the slant that you see.  And also, I&#8217;m genuinely interested in what they do.  I love to hear about profiling.  Before it became a nasty word, I broke the first story about FBI profiling in 1985.  And I think they think I already have a lot of sources, I already know a lot.  And they figure they might as well cooperate.</p>
<p>In my previous book, the secrets of the FBI, Bob Mueller, the FBI director, personally approved giving me access to their most secret tool, which is how they break into homes and offices to plant bugging devices &#8212; all court-authorized, of course.  But it&#8217;s an incredible story.  And let&#8217;s say they want to break into an embassy or some other secure location, or a mafia home, they will essentially case the joint for about two weeks beforehand.  They&#8217;ll watch who goes in, who goes out.</p>
<p>And on the night of the break-in, they&#8217;ll have agents watch at the homes of those people to make sure they don&#8217;t go back to the premises.  And if they do, oh, there&#8217;ll be a little traffic accident, or there&#8217;ll be a little ticket written.  Because the agents might dress in police uniforms in order to delay anybody going back.</p>
<p>The agents will bring in their own dust, in case they disturb any dust on a coffee table or a desk.  They will take a photo of any dog on the premises, and show that photo to a veterinarian who&#8217;s on contract.  And he prescribes just the right amount of tranquilizer to shoot into the dog with a dart gun.  And at the end of the break-in, they wake up the dog, because they don&#8217;t want any sleepy dogs around to create suspicion.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s say they want to put bugs in an office suite.  They&#8217;ll go in during the day and take control of one of the elevators; they go to elevator school.  And they&#8217;ll go up on the roof of the elevator in the middle of the night, get off, go in the suite, put the bugs in.  And they actually showed me a real bug, it&#8217;s about the size of a postage stamp.  And it will record for 20 hours, or transmit, as you wish.  And then, during the day, they&#8217;ll get back in the elevator, they&#8217;ll come back.  They&#8217;ll go out wearing business suits, and nobody&#8217;s the wiser.</p>
<p>And then, one other technique is &#8212; let&#8217;s say they want to put a bug in a home in the middle of the night.  They will take a photo of the front of the house.  They&#8217;ll blow that up into a huge tarp, drape that over the front of the house, so that any bystanders walking by will think that&#8217;s the front of the house.  But in fact, the agents are behind the tarp, defeating the alarms, defeating the lock systems; and they&#8217;ll put the bugs in.</p>
<p>And just one anecdote about this is they were to put bugs in a mafia hangout in Philadelphia.  It was an electronics store that was actually a front for the mafia.  And they couldn&#8217;t go &#8212; they didn&#8217;t want to go in the back door to put in bugs, because often that could be booby-trapped.  So they would have to go in the front.  But the front overlooked an all-night bar.</p>
<p>So how do they go in without being seen by the patrons?  They borrowed a city bus.  The agents got on the bus.  They rode in front of the premises.  They got out, they put the hood of the bus up to make it look as if it had broken down.  They went in, they defeated the locks and the alarm systems.  The bus then went around the block to pick them up.</p>
<p>And it went by a bus stop.  And there were two patrons in the bar waiting for the bus.  And the bus went whizzing by them, and they were furious.  And they went running for the bus.  And they got in as the agents were getting in, in front of the premises.  And the agents were all from different offices, including from this secret team called Tac-Ops that puts in bugs.  And they didn&#8217;t realize that these guys don&#8217;t belong with them.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>So then, a few of the agents, started taking off their weapons and their pit walkie-talkies, and these guys got scared, you know.  And they started ringing to get off &#8212; ding-ding-ding, let me off, let me off.  And the agent who was driving the bus said &#8212; hey, guys, stop bothering me, I&#8217;m having enough trouble driving this bus.</p>
<p>But then, another agent got up, and he had a shotgun over his shoulder.  And they started ringing again &#8212; ring, ding-ding-ding, let me off, let me off.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And finally, the agent who was driving figured out what was happening.  Let them out, they went running down the street, and nobody ever heard from them again.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>One other book that I did is mentioned in the New York Times today, and other publications, because the Senate Intelligence Committee&#8217;s report cites my interaction with the CIA when I did this book, &#8220;The CIA At War,&#8221; along with a New York Times reporter.  So it couldn&#8217;t be too bad if a New York Times reporter was involved.  And has the spin that somehow the CIA was leaking material about what they had done with the enhanced interrogation and how effective it was to me and to this New York Times reporter.</p>
<p>Well, the reality is I went to the CIA to get cooperation in the book.  They arranged a number of interviews on a lot of subjects.  Some of the interviews had to do with this.  It wasn&#8217;t as if I was being bamboozled by the CIA.  I corroborated what I used with the FBI.  But the implication is if the White House agrees to an interview, or the CIA or another institution agrees to an interview, somehow that means you&#8217;re already being propagandized and you shouldn&#8217;t listen to anything.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s in fact what this Democratic staff did.  They refused to interview any of the CIA officials or officers involved in this whatsoever.  And in addition, they excluded the Republicans.</p>
<p>So the whole thing is a joke.  And what they have done is they&#8217;ve cherry-picked a few things, an email here, an email there.  That&#8217;s not the way you present how an investigation proceeded, you know.  If you think of gathering facts about any subject, it&#8217;s a very complex process.  You know, you may be impressed by one fact, you may hear about a fact and ignore it.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the way the whole Watergate investigation proceeded.  I sat next to Carl Bernstein during Watergate at the Washington Post.  Woodward would come over every night, and they would write their stories together.  I would overhear what they were saying &#8211; they were knocking on doors until midnight.  And you see some critics on the right who are claiming that they embellished what they did, that they made up Deep Throat, that they didn&#8217;t really reveal the important stories.</p>
<p>That is B.S.  Because I was there, I saw what they did.  And they never claimed that Deep Throat gave them everything, but rather every now and then, he would give them a clue.  He would say &#8212; you&#8217;re on the right track.  And given the fact that the reporters and the Post were really, really scared of what might happen &#8211; they were being threatened by Mitchell &#8211; this reassurance and these clues every now and then helped their investigation.</p>
<p>And I actually was the first to present real information indicating who Deep Throat was before he came out.  I was doing another FBI book called &#8220;The Bureau.&#8221;  I went to interview Mark Felt, who turned out to be Deep Throat, in California.  And his daughter greeted me and said &#8212; you know, there&#8217;s this guy, Bob Woodward, who was out here about a year ago.  And he went to lunch with my father.  And you know what?  He came in a white limousine, but he had the limousine parked 10 blocks away, and then he walked to our house.  Well, that was a tipoff right away this is Deep Throat.  There&#8217;s no way Woodward would&#8217;ve done that otherwise.</p>
<p>And this daughter was sort of a flowerchild; she didn&#8217;t even recognize who Woodward was.  She knew he was a reporter, but didn&#8217;t know anything about Watergate and whatnot.</p>
<p>So, I&#8217;ve been into a lot of interesting subjects.  One other subject is in one of my books, just about the FBI&#8217;s counterintelligence program, the only book about how they catch spies.  I interviewed Karl Koecher and his wife, Hana, in Prague after they had been caught by the FBI and returned to Czechoslovakia.</p>
<p>Karl was a mole in the CIA, you don&#8217;t hear much about it.  But he was a very effective mole.  And one of his methods, besides being a very high-level translator, was that he and his gorgeous blonde wife, Hana, would go to orgies and sex parties with White House people, Defense Department people.  And of course, those people would feel compromised, because they were at these parties that they shouldn&#8217;t be attending.  Because they could be blackmailed.  And so they would get bits of information from them, as well as enjoying the parties.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>Hana actually &#8212; Hana enjoyed the parties more than Karl.</p>
<p>The first part was where they refused to cooperate because of &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> (Inaudible) was just gossip.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Oh, yeah.  Well, they are not supposed to talk about what they see behind the scenes.  And that&#8217;s just an understanding.  And after I revealed the prostitution scandal, they required agents to sign documents saying that they would not disclose anything.</p>
<p>And so, yeah, I would say the majority did not want to talk about that.  But others did.  And you know, it&#8217;s a legitimate point to say that maybe protectees would be a little more cautious about having agents near them if they think they&#8217;re going to reveal what they&#8217;re doing in their private lives.  But the other side is &#8212; A, we should know about the character of our leaders and prospective leaders; and B, if they&#8217;re engaging in something, some kind of subterfuge which they could be blackmailed for, they shouldn&#8217;t be running for office in the first place.</p>
<p>And in fact, when you&#8217;re talking about having sex, the agents are not there anyway.  For example, with Monica Lewinsky, she was in the Oval Office with Bill Clinton; the agents never saw what was actually happening.  So that&#8217;s my, you could call it, excuse for revealing these secrets.</p>
<p>And of course, the other side of exposing the shortcomings, the corner-cutting, is that they could change these practices overnight.  It&#8217;s not like when the AP revealed that the CIA had a source in Yemen who was telling them about prospective plots to blow up airplanes.  In that case, there was not news.  The CIA was doing its job.  There was no abuse.  There was no failure.  Just the opposite &#8212; it was a success.  And by compromising that source, we lost potential lives.  Because that source could no longer report on what was happening.  I thought that was outrageous.</p>
<p>But in the case of the Secret Service, they could change these practices overnight, they could stop the corner-cutting.  They could ask for more money, which I think is necessary.  Their budget is only $1.6 billion a year, which is the price of one stealth bomber.  And yet, they not only protect the President and others, the Vice President; but they also do counterfeit investigations and other financial investigations.</p>
<p>So there was an expose in the classic sense, where you hope for reform.  And I think it is contributing to the understanding of what&#8217;s wrong with the Secret Service.  It&#8217;s not just some error here and there; it&#8217;s a culture that has to be changed.  And I think the only way to do that is to bring in a director who was from the outside, such as a former high-ranking FBI official, who will shake things up, who will not be beholden to interests within the agency, who will understand that &#8212; yes, you have to polygraph agents, which is what the FBI does.  And that&#8217;s my purpose in writing these books.</p>
<p>Yes?</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> Oh, hello?  Over here.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Oh, sorry.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> That&#8217;s okay.</p>
<p>You talked about the Energizer for Bill. But what about Hillary?  What&#8217;s she up to?</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Yeah.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Well, maybe she&#8217;s so nasty because she&#8217;s not up to anything, you know.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>She is not up to anything.  You know, there are rumors about her being a lesbian, and agents say that&#8217;s not true.  But I have a whole chapter in the book about Hillary&#8217;s nastiness.  It&#8217;s just unbelievable, including her chief of staff, who&#8217;s been in the news because her husband was &#8212; is Anthony Weiner.  Just as nasty, you know.  Do you know who I am, she would say to an agent when she doesn&#8217;t have proper ID.  Just high-handed arrogance.  Nasty, nasty people.  It&#8217;s unbelievable.</p>
<p>And you know, you wonder &#8212; there are so many millions of people in this country who have qualifications that are similar, who are lawyers, who are not people who are nasty to people, and who understand that companies actually do create jobs.  And she said companies don&#8217;t create jobs.  You understand that you should not respect your enemies.  She said we should respect our enemies.  What kind of a &#8212; who would vote for anybody like that, even for dogcatcher?</p>
<p>You know, that&#8217;s how broken our politics is.</p>
<p>Yes?</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> Well, I have a question, just quickly &#8212; it sort of goes to Georgette&#8217;s question &#8212; and then my real question.  But does Hillary know about the Energizer?</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Well, she does now.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But, you know, agents feel that they have a political partnership, and it&#8217;s not a real marriage.  And that&#8217;s why they&#8217;re staying together.  That&#8217;s why she stays with Bill.  You know, she&#8217;s power-hungry.  That&#8217;s what she wants.  And she&#8217;ll overlook all of this in order to achieve power.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> Okay.  My initial question is &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Your real question.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> &#8212; it became apparent after 9/11 that there wasn&#8217;t a lot of cooperation between the FBI and the CIA.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Right.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> There was a lot of rivalry and competition.  So I&#8217;m wondering, has that changed?  What is the state at the relations between these two agencies?</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> That has totally changed.  And now, if you don&#8217;t cooperate, you&#8217;re in trouble.  Whereas before, it was the other way around.  Part of the problem was there was the so-called wall that said that you can&#8217;t &#8212; CIA can&#8217;t talk to the FBI and vice-versa, which is just something that a bureaucrat under Janet Reno came up with.  It was not based on any legal precedence whatsoever.  Previous cases had gone down to appeals without any problem.  But he just decided to write this, and then they all accepted it.  And so they stopped talking to each other, it was unbelievable.</p>
<p>But now, Bush established the Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia, where CIA and FBI sit side-by-side, 24 hours a day, analyzing information.  So they&#8217;re talking to each other all day long now.  And there is very good cooperation.  And that&#8217;s one reason we have not had another attack.</p>
<p>Every few months, you see in the papers arrests by the FBI of terrorists.  And that&#8217;s the bottom line.  That&#8217;s why &#8212; that&#8217;s the result of this cooperation and the result of the FBI&#8217;s efforts and CIA&#8217;s efforts.  And yet, all we hear in the press is demonizing these people, who are working to protect us, who are not paid a whole lot compared with what they could get in the private sector.  And it&#8217;s just outrageous, in my opinion.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> I would like your comments, please, on the First Ladies, the last several First Ladies, of what the agents think about them; as well as their spouses.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Right.  Well, the first First Lady that comes to mind is Pat Nixon.  She had a big alcohol problem.  It got worse when they left the White House.  One time, at San Clemente, an agent heard rustling in the bushes at night.  He cocked his shotgun.  And it turned out it was Pat Nixon, totally drunk, crawling on the ground, trying to find her house.</p>
<p>And she and Nixon never talked.  They would play golf together, but they wouldn&#8217;t say a word throughout the whole golf game.</p>
<p>Nixon was a very strange guy, as you might&#8217;ve surmised.  One day, he was watching TV at San Clemente.  An agent was watching through a window at the home.  And Nixon was feeding his dog dog biscuits.  And then he took one of the biscuits and put it in his mouth and ate it.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> Oh, my God.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Another time &#8212; you know, he loved to have fireplaces going all through the summer.  And at one time, he forgot to open the damper.  And so the whole house filled with black smoke.  And there was something about &#8212; let&#8217;s see, how&#8217;s this go?  One of the agents said &#8212; where is the son of a bitch, referring to Nixon?  Didn&#8217;t know where Nixon had gone.  And Nixon overheard this, you know.  And Nixon said &#8212; son of a bitch is over here.</p>
<p>So, Nixon did have a sense of humor.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>Betty Ford also had, as you know, both a drug and a drinking problem.  Sometimes she would be so inebriated when she was in the White House, they&#8217;d have to actually hold her as she went out of Air Force One.  Ford seemed to be oblivious to all this.</p>
<p>But to her credit, when she left the White House, she not only went to a rehab center, but she established the Betty Ford Clinic.  And agents admire that.  She&#8217;s spent a tremendous amount of time establishing that to help other people.  So unlike Pat, who never helped anybody with this problem, Betty Ford did.</p>
<p>Ford, of course, had this reputation of being clumsy.  The press beat up on him all the time.  And that was another myth.  He was a former high school football player.  He was a remarkable skier.  The Secret Service would assign their best skiers to go skiing with him in Colorado.  One of the agents would ski backwards to sort of taunt him.</p>
<p>But on the other hand, Ford &#8212; especially after he left the White House &#8212; turned out to be incredibly cheap.  He would tip caddies in California a dollar or two dollars.  He would have bellhops with carts full of luggage for both of them at the Plaza New York, and he would tip a dollar.  He would try to get gifts.  He would try to, you know, take golf sets from people in Japan who invited him for talks.  So that was the other side of Gerald Ford.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s see, who else?  Well, Ronald Reagan and Nancy.  Ronald Reagan was just as genuine as he appeared to be on TV, just as gracious.  He would &#8212; whenever he went into Air Force One, he would greet the pilots and the copilots in the cockpit.  Jimmy Carter did that only once during his whole four-year term.</p>
<p>One day, Reagan was coming down &#8212; about to go into the elevator in the residence in the White House.  And an aide came up and told him about the Donna Rice affair with Gary Hart, and it was going to be in the paper the next day.  And Reagan said &#8212; well, boys will be boys.  And then he went up in the elevator with this agent.  And then he said to the agent &#8212; but boys will not be President.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>Nancy could be cold and difficult.  Of course, she was very loyal to her husband.  She seemed to not like it when he would schmooze with agents.  And she would give him instructions &#8212; you know, you wear your gloves, you wear your hat.  And sometimes he would agree, and sometimes they would get in a fight over it.</p>
<p>And one time actually, at the ranch, they were about to go horseback riding, which Reagan loved to do, and she didn&#8217;t like it so much.  She liked to be with her friends in Beverly Hills.  And he would ring a bell for her to come out to go horseback riding.  She wasn&#8217;t coming out.  So he went inside.  And next thing agents knew was that the telephone reception at the house, at the ranch, had stopped.  And it turned out that Reagan had seen her talking to one of her friends in Beverly Hills on the phone, and just got enraged, and took the phone and threw it on the floor.  And so, that was the end of the telephone connection.</p>
<p>So, Reagan was human, like all of us.  I interviewed agents who were with him after he left office.  He would make it a point of going out to schmooze with them.  And then, of course, when he got Alzheimer&#8217;s, they started to notice the difference.  But that was only after he left office, not when he was in the White House.  He remembered the names of every agent and was, you know, the genuine article.  And I think that is reflected in the success of his presidency.  Because people do sense &#8212; you know, I think, even with Hillary, even without knowing what goes on behind the scenes &#8212; people do sense that she&#8217;s not a very nice person.</p>
<p>Any other First Ladies that you wanted to ask about?</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> The Bushes.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Ah.  Well, Laura was just beloved by agents.  She would make it a point of going back to the ranch the day after Christmas Day, so that the agents could be with their families, and would ask about their families.  George Bush, very similar.</p>
<p>Of course, he loved to go running, and the agents would have to assign their fastest runners.  When his father, George H.W. Bush, was Vice President, he was in the Vice President&#8217;s residence at the Naval Observatory.  And during the day, the naval stewards, as I said, would make pastries and cookies.  And then they would hide them, because the agents would come out in the middle of the night and steal some of them.</p>
<p>So one morning, at 3:00 a.m., one of the agents was looking for the cookies in the kitchen.  And he heard this voice behind him &#8212; where are the cookies?  And he turned around, it was George Bush.  And so, together they went looking for the cookies.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>They had them together with milk.</p>
<p>And Barbara Bush &#8212; same.  Very decent.  She would even offer to do the laundry of agents when they were up at Kennebunkport.  She would make sure that agents wore hats.  If they didn&#8217;t have a hat, she would insist that her husband go and get his hat and give the hat to the agent.  Just very, very decent, admirable people.  And we need more of those in the White House.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> Think we have time for one last question.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> Hi.  I just would like to have your comments on what appears to me to be an increasingly governmentalized media, especially television, and how it seems to resemble Pravda more than the media I was used to.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Yeah.  You know, I&#8217;m just as perplexed as you are.  I can&#8217;t understand it.  It&#8217;s just a trend.  You could say it&#8217;s because of more pressure because of the Internet.  But that doesn&#8217;t excuse anything.</p>
<p>And I think the Washington Post, as Michael mentioned, has been doing a very fair job lately.  It&#8217;s really turned around.  And I think ultimately, that&#8217;s going to help its circulation and its pickup on the web.  Because people do want to be able to trust the information that they get.  New York Times, not so much.  Quite the opposite.</p>
<p>But you know, it perplexes me.  Why would Rolling Stone, for example, run the story without talking to the so-called assailants of this woman who claimed she was raped?  How could anybody in his right mind not do that?  You know, it&#8217;s beyond me.  Maybe they&#8217;re on marijuana, I don&#8217;t know.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Ronald Kessler:</strong> Thank you.</p>
<p>(Applause)</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/ronald-kessler-on-the-secrets-of-the-secret-service/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeasement: Obama&#8217;s Secret Letter to Khamenei</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/appeasement-obamas-secret-letter-to-khamenei/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appeasement-obamas-secret-letter-to-khamenei</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/appeasement-obamas-secret-letter-to-khamenei/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ali khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeasement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayatollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president feeds the crocodile. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MW-CY442_obama__20141105115645_ZH.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245319" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MW-CY442_obama__20141105115645_ZH-426x350.jpg" alt="MW-CY442_obama__20141105115645_ZH" width="284" height="233" /></a>The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> headline on November 6, 2014 stated that “Obama Wrote Letter to Iran’s (Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader of Iran) About Fighting Islamic State.” The article described the letter as “secret,” and goes on to say that the October, 2014 letter to Khamenei “[m]arked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written to Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-wrote-secret-letter-to-irans-khamenei-about-fighting-islamic-state-1415295291"><span style="color: #0433ff;">engage</span></a> with Tehran’s Islamist government.”</p>
<p>President Obama’s “secret” letter has raised deep concerns among U.S. Middle Eastern allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, who have expressed their concern that America’s desperate efforts to reach an agreement on the nuclear issue with Tehran might appear as appeasement, and that the U.S. might soften its demands for Iran’s nuclear disarmament. They are worried that the Obama administration&#8217;s eagerness to get an agreement might leave the radical Iranian regime with the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.</p>
<p>Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to the revelation concerning the “secret” letter to Khamenei, saying, “I think the struggle with ISIS doesn’t need to come at the <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reportedly-knew-of-obamas-secret-letter-to-khamenei/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">expense</span></a> of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms.”</p>
<p>Reacting to Obama’s “secret” letter, Linda Heard’s column in the Saudi based <i>Arab News </i>(November 11, 2014), stated that</p>
<blockquote><p>Iranian tanks rumbling over Iraqi soil is guaranteed to throw a match on the embers of sectarian conflict, would serve as a recruiting tool for Daesh [the Arabic term for ISIS], and inflame Sunni tribes. Furthermore, this does nothing to allay the concerns of Gulf States that the U.S. may be cooking up a Grand Bargain with Iran to act as its geopolitical proxy. Those fears are exacerbated by America’s pivot east, not to mention that the luster of Arab oil has diminished now that the U.S. is on its way to becoming the world biggest oil producer. The question uppermost is this; <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/658051"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Is Obama throwing Sunni States under an Iranian bus</span></a>?</p></blockquote>
<p>During his first six months in office, President Barack Obama wrote two letters to Khamenei calling for improvement in Iranian-U.S. relations. To many Iranian liberals who sought more freedom from the oppressive clerical regime, it amounted to appeasement of the Ayatollahs. Moreover, it only served to heighten Khamenei’s contempt for the U.S. and President Obama.</p>
<p>Ayatollah Khamenei rejected Obama’s overtures for improved relations, and in the words of Jeffrey Goldberg of <i>The Atlantic, </i>the latest letter smacks of “Obama chasing after Khamenei in the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/a-troubling-letter-to-an-unbending-ayatollah/382505/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">undignified</span></a> and counterproductive manner of a frustrated suitor.” Suzanne Maloney, writing for the  Brookings Institute (November 7, 2014) concludes:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is simply no plausible scenario in which a letter from the President of the United States to Ali Khamenei generates greater Iranian flexibility on the nuclear program, which the regime has paid an exorbitant price to preserve, or somehow pushes a final agreement across the finish line. Just the opposite – the letter undoubtedly intensified Khamenei’s contempt for Washington and reinforced his longstanding determination to extract maximalist concessions from the international community. It is <span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/11/06-letter-khamenei-ayatollah-iran-obama-nuclear-isis">a blow</a></span> to the delicate end-game state of play in the nuclear talks at the precise moment when American resolve was needed most.</p></blockquote>
<p>The November 24, 2014 deadline for the final nuclear agreement between the five permanent representatives on the UN Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France) and Germany with Iran is fast approaching. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the outgoing EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton met in Muscat, Oman last weekend with Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister.</p>
<p>It is likely that the U.S. administration, through John Kerry, urged the Iranians to be more flexible and indicated its desire to reach an agreement, even if it leaves Iran with the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. The Iranians are bent on retaining their right to enrich uranium and keeping their existing nuclear infrastructure intact. Kerry, on the other hand, seeks to create the impression that the U.S. will adhere to President Obama’s pledge to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.</p>
<p>Former U.S. Representative Dan Burton wrote in the <i>Washington Times</i> (2/19/2014),</p>
<blockquote><p>Based on Iran’s history of lies, deception and hostility, why should we believe they are playing square now? Giving Iran $7 billion in cash while leaving in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs in the world is not an act of faith; it is an act of appeasement.  <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-wrote-secret-letter-to-irans-khamenei-about-fighting-islamic-state-1415295291"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Appeasement</span></a><span style="color: #365f91;"> </span>did not work in the 1930’s with Adolf Hitler. It did not work in the 1990’s with North Korea. It will not work in 2014 with Iran.</p></blockquote>
<p>Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who co-authored a bill with Bob Menendez (D-NJ) that imposed tough sanctions on Iran, reacted to President Obama’s letter saying that “The best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to quickly pass the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk legislation &#8212; not to give the Iranians more time to build a bomb.” John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House, said, “<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-wrote-secret-letter-to-irans-khamenei-about-fighting-islamic-state-1415295291"><span style="color: #0433ff;">I don’t trust</span></a> the Iranians &#8212; I don’t think we need to bring them into this.” Referring to the continuing nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Speaker Boehner said he “would hope that the negotiations that are under way are serious negotiations, but I have my doubts.”</p>
<p>In an ironic twist, Khamenei actually blames the U.S. for creating ISIS and al-Qaeda as a way to weaken the Islamic world. It is perhaps a more honest response than the Taqiyya (a form of religious dissimulation or deception of one’s enemy) artists such as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who have appeared to have charmed the Obama administration and the British government that recently reopened its Tehran embassy.</p>
<p>The Obama administration appears to have concluded that the Islamic Republic of Iran would be the best American deputy to guard the region and insure the region’s stability. For the Ayatollahs, this couldn’t be a better prospect. For a long time, Iran has sought to become the hegemon of the region. With the U.S. destroying Iran’s rivals, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, it paved the way for Tehran to spread the Shiite arc. <span style="color: #232323;">Haider al-Abadi’s </span>Iraq, Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, and Hezbollah controlled Lebanon are now tributaries of Iran. The Arab Gulf states can expect increased intimidation from Iran. Israel faces an existential threat from a nuclear armed and hegemonic Iran.</p>
<p>And yet, other than in the realm of terrorism, Iran has little ability on its own to project power. Its air force is antiquated, and its regular army is relatively weak. Khamenei’s threat that “if America makes the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05diplo.html?pagewanted=print&amp;_r=0"><span style="color: #0433ff;">wrong move</span></a> toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger” is rather hollow given U.S. capabilities. In fact, the U.S. Navy has the capacity to eliminate the entire Iranian navy in an hour. It is America’s consistent appeasement of Iran despite its unpunished attacks on Americans in Lebanon, (241 U.S. Marines killed in 1983, U.S. embassy in Beirut bombed) Saudi Arabia, (Khobar towers bombing 19 American servicemen killed and hundreds wounded), and Iraq (Improvised Explosive Devises killing numerous American soldiers) that has emboldened the Ayatollahs of Iran. President Obama’s letter to Khamenei appears to smack of further appeasement.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/appeasement-obamas-secret-letter-to-khamenei/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Ayatollahs&#8217; Secret Arms Deal with Iraq</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-ayatollahs-secret-arms-deal-with-iraq/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-ayatollahs-secret-arms-deal-with-iraq</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-ayatollahs-secret-arms-deal-with-iraq/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Majid Rafizadeh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arms deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Billions flow back to Iran, and the mullahs put their increasing influence to good use. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/iran_2677161b.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219891" alt="iran_2677161b" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/iran_2677161b-437x350.jpg" width="262" height="210" /></a>The Obama administration, which is pushing for a final nuclear arrangement with the Islamic Republic of Iran and an easing of sanctions, has repeatedly told the American people to trust the Iranian government and that Iran is a rational state actor. Billions of dollars have already flowed into the Ayatollahs&#8217; government, sanctions on some trade sections have been lifted, Iran’s currency (Rial) is regaining its value, Tehran&#8217;s non-oil exports are on the rise as it is starting to feel the benefits of easing international sanctions, and Iran has increased its oil exports and production. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">According to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Customs Office, Iran hit a record high in exports with $37.36 billions&#8217; worth of non-oil products exported during the course of the past eleven months— from March 21, 2013 to February 20, 2014.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Iranian leaders have markedly increased their oil exports, particularly to China and India over the past few months. Iran’s oil exports increased significantly after the interim nuclear deal. According to Iran’s semi-official news agency Press TV, Iran’s oil sales picked up from 1.06 million barrels per day (bpd) to 1.32 million bpd. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A confluence of interests brought Iranian leaders to a desperate political and economic position, and ultimately to the negotiating table for nuclear talks. The main concerns of the Ayatollahs were the economic sanctions and high inflation that endangered the hold on power of the ruling Iranian clerics. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The major question is: what is the Obama administration doing in response? Instead of setting any deals based on American or the international community’s terms, the Obama administration is setting the nuclear deals based on the interests of the Iranian leaders. This is being followed by a release of billions of dollars and the lifting of sanctions. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">More importantly, how have the Iranian leaders responded to these kind offers?  These economic and political moves have emboldened and strengthened the geopolitical and economic status of the Ayatollahs. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A few weeks ago, in a secret arms deal, the Islamic Republic and the Iraqi Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Maliki signed an arms deal worth millions of dollars. The deal was recently revealed by Reuters news agency.  Based on the recent report by Reuters, Tehran has signed a $195 million arms deal with the central Iraqi government. Accordingly, Iranian and Iraqi defense officials have signed eight agreements through which Iran will sell Baghdad arms, military communications equipment, ammunition for tanks artillery, mortars, and ammunition for U.S.-made M-12 assault rifles, among other weaponry.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">First of all, it is worth noting that this arms deal is in violation of the United Nations embargo on weapons sales by Iran. But the Obama administration has not seriously reacted about this arms deal and is still continuing the nuclear talks to reach a final nuclear deal and remove all economic and political sanctions against Iran. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This arms deal is considered to be the first official arms agreement between the Shi&#8217;ite Iranian government and Iraq&#8217;s Shi&#8217;ite-led government of Maliki. This also shows the increasing military, geopolitical, strategic and economic relationship between Iran and Iraq since American troops withdrew from Iraq in December 2011, and since the United States started to lift sanctions on the Islamic Republic. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">After the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and after the sanctions reliefs, the Islamic Republic of Iran became the most influential foreign force in Iraq politically, economically, and militarily. Based on recent developments, Iran’s socio-political and socio-economic leverage and influence in post-Baathist and post-Saddam Iraq appears to be at its peak. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Economically speaking, the Trade Promotion Organization of Iran (TPOI) pointed out that 72% of Iran’s exports in 2013 went to Iraq. The report also revealed Iraq&#8217;s imported goods from Tehran have increased by approximately 15% last year. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">During a six-month period in 2013, Iran exported $2.868 billion worth of good to Iraq, from Iran’s total exports of $17.972 billion (of non-oil commodities, including gas condensates). Considering non-oil goods, Iraq is now Iran’s second largest trade partner—only after China. Last week, Iraqi leaders pointed out that they are working with their counterparts in Tehran to boost oil exports in an attempt to triple oil production in Iraq to 9 million bpd by 2020. Iraq’s ambassador to Iran, Mohamed Majed Abas Al-Sheikh, recently announced that Baghdad has signed an arms agreement with its eastern neighbor, Iran, to purchase weapons and military equipment as part of a broader plan to boost Iraqi defense systems and armed forces.</span></p>
<p>Last week, after the sanction relief and the nuclear interim deal, reports revealed that the Islamic Republic of Iran stepped up its military support on the ground for the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad. They are further providing elite teams and necessary equipment to gather intelligence and train Syrian governmental troops. Russia, alongside the Islamic Republic, is also stepping up its arms and ammunition deliveries to Assad to assist him in regaining power.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Assad’s regime is now benefiting economically, intelligence-wise, militarily and politically from Iran’s economic recovery and from its senior commanders in Iran’s Revolutionary Gaurds Corps (IRGC), Iran&#8217;s semi-militia groups of Basij and the elite Quds Force, which is considered to be the secretive and external arm of the robust IRGC.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The more the Obama administration eases economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, sending billions of dollars to the Ayatollahs and appeasing the Iranian regime, the more the Islamic Republic is emboldened, empowered, and strengthened to pursue its Islamist and regional hegemonic ambition. This will cause tremendous geopolitical, security, and economic backlash on the United States and other regional states such as Israel on a short and long term basis. </span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-ayatollahs-secret-arms-deal-with-iraq/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Secret Talks Between Obama and the Mullahs</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/the-secret-deals-between-obama-and-iran/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-secret-deals-between-obama-and-iran</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/the-secret-deals-between-obama-and-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Majid Rafizadeh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=210235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the president has been sabotaging sanctions from the beginning.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/obama-rouhani.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-210267" alt="obama-rouhani" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/obama-rouhani.jpg" width="249" height="195" /></a>I have long pointed out that Barack Obama’s administration, and particularly president Obama himself, has been more than likely clandestinely communicating and working with the Islamic Republic of Iran much longer than just before the current nuclear talks, and even long before President Hassan Rouhani came to the United States to attend the UN General Assembly. Several national and international outlets have just released more details and reports on this issue.</p>
<p>The crucial point of this issue is that while the American people were told by the Obama administration (an image projected by President Obama) that this September’s “historic” telephone call between President Obama and President Rouhani was the first diplomatic outreach to achieve agreement on nuclear issues, the recent revelations indicate otherwise.</p>
<p>These secrets talks, surreptitious letters, leading to confidential and classified negotiations between Obama and the Islamist leaders of Iran, were initiated long before the current nuclear talks, right after the current president of Iran was elected to office.</p>
<p>According to several outlets, including the Daily Beast, the Blaze, and the <em>Washington Times</em>, the White House— under the leadership of President Obama— started lifting and easing its sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran right after President Hassan Rouhani took office.</p>
<p>According to The Daily Beast, Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a group that works closely with Congress and the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/">White House</a> regarding Iranian matters, stated that for &#8220;five months, since <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hassan-rouhani/">Rouhani</a>’s election, the United States has offered <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/">Iran</a> two major forms of sanctions relief.” In addition, Dubowitz pointed out that Iran has been selling oil illegally on the black market, leading to a large profitable amount of illegal revenues for Iran.</p>
<p>This also explains why President Obama has tried to oppose any sort of sanctions, policy recommendations, and legislation presented by the overwhelming majority of congressional representatives.</p>
<p>While it took several American administrations, the international community, the United Nations, and European countries to identify illicit institutions and actors in Iran who have abused the international financial sector, the Obama administration is quietly reversing these processes.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s policy of quietly lessening financial pressure on Iran has significantly emboldened the position of Iranian Islamists in the international arena.</p>
<p>According to Dubowitz, two types of relief and special offers have been given to Iran by the Obama administration.</p>
<p>Firstly, the Obama administration has significantly decreased issuing designations of sanctions violators in comparison to any previous administrations. This is occurring at a time when Iran has been more rapidly working on its nuclear program and increasing its centrifuges, according to the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has also increased the number of engineers working at a new plutonium plant, and according to many nuclear experts, Iran will reach the breakaway capacity of developing bomb-grade nuclear weapons within the first six months of next year.</p>
<p>These secrets concessions have significantly assisted the new president of Iran, allowing the administration to make millions of dollars in profit by increasing its oil sale in the illegal black market. While President Obama has not only done nothing to counter it, but has also assured the Iranian Islamist leaders that they have the green light to receive further relief down the road.  This is in complete violation of the financial global standards.</p>
<p>Secondly, and more importantly, the Obama administration has been offering Iran special deals by opposing sanction recommendations coming from both parties in Congress. In addition, Iranian lawmakers have previously pointed out that President Obama has previously sent secret letters to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While the Obama administration denies that they sent a secret letter to Khamenei, Iran&#8217;s Foreign Ministry spokesman confirmed that Tehran did receive the secret letter to the Supreme Leader. Furthermore, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, pointed out, US Secretary of State John Kerry is currently pushing for an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, which will ease sanction on Iran without even asking Tehran to slow down its nuclear activities.</p>
<p>The secrecy of the Obama administration’s work with the Islamist leaders of Iran is brining, and will continue to bring, further severe repercussions for American national interest, which will just intensify as these clandestine communications networks continue to occur. Some of the negative backlash to this event is aimed at how the Obama administration is alienating its regional allies, particular Israel, through these acts. By these secret reliefs, the Obama administration is significantly assisting Iran in more quickly obtaining bomb-grade nuclear capabilities and weapons. The Obama administration is also breaking the number one rule in foreign service, in which United States prohibits its diplomat from contacting Iranian counterparts. Finally, and more fundamentally, this move has worked to embolden the Islamists’ position, weakening and damaging the American image.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/the-secret-deals-between-obama-and-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big Brother Barack</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/big-brother-barack-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=big-brother-barack-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/big-brother-barack-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phone records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verizon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=192396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's dragnet serves as an ominous reminder that inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/flickering.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-192420" alt="flickering" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/flickering.jpg" width="276" height="390" /></a>A stunning <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">report</a> by the Guardian newspaper published late Wednesday evening reveals that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans who are customers of Verizon, one of the nation&#8217;s largest telecom companies. The top-secret <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order">order</a>, obtained by the paper, requires Verizon to submit to the NSA, &#8220;on an ongoing daily basis…all call details or &#8216;telephony metadata&#8217; created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.&#8221; Moreover, the paper reports that Americans&#8217; communication records &#8220;are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk&#8211;regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.&#8221;</p>
<p>The parameters of the exposed surveillance program are indeed massive, indiscriminate and involve no conditions of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of terrorist activities. Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?hp&amp;_r=1&amp;">granted</a> the order on April 25, directing Verizon to collect the data only until July 19, unless the blanket order is extended. The so-called &#8220;metadata&#8221; includes</p>
<blockquote><p>comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g. originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number,etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call.</p></blockquote>
<p>The content of the conversations are not covered. Neither is the name, address or financial information for a subscriber or customer. Yet the targets of this seizure &#8212; Americans &#8212; are clear in that the above order does <i>not</i> include calls made between foreigners. Furthermore, none of these limitations would stop the NSA from putting together a clear picture of who called who, how and when the call was made, and from what location.</p>
<p>Vinson&#8217;s order clearly states that while the application was initiated by the FBI, Verizon&#8217;s &#8220;Custodian of Records&#8221; shall turn the data over to the NSA. Yet section 2.3,  “Collection of Information&#8221; included in <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#content">&#8220;Executive Order 12333-United States Intelligence activities,&#8221;</a> specifically limits the NSA&#8217;s collection of data to &#8220;foreign intelligence or counterintelligence&#8221; sources, further stipulating that data collection within the United States</p>
<blockquote><p>shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thus, the NSA is in violation of its own charter.</p>
<p>Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group, contends that, “absent some explanation I haven’t thought of, this looks like the largest assault on privacy since the N.S.A. wiretapped Americans in clear violation of the law” during the Bush administration. “On what possible basis has the government refused to tell us that it believes that the law authorizes this kind of request?” she asks.</p>
<p>On its face, however, the Obama administration&#8217;s cell phone surveillance is vastly more abusive than the Bush wiretapping program, which was leaked to the press in 2006 and discontinued in 2007. The Bush administration defended those efforts at the time, stressing that the NSA was focused <a href="http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?csp=1">exclusively</a> on international calls in connection to al Qaeda operatives and post-9/11 terrorism. &#8220;In other words,&#8221; Bush explained at the time, &#8220;one end of the communication must be outside the United States.&#8221; In 2007, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez sent a <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf">letter</a> to the Senate Judiciary Committee, affirming that a FISA court judge authorized the targeting of international communications where there was probable cause that &#8220;one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda, or an associated terrorist organization.&#8221;</p>
<p>Even the far-left ACLU recognizes the tremendous difference between the Bush-era and Obama-era programs. Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/05/nsas-verizon-spying-order-specifically-targeted-americans-not-foreigners/">noted</a>, “In many ways it’s even more troubling than [Bush era] warrantless wiretapping, in part because the program is purely domestic,” he explains.  &#8220;But this is also an indiscriminate dragnet. Say what you will about warrantless wiretapping, at least it was targeted at agents of Al Qaeda. This includes every customer of Verizon Business Services.”</p>
<p>Prior to publishing its revelations, the <i>Guardian</i> contacted the NSA, the White House and the Justice Department for comment. All of them declined to say anything. So did Verizon, but that is completely expected. The order expressly states that</p>
<blockquote><p>no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or the NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this order other than to: a) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such Order; b) an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the production of things in response to the Order; or c) other persons as permitted by the Director of the FBI, or the Director&#8217;s designee.</p></blockquote>
<p>As several news sources note, Verizon may represent the tip of the iceberg. It remains a distinct possibility that other phone carriers, as well as giant Internet entities such as Google, Facebook, or Microsoft or any other ISPs, may be under surveillance&#8211;and that such surveillance may have been taking place far longer than the three months granted in the specific order.</p>
<p>Furthermore, officials have been dishonest about the nature of these programs. On March 15, 2012, an <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1">article</a> in <i>Wired</i> magazine chronicled the construction of the NSA&#8217;s top-secret Utah Data Center. The article also contended that the agency &#8220;has turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens,&#8221; and &#8220;established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas.&#8221;</p>
<p>Five days later, during a budget hearing in Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/">questioned</a> NSA director general Keith Alexander about whether the agency was conducting the kind of domestic surveillance outlined in the article. During the ensuing exchange, Alexander denied the charge fourteen times, insisting that any and all domestic surveillance would have to be conducted by the FBI. “Within the United States, that would be the FBI lead,” responded Alexander. “If it were a foreign actor in the United States, the FBI would still have to lead. It could work that with NSA or other intelligence agencies as authorized. But to conduct that kind of collection in the United States it would have to go through a court order, and the court would have to authorize it. We’re not authorized to do it, nor do we do it.”</p>
<p>This latest revelation makes a mockery of that testimony.</p>
<p>On July 9, 2012, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07/09/by-the-numbers-heres-how-often-att-sprint-and-verizon-hand-over-users-data-to-the-government/">released</a> a series of letters from major phone carriers responding to his demand they provide information on how often and under what circumstances they released information to the government. In addition to Verizon, companies such as Sprint, AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, MetroPCS and Cricket  revealed they had answered a staggering <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?_r=2">1.3 million requests</a> for data. Moreover, those requests represented annual increases of between 12 percent and 16 percent over the previous five years. “I never expected it to be this massive,” said Markey. ACLU attorney Chris Calebrese noted that much of that data collection, like the effort revealed by the <i>Guardian</i> on Wednesday, was completely indiscriminate. “Just the sheer volume of orders is amazing, but a significant chunk are dumps from entire cell towers,” he said at the time. “That means tons of people’s information is being grabbed with a single one of these orders.”</p>
<p>The latest court order seemingly confirms numerous, but vague, warnings issued by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) regarding the scope of the Obama administration&#8217;s surveillance efforts. For more than two years, both these members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been sounding the alarm regarding the &#8220;secret legal interpretations&#8221; used by the administration to justify a level of domestic surveillance so broad, Americans would be &#8220;stunned&#8221; by the revelations.</p>
<p>Yet as recently as March 12, 2013, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/06/Three-Months-Ago-Director-of-National-Intelligence-Testified-Gov-Does-Not-Collect-Data-On-Americans">denied</a> any such domestic surveillance was taking place in an exchange with Sen. Wyden:</p>
<blockquote><p>Senator Ron Wyden: &#8220;Does the NSA collect any kind of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?</p>
<p>Clapper: &#8220;No, sir.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wyden: &#8220;It does not?&#8221;</p>
<p>Clapper: &#8220;Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently, perhaps…&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Late yesterday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/06/us-usa-wiretaps-verizon-idUSBRE95502920130606">defended</a> the administration&#8217;s efforts. “The intelligence community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to public statute with the knowledge and oversight of Congress,&#8221; he contended. A senior administration official speaking on condition of anonymity, also justified the effort. &#8220;Information of the sort described in the <i>Guardian</i> article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States,&#8221; he argued.</p>
<p>Members of both political parties supported that contention. &#8220;It&#8217;s called protecting America,&#8221; said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). &#8220;If we didn&#8217;t do it, we&#8217;d be crazy,&#8221; said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-NC).</p>
<p>However, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa_n_3397440.html">sent</a> a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing precisely the opposite, a viewpoint undoubtedly shared by many Americans. “I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act,” he wrote. “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?” In a press release accompanying the letter he made it clear where he stood. &#8220;Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American,&#8221; it stated.</p>
<p>The NSA clearly exceeded its legal mandate. The dishonest statements of officials involved with the program indicate the government was aware of the bounds it was overstepping. But the dishonesty is dual in nature. While the Obama administration has been declaring the war on terror dead and gone, a relic of a bygone era, it has been secretly implementing extraordinary measures <em>against Americans</em>, and it has done so on the basis of the dire exigencies of the jihadist threat. And while posturing, as always, as a &#8220;progressive&#8221; force, this leftist administration is, once again, engaging in &#8220;Big-Brother&#8221; 1984-style tactics &#8212; revealing, in true leftist tradition, that inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out. The scandal-ridden atmosphere has become so rotten and disturbing that even the <em>New York Times</em><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/"> has noted</a> that this is an administration that has lost all credibility.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/big-brother-barack-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nancy Pelosi’s Secret CAIR Fundraiser</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/nancy-pelosis-secret-cair-fundraiser/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nancy-pelosis-secret-cair-fundraiser</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/nancy-pelosis-secret-cair-fundraiser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundraiser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keith ellison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nihad awad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unholy alliance again on full, ugly display. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/nancy-pelosis-secret-cair-fundraiser/pelosiawad/" rel="attachment wp-att-163959"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163959" title="PelosiAwad" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PelosiAwad-423x350.gif" alt="" width="296" height="245" /></a>Neil Munro at <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/pelosi-holds-secret-fundraiser-with-islamists-hamas-linked-groups/">The Daily Caller</a> reported Friday that “Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement. The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism.”</p>
<p>For Pelosi to appear at a fundraiser with Nihad Awad is as revolting, and should be as newsworthy, as if she had appeared at a fundraiser with David Duke or Bull Connor. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016754.php">unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case</a> — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014963.php">refused</a> <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016017.php">to</a> <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014790.php">denounce</a> Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/06/cairs-legal-tribulations.html">former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror</a>. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53303">Islamic supremacist statements</a>. Its <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/cairs-honest-ibe-hooper-admits-dont-talk-to-the-fbi-poster-crossed-a-line-but-those-who-noticed-that.html">California chapter distributed posters</a> telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.</p>
<p>With a rap sheet like that, every self-respecting politician on both sides of the aisle should shun CAIR. Yet the political Left is so corrupt and willfully blind about the threat of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism that it is unlikely Pelosi hesitated even for a moment to appear at the fundraiser. And if she did, her suspicions would likely have been assuaged by the fact that, from her perspective, Awad and Hamas-linked CAIR had all the right enemies: “right-wing extremists,” Christians, Zionists, even Christian Zionists. The mainstream media likewise treat this Hamas-tainted group as if it were the respectable civil rights organization it portrays itself to be in its propaganda – and since they also portray Pelosi as if she were a political figure worthy of respect, it is not surprising that she would subscribe to the same view of CAIR that they have.</p>
<p>And Pelosi is by no means alone among Democrats in her dalliances with Hamas-linked CAIR. <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060924-085114-9378r.htm">As long ago as 2006</a>, the close relationship between Keith Ellison, who in 2007 became the nation’s first Muslim congressman (D-MN), and Awad was a matter of public record. Awad, who notoriously said in 1994 that he was “in support of the Hamas movement,” spoke at fundraisers for Ellison, raising considerable sums for his first congressional race. According to investigative journalist <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/21/rep-keith-ellison-rewrites-history-on-his-muslim-brotherhood-cair-ties/">Patrick Poole</a>, Ellison has appeared frequently at CAIR events since then. Poole also explained that “according to Justice Department, Awad is a longtime Hamas operative. Multiple statements made by federal prosecutors identify Awad as one of the <a href="http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/AwadAhmad_Philly.pdf">attendees at a 1993 meeting</a> of US Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee leaders in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant. The topic of discussion during that 1993 meeting was how to help Hamas by working in the U.S. to help sabotage the Oslo Peace Accords.” But none of that fazed Ellison, or Pelosi.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, there is one small hopeful sign that even a figure as thoroughly compromised as Nancy Pelosi realizes that there is something not quite kosher about fundraising with Nihad Awad: the fact that the event was secret, held back in May, and only coming to light now. Apparently even the most politically correct liberal Democrats realize that collaborating too publicly with as unsavory a group as Hamas-linked CAIR could be, if not political suicide for Leftists, then at least liable to lead to a firestorm that they would rather not have to endure.</p>
<p>This phenomenon is akin to Barack Obama posing as a convinced and enthusiastic supporter of Israel during his third debate with Mitt Romney, as outrageous as his stance was after nearly four years of contempt for our only reliable ally in the Middle East. Leftists clearly know that they can only hang on to power by concealing their most egregious collaborations with and capitulations to the forces of the jihad, whether violent or stealthy.</p>
<p>This is not a hopeful sign unless the defenders of freedom against that jihad can learn to capitalize upon it, which so far they have not been able to do. But it does at least indicate that, even in these dark days, all is not lost, not yet, and not by a longshot.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/nancy-pelosis-secret-cair-fundraiser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Only Journalists Offended by Romney&#8217;s &#8220;47 Percent&#8221; Remarks</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/only-journalists-offended-by-romney-47-percent-remarks/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=only-journalists-offended-by-romney-47-percent-remarks</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/only-journalists-offended-by-romney-47-percent-remarks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Flynn]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[47 Percent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundraiser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mother jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tape]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=144747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Who is it really that's out of touch? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/romney-2012.jpeg81-460x307.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-144817" title="romney-2012.jpeg81-460x307" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/romney-2012.jpeg81-460x307.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>EBT Nation has spoken. Its citizens, the ones who will bother to show up to the polls on November 6, have decided to vote themselves more of Mitt Romney’s money. The inhabitants of Section 8ville second the motion.</p>
<p>The Republican nominee may be aghast that so many strangers enjoy so much of his money. Why are the sponging strangers, and the class-war Hessians of the Fourth Estate, so shocked that Romney has written off their votes?</p>
<p>“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president, no matter what,” an out-of-focus Mitt Romney says on a four-month-old surreptitiously-obtained grainy video. “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement, and the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.” The presidential candidate tells donors that his job is to convince the unbribed undecideds to cast their ballots for him.</p>
<p>Obama campaign manager Jim Messina found Romney’s comments “shocking.” He shouldn’t have. With more flash, makers-versus-takers rhetoric has been a staple of Republican presidential stump speeches for several generations. Why the feigned outrage over something so pedestrian?</p>
<p>In 1976, Ronald Reagan colorfully invoked a Cadillac-driving Chicago woman receiving food stamps, relying on Medicaid, and collecting more than six-figures in welfare money under her numerous aliases. Buffalo congressman Jack Kemp, a candidate for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination, repeatedly warned that the social safety net had become a hammock. Texas Senator Phil Gramm ran for president eight years later incessantly reminding voters, when he wasn’t invoking the ink-stained fingers of his printer friend Dickey Flatt, that there were more people riding in the wagon than pulling the wagon.</p>
<p>They weren’t wrong, just premature.</p>
<p>A record-high 89 million Americans do not participate in the labor force, with the three percent drop under the Obama administration nudging the rate—63.5 percent—to its lowest level since the Great Depression. People who have given up on work haven’t given up on a paycheck. A record 46 million Americans rely on food stamps, up 44 percent since the president took office. The 8.8 million Americans accepting Social Security disability checks, spiking nearly 1.5 million since inauguration day, is also a record.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/only-journalists-offended-by-romney-47-percent-remarks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stephanie Gutmann: Doing Security the Israeli Way &#8211; The American Spectator</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/stephanie-gutmann-doing-security-the-israeli-way-the-american-spectator/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stephanie-gutmann-doing-security-the-israeli-way-the-american-spectator</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/stephanie-gutmann-doing-security-the-israeli-way-the-american-spectator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[airline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airline security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american spectator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bureaucracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buzzword]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[checkpoints]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethnic profiling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everyone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[example]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Head]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Isaac Yeffet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israeli Way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israelis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[languages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[layer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rosetta Stones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security personnel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[way]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Let&#8217;s do things the way the Israelis do.&#8221; That&#8217;s the latest buzzword in airline security. It&#8217;s nice to hear the Israelis being praised for something, but if we don&#8217;t understand what the Israelis do, we&#8217;re just going to be adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already overloaded system CNN spent an hour interviewing Isaac [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/15/doing-security-the-israeli-way"><img src='http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/12635341523288.jpg' alt='' /></a></p>
<p>&#8220;Let&#8217;s do things the way the Israelis do.&#8221; That&#8217;s the latest buzzword in airline security. It&#8217;s nice to hear the Israelis being praised for something, but if we don&#8217;t understand what the Israelis do, we&#8217;re just going to be adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already overloaded system</p>
<p>CNN spent an hour interviewing Isaac Yeffet, former head of El Al security, for example, and all it came away with is that the Israelis interview everyone on line while they&#8217;re waiting to go through security, that the security personnel speak at least two languages, and that the system costs a lot of money. (Hey, let&#8217;s order up a lot of Rosetta Stones!) According to the Wall Street Journal, &#8220;the secret to [the Israelis'] successful airport security is not labor-intensive checkpoints, but a screening system that is frowned upon in many other countries: ethnic profiling.&#8221;</p>
<p>via <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/15/doing-security-the-israeli-way">The American Spectator : Doing Security the Israeli Way</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/stephanie-gutmann-doing-security-the-israeli-way-the-american-spectator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 839/893 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 02:31:55 by W3 Total Cache -->