"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

Search My Blog Using Key Words, Phrases, Names, Etc.

Friday, February 27, 2015

The War On Preppers: Obama Bans Ammo For The Most Popular Rifle In America

Because he can’t get Congress to approve the things that he wants to do, Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House.  One of Obama’s latest moves is to try to ban some of the most popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in America.  Previously, the Obama administration attempted unsuccessfully to ban the AR-15.  That didn’t work, so now Obama is going after the ammunition.  This is yet another example of the war on preppers that is going on all over the nation.  Whether you are a gun owner or not, this assault on our constitutional rights should disturb you greatly.  Barack Obama has promised to try to squeeze as much “change” as possible out of his last two years, and in the process he is “fundamentally transforming” America.  But what will our country look like when he is done?
At the top of the Drudge Report today, there was a story from the Washington Examiner detailing this ammo ban…
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
And here is more on this ammo ban from the NRA
As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.
In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.
According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.
The crazy thing about all of this is the fact that this ammunition has never met the legal definition of being “armor piercing”.  So what the Obama administration is attempting to do is outside the law.
A recent Infowars article broke this down…
The ATF is trying to ban M855 AR-15 ammunition by declaring it “armor piercing,”despite the ammo containing lead which exempts it from the classification according to law.
To be considered “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17)(B), a bullet must have an entirely metal core or have a jacket weighting more than 25% of its weight, which wouldn’t include M855 rounds because their bullets are partly lead.
The definition in full:
(17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
Needless to say, this ban is creating quite a bit of panic among gun owners.
Many gun owners are stocking up on this ammo while they still can
Word of ATF’s proposal sparked a run on ammo at some Springfield gun stores, and steep price spikes for steel-tipped military surplus ammo at some online ammo dealers. Rounds that sold for 25 to 30 cents apiece tripled at some some stores after BATF posted its proposal on its web site.
“We sold out of what we had in stock,” said Ryan Cook, manager of Eagle Armory in Springfield. “We didn’t have a lot in the store but I might have sold four or five cases after ATF’s statement came out. I called our suppliers but they said there was none available to order. It’s like the ammo shortage before. People are going to panic.”
Like I said earlier, even if you are not a gun owner you have got to be extremely concerned about this erosion of our constitutional rights.
We have a man occupying the White House that seems absolutely determined to stretch the limits of presidential power as far as they can possibly go.
And at this point he has become so arrogant that he doesn’t even care if Congress believes that what he is doing is legal.  Just consider what he said during one recent speech
Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.
Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:
So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.
This is how republics die.  When one man starts grabbing more and more power and nobody stops him, eventually a dictatorship is born.
This is not what our founding fathers intended.  If they could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves.
And a lot of Americans are getting fed up.
In fact, according to one recent survey only 47 percent of Americans still believe that Obama loves this country…
While the creepy #ILOVEOBAMA continues to trend on Twitter, fewer than half of American adults, 47 percent, say they believe that the president loves his country.
According to a survey conducted by Huffington Post/YouGov and released this week, a whopping 35 percent of Americans, more than one in three, believe that Obama doesn’t love the United States, while 17 percent said they weren’t sure.
The poll was conducted in the wake of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani telling a gathering in Manhattan that “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”
So what do you think?
Do you believe that what Obama is trying to do is legal?
And do you believe that Obama actually loves this country and everything that it is supposed to stand for?
Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…

The New Gospel: Appealing But not Revealing

It cannot be overstated that the most pressing issue in the American church at present is the prevalence of unregenerate church members within our ranks. When the current surveys of American life place those who call themselves believers in Christ about the seventieth percentile and climbing, conservative Christians ought to finally awaken to the immensity of the problem. Deception is pandemic. It is as if a modern Constantine christianized the masses while we were asleep.
Spurgeon said, “Everyone has a religious spasm or two.” More “spasms” have been taken to be true conversion in our day than perhaps in any other day of our existence as a nation, notably within evangelicalism. We have never looked fatter. But our corpulent appearance is like cotton candy: when you melt it down, there is not much to it. Now we find ourselves struggling over the meaning of conversion. But we have not done our homework early enough and the problem is already out of hand. In message and method we have, in fact, often erred. The sowing of bad seed has produced massive crop failure yet unprecedented statistics. It is getting harder to find wheat among the tares.
It is the complicity of the evangelical church in this deception, either through misinformed enthusiasm or love for repute, that is the most disturbing. We have poured over materials on methodology for bringing people in and used our theology books for doorstops. We have entertained more cleverly than ever before and made the outside world feel good again about the idea of church. We have been quiet enough about sin to make it worth their while to show up repeatedly and perhaps even to join. We have taught them how to act Christian without conviction, to praise God without loving holiness, and, as one has said, to say “Amen” without saying “Oh me!” Is it any wonder that when our converts leave the services, they take the pastor’s hand and say, “It surely is fun to be in this place” rather than “Surely God is in this place”?
I am not saying that God disallows laughter and fun in our lives or that Christians cannot come together to enjoy each other. But I am saying that seeking the face of God turns us in a definite direction which cannot be confused with entertainment or superficiality. Our approach to worship in the States has not only entertained us but unfortunately has presented to unbelievers around us a view of God that is not true. It is a fatal flaw.
There is a product, I am told, called “Near-Beer.” I am not a beer drinker and have never personally seen a can of this variety. I assume it is a type of drink that tastes like the real but lacks the effects. Perhaps a similar way we have created a “Near-God.” Can we not say that the God we have created is somewhat like God in appearance but without the effect? He is a “chummy” God without the “bite” of holiness. He indulges and never inconveniences. He forgives and never disciplines. His name is Savior but not Lord, except as a title of respect.
Our appeals to the unconverted naturally flow out of our views. We invite them to a happy life without passing on the direct message from the true God that he “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) and that he categorically declares “…without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). We are preaching a one-sided gospel. Should we not press home the fact that “Lord” is not just a title but has been carefully defined by Jesus in Luke 6:46 when he said, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?”
Just how far do we accommodate the sinner before we compromise the gospel? Whatever this relationship is between “being all things to all men” (which seems to draw more people up to conversion) and holding up the standard of holiness (which seems to drive them away), we know that all true evangelists experience the push and pull of it. Such a pattern can be found in Christ’s ministry. He brought them close by food and miracles and then scared them off by the demands of discipleship and the stark nature of the truth itself (Lk. 14:25-33). That is, he scared off all but the called.
The disturbing thing about the American church in general is that our mentality about evangelism does not reflect Christ’s. We often correctly lead the unbelievers up to the door of salvation but then reconstruct the door wide enough for them and their rebellion. We cannot stand for the truth to create resistance. We have a hard enough time with our image anyway. (Nobody wants to be a leader in the Church Loss Movement!)
For our American churches, the absence of two defining negatives should make us think something is awry:
1. Few, if any, hate us for the right reasons.
Jesus said, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.“ (Jn. 15:18-19).
Now I am not saying that we are not hated at all. But for the most part, we are hated for our clownish behavior on some T.V. programs, our constant fleecing of the people, our nineteenth century traditions, and our notorious sins and hypocrisy. We assume that outsiders know much of what appears to be Christian is not really so…but do they?
We have become despised for a few political and social reasons. This is as it should be. It illustrates the point. Conservatives have taken a stand on abortion, for instance. It is of extreme importance. But how many people have hated the church for godliness in our everyday lives? Yet Paul said, “…everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” (2 Tim. 3:13). For such separated living, “they heap abuse on you,” Peter states (1 Peter 4:4b). We must live at peace with all men “if it is possible” (Rom. 12:18), but godliness increases the friction often faster than we can oil the friendship. We can thankfully escape the provocations of legalism, but godliness, like it or not, remains a rebuke.
2. Few, if any, are offended by the message we preach.
Polite and clever homilies may comfort sinners, but they do little to convert sinners. We are in danger of making everybody feel so good by our messages that they no longer perceive a need for regeneration. Do outsiders need salvation (that is, deliverance from the penalty and practice of sin and its judgment) or merely sanctified “how to’s” on becoming more successful? Such messages are appealing but not revealing.
Let me restate this: Our message has paled and become effeminate because it fails to expose the dilemma of the human condition in any convincing way and virtually forgets the judgment to follow. We have preached in such a way as to cause people to say, “Saved from what?” All that is left is to appeal exclusively on the basis of the proper (indeed, pleasing) psychological adjustment Christianity gives to life. To the degree we move the fulcrum in our presentation so as to give the weight to the psychological benefits, to that degree we remove the offense. No wonder the people want it. It ruffles no feathers. “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). The biblical answer to this predicament is to “preach the Word…correct, rebuke, and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).
Let’s face it: our gospel is offensive. The cross and faith are offensive because they take meritorious works and send them packing. Repentance and the call to holiness are offensive because man prefers to run from the light. The narrowness of the door is offensive because it sours people on God’s open-mindedness. God’s sovereignty is offensive because humans like to call the shots. No wonder Paul was straight with Timothy from the outset and said, “…join me in suffering for the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:8b). It makes sense now why he said, concerning faithful gospel expression, that “it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him…” (Phil. 1:29). If you are looking for a challenge, join up. Giving the true gospel in its pure form is like feeding liver to a preschooler—no way!
When is the last time you heard or spoke the gospel in such a way that the people said, “This is a hard teaching—who can accept it?” and then watched them turn on their heels and walk out? Yet that is what they did to Christ (see Jn. 6:60-69). This was not an isolated experience for the greatest evangelist. This persistent clashing of words and world-views continued unabated all the way up to the cross! He brought a sword, not peace. Self-manipulating such violent rejection of the gospel for the sake of proving one’s spiritual verve is unthinkable. Yet we must ask the question: Could it be possible that we have improved the gospel beyond what Jesus ever knew? Can we now outsell the Master?
But this must be seen: On that day, when Jesus “lost his crowd,” twelve men did stay behind (though Judas for his reasons). They said what every true believer says: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:68-69). And that is the amazing thing. The gospel which is always offensive, mitigating against the fallen nature of man, this holy gospel which is always repelled by the world, found willing admission. Here we find the exception. Here we see some who find this resisted Gospel irresistible…indeed, in it alone they say they find life!
I think we have missed the idea of the gospel. It is not a big flypaper to catch busy executives and unsuspecting children. The objective is not just catching men but glorifying God. We have not said all of what the gospel means when we convince people that our way makes more people genuinely happy than theirs. These gospel words go down hard, and, correctly stated, often seem to be utterly foolish. They appeal to no one except those who are prepared by God. Christ plainly stated: “No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (Jn. 6:65).
Is it not time to speak as viscerally as Paul did, holding back nothing, but lovingly and accurately setting forward the offensive cross? He didn’t give them what they wanted: he gave them what they needed. We can risk such boldness as well. “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:22-24). Do not worry: the called will find the cross appealing even if the world cries foul.
Must we expect small numbers and churches that are martyrs’ hospitals? Yes and no. Yes, if God so chooses, if God allows the spirit of the age to prevail. No, whenever God grants any measure of awakening, however widely, so as to open hearts “en masse.” God has His seasons for each and His reasons for all.
Have we no longer a category for spiritual giants who have been true to God without all that registers as signs of success in corporate America? Think through our history. There have been sturdy men in shaken times (have there not?), tender men in calloused times, revived men in reviling times. Compelling men in repelling times. We have honored them and the God who made them. We stand upon their shoulders.
Now even though most giants of Christian history would appear short of the goal on church growth charts due to the absolute strictness of their gospel, in all our emulation and reverence for them, there can be no excuses on our part for a lack of zeal or freshness in evangelism. We must not try to reach less people in order to prove our doctrinal correctness. We are not called to be “soft men in fine raiment,” refusing to soil our hands in the business of knowing and loving sinners just because the gate is narrow.
On the other hand God will not permit the preaching of a half-gospel in this wholly pagan age out of deference to the sinner. The gospel remains a serrated and sharp knife, killing, not just wounding, sinners before the balm is applied. It is not our prerogative to let divine opportunity go unused; nor do we have liberty to dribble out gospel half-truths.
A primitive and unaltered gospel must be preached; the pure and potent God must be known. There must be no more sitcom sermons. We must not reduce the foolishness of preaching to the foolishness of man. Our services can no longer be staged plays to entertain or even moralize in comfortable categories only. We cannot continue to forget sin and hell and repentance and justice and conviction and holiness as if we are more sophisticated than Christ. We must ask again, “What are sinners supposed to feel in the presence of a holy God?”
Copyright © 2013  Jim Elliff
Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form
including author's name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink.
Other uses require written permission.

www.ccwtoday.org
Topic Tags: 

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Critical Information on Iranian Threats Presented in Washington

Considerable media coverage has been devoted to House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the state of radical Islam movement worldwide. But “Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election,” writes Caroline Glick for the Jerusalem Post. “He invited Netanyahu because he cares about U.S. national security. He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.”
The outcome of negotiations with Iran could be the ultimate game-changer for the course of history. But, as Glick argues, the Obama administration’s policy is one of enablement—not the prevention of a new nuclear power coming on the scene. Will a nuclear Iran be President Obama’s enduring legacy in the Middle East?  One wonders whether this is how World War III will start. Or should I say, World War IV? Maybe we’re in World War III right now, but just haven’t acknowledged it yet.
To clear up one point that has fueled a great deal of misinformation, Speaker Boehner did inform the White House of the invitation to Netanyahu before the invitation was accepted. The White House remained silent, and then encouraged the narrative that they had been blindsided by the announcement of the plans. The New York Times was forced to acknowledge that fact in a correction.
Iran’s nuclear program may be one of the most important issues of our time. I recently attended an event at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. that tackled the critical national security issue that Iran represents. Two members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, Clare Lopez and Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, spoke at this forum as well.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media didn’t think that the “Iran Truth Squad” event on January 28, hosted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), deserved coverage.
The topics addressed at this gathering included:
  • How should we approach Iran?
  • The state of the current negotiations
  • What to make of Iran’s tactics and intentions
  • Of the threat Iran poses to the U.S. and Israel
  • Of Iran’s historical and religious roots
  • Of the Obama administration’s attitude and response to them
This two-hour conference, put on by Frank Gaffney and his CSP, answered these pressing questions about the current nuclear negotiations with this regime, and also placed them in the context of what is certainly a corrupt, jihadist government, inimical to free speech and free expression supporting terror worldwide. I urge everyone to watch this, but if you can’t, here are summaries of the different experts who spoke there.
Frank Gaffney:
Gaffney opened the conference by pointing to the considerable amount of disinformation and “confusing statements,” if not outright dissembling, that the Obama administration has provided regarding the Iran negotiations. President Obama said in his recent State of the Union, “with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.” However, Center for Security Policy projections were actually cited by The Washington Post as a “fact check” on President Obama’s claims, and Glenn Kessler of the Post awarded the President three Pinocchios for his false statements.
“We think at the very minimum these are the sorts of alternative assessments that are needed for the American people and their elected representatives to have under consideration as they weigh not only these negotiations that are underway…but also with respect to legislation that is expected to be addressed by the Congress on both sides of the aisle …in the days to come,” said Gaffney. He also noted that you wouldn’t know from the characterizations and negotiations between Washington and Iran that this repressive regime considers not just Israelis or Jews impure, but all infidels.
In addition, Gaffney said, we need to remember there are not only the nuclear capabilities that Iran has declared, but their secret capabilities, as well.
Rep. Trent Franks:
“I would suggest to you that Iran’s nuclear pursuits are one of the most critically significant and grave threats to the peace of the world that we have anywhere to discuss,” declared Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the House EMP Caucus. The costs in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be high. However, his response is that these costs pale in comparison to the cost of overcoming a nuclear Iranian regime. “To deal with a nuclear capable Iran is an unthinkable scenario,” he said.
Rep. Franks emphasized that Iran poses a real threat to the United States. He said that Iran has actively been researching electromagnetic pulse (EMP) technology and that hardening the United States infrastructure against EMP could serve as a deterrent by reducing an EMP’s efficacy against America. “But let me suggest to you that even missile defense is not as important as hardening our grid when it comes to deterring a potential enemy against attacking our grid with the use of EMP,” he said.
He condemned the current administration’s current negotiation approach toward this repressive regime, saying, “All Iran needs to gain a nuclear weapons capability is time and this administration seems unfortunately either naively or just insanely willing to allow them to have that time…”
Yoram Ettinger:
Ambassador Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomat who served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel’s Embassy in Washington and as Director of Israel’s Government Press Office, emphasized that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is in the United States’ national interest, not just Israel’s interest. After all, Iran’s desire for nukes exists “independent” of Israel and advances a mega-historical goal of this country: domination of the Persian Gulf and stopping America’s power projection in the region.
“All that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel,” said Ettinger. “Iran, obviously, is a lethal threat to Israel, but the motivation of becoming a nuclear power is focused on [a] much, much more important factor, as far as they’re concerned, and that is the USA.”
After all, “Iran annually celebrates November 4 as ‘Death to America Day,’ commemorating the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy, featuring a burning of the American flag,” Ambassador Ettingerwrites on his website.
He expressed skepticism that Iran could be contained or tolerated once it gains or develops its nuclear weapons program, because such strategies contradict the country’s track record. Ettinger called for regime change and said that once Iran gets the bomb, “the only question will be how rapid and how wide in scope will American concessions be” worldwide.
Dr. Andrew Bostom:
Dr. Bostom, author of Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, outlined the cultural background of the Shiite revolution that brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran in the 1970s, and pointed to the Islamic religious components that make Iran’s antisemitism so virulent.
“The recent [Charlie] Hebdo murders in Paris targeting journalists and, even more egregiously without cause, Jews at a Kosher market, represent uniquely Islamic phenomena certainly in the present era,” he said.
He emphasized that the hatred of Jews and non-Muslims, or infidels, is so intense that it becomes dehumanizing because Islam views infidels as physically, as well as spiritually, impure. As such, someone might even be beaten for going out in the rain because their impurity might wash off, and, in other cases, infidels are not allowed to touch products as they are manufactured. The physical and spiritual impurity of the infidel is derived from Islam’s core texts, he said.
Comparing the Green Movement to those currently in power, Bostom said, “We see really no difference in terms of their attitudes about jihadism, and it’s based on the prototype of Mohammed…” One might ask whether regime change would make much difference.
Clare Lopez:
Antony J. Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State, recently admitted during Congressional questioning that the United States was no longer negotiating to stop Iran from a “breakout” capability to nuclear weapons, “but only to get a better alarm” or “signal” ahead of time, according to Clare Lopez, a member of the CCB and former CIA officer. She serves as the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Research and Analysis.
Blinken, speaking for the State Department on January 27, outlined how the U.S. continues to provide Iran with “limited” sanctions relief of “about $14 to $15 billion from the start of the [Joint Plan of Action] through this June.”
In addition to sanctions relief, Lopez said that the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action gave Iran just about everything it wanted: the right to enrich, the right to keep uranium, centrifuge research and development, and continued intercontinental ballistic missile development.
On January 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that “According to unnamed officials, Washington ‘has given the Iranians 80 percent of what they want’ out of the negotiations…”
“Let’s look at this satellite photo imagery from a couple weeks ago,” said Lopez during her presentation, pointing to a satellite image of a new ICBM sitting on a launch pad outside of Tehran. “It’s 89 feet tall, it is definitely intercontinental in reach. That means this one, at least…is not aimed at Israel” but much farther away, she said.
IHS Jane’s 360, on February 1, reported to the contrary that “Claims that Iran is preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are based on incorrect analysis of a satellite image showing the new facility at the Khomeini Space Centre in Semnan province.”
Lopez, in response, pointed out that “a simple, small 1-3 kt nuclear weapon used for an EMP attack does not have to weigh much more than 100 kg,” which is the weight that Jane’s 360 reports Iranian media had indicated the Simorgh can carry into orbit. Also, “the nosecones already are visibly configured to carry a nuke,” she remarked.
Lopez also pointed to the recent alleged American intervention in Argentina on behalf of the Iranians. “The United States pressed Argentina to end its investigation of Iranian complicity in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in which nearly 100 people were killed,” reported the World Tribune citing the Middle East Newsline and unnamed diplomats on January 23rd.
We have since learned that “Before his death, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman had drafted an arrest warrant for the country’s president in connection with an alleged secret deal with Iran to cover up the bombing of a Jewish community center two decades ago, the chief investigator of Nisman’s death said Tuesday.”
Fred Fleitz:
Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, said that he wrote for National Review that Obama’s State of the Union address was “a straight up lie.” In 2008, when President Obama took office, the number of weapons that Iran could make from its enriched uranium or further enriching its uranium stood at zero. Now, the Center for Security Policy estimates it could create eight weapons.
“The number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, rising from seven to at least eight over the last year,” he wrote.
“Iran could make a weapon out of its enriched uranium at the reactor grade in 2.2 to 3.5 months right now,” argued Fleitz, basing this on numbers compiled by the Center for Security Policy, where he works as a Senior Fellow. “This administration has no intention of stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he argued. The administration has decided it can live with a nuclear Iran, he said.
The next deadline for nuclear talks is March 24 of this year, with a final deadline set for June 30th. Fleitz would prefer that the talks end altogether, and start over, because a bad deal is worse than no deal.
After all, Iran is already hiding evidence of its nuclear research activities, and not cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, he said.
Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.):
Admiral Lyons, another CCB Member, said that “you don’t negotiate with evil,” and called the Khamenei regime both evil and corrupt. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the hands of this country since 1979, he said, and one should not forget the role that Iran played providing material support to the September 11, 2001 hijackers—necessary aid without which this attack could not have happened.
He argued that the only way to stop the Iranian program is to take it out physically. However, since the Obama Administration won’t, it’s up to Israel to do so.
“As the former Secretary of Defense said, ‘it’ll buy us about two years,’” Lyons said. “And I think the way the situation is today, I’ll take those two years. I don’t think we can afford to wait until a potential change in administration.”
“And let me hasten to add, I’m not a hundred percent sure with a change in administration that the appropriate action will be taken,” he said.
But if action were to be taken, the U.S. should provide tanker support to Israel as a number one priority, as well as electronics and suppression weapons and the “bunker buster.” Doing so might just send a message to Iran.
Topic Tags: