Sunday, May 11, 2014
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security for the Congressional Caucus on EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) that endeavors to carry on the work of the EMP Commission. He is also the Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Pry has served on the staffs of the EMP Commission, the Strategic Posture Commission, the Commission on the New Strategic Posture of the U.S., the House Armed Services Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency.
For those unfamiliar with what an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) attack is, please view the segment on the topic from the Clarion Fund’s Iranium by clicking here.
The following is RadicalIslam.org’s national security analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Dr. Pry:
Ryan Mauro: How long will it take to get critical infrastructure back up and running after an EMP attack?
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry: Given the current state of U.S. unpreparedness, after a nuclear EMP attack that collapses the electric grid and other critical infrastructures, the U.S. might never recover. The Congressional EMP Commission--that investigated the EMP threat for nearly a decade and produced the most definitive analysis of the threat--estimated that within one year of a nuclear EMP attack, about two-thirds of the U.S. population, about 200 million Americans, would likely perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse. Iranian military writings openly describe making an EMP attack to eliminate the United States as an actor on the world stage.
Mauro: Have past nuclear tests in the air produced an EMP?
Pry: Past exoatmospheric nuclear tests have produced an EMP, such as the 1962 STARFISH PRIME nuclear test. The nuclear burst must occur at high altitude, above 30-40 kilometers, to produce the EMP effect. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union conducted high-altitude EMP tests over part of their own territory that collapsed electric grids. Fifty years of empirical data from nuclear tests and EMP simulators proves that an EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences.
Mauro: How could the U.S. government protect us from this threat? How much would it cost?
Pry: The Congressional EMP Commission produced a plan for protecting all U.S. critical infrastructures from nuclear and natural EMP (such as would be generated by a great geomagnetic storm, like the 1859 Carrington event) that could be implemented in 3-5 years at a cost of $10-20 billion. This would provide robust protection. At minimum, the 300 EHV transformers that service the biggest U.S. cities, where most of the population lives, could and should be protected, at a cost of $100-200 million, or about one dollar for every life that could be saved. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimates that the national electric grid could be protected from EMP at a cost to the average rate payer of 20 cents annually.
Mauro: How much dispute is there over the science behind the horrific scenario you depict? A skeptic once sent me a report by Oak Ridge National Laboratories/Metatech about “myths” regarding the EMP threat.
Pry: Among the numerous official Congressional and USG studies on nuclear EMP attack--that includes reports by the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the Department of Energy and National Electric Reliability Corporation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which includes the Metatech report), there is an official scientific and technical consensus that an EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences. Even the most optimistic "best case" scenario involving a nuclear EMP attack by a primitive low-yield nuclear weapon would be an unprecedented catastrophe and could collapse the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures that sustain modern society and the lives of millions.
Indeed, the entire purpose of Congressional Commissions is to, if possible, resolve controversy and achieve consensus on matters of national security concern. Two Congressional Commissions staffed by our nation's best experts and supported by the vast resources of the defense department, the intelligence community and the national nuclear weapons laboratories have independently arrived at the same consensus that a nuclear EMP attack would be catastrophic--so as a matter of public policy, the existential character of the nuclear EMP threat is not controversial, but an established fact.
There are some individuals, usually in academia, who claim the EMP threat is exaggerated. But these people are not EMP experts and are simply ignorant or politically motivated, as when the New York Times ganged up on Newt Gingrich for trying to warn about the EMP threat during his presidential bid. Nonetheless the press, uneducated about EMP itself, keeps quoting these non-experts.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I know well Dr. William Radasky, the team leader of the Oak Ridge/Metatech report, and he would certainly agree that a nuclear EMP attack on the U.S. would be an unprecedented catastrophe--and this is the conclusion of his report. If you read the report, it warns that an EMP event could collapse the electric grid and other critical infrastructures and require 4-10 years to recover. Can you imagine trying to survive for years in the aftermath of a nuclear EMP attack that deprives you and millions of your fellow citizens of food, water, transportation and other necessities for life? Sounds pretty catastrophic to me.
But it should not take a genius to realize that when a falling tree branch can cause the great northeast blackout of 2003, any nuclear EMP attack would certainly have catastrophic consequences. Iran, North Korea, China and Russia all certainly understand this, as reflected in their military writings.
Ryan Mauro: How far away is Iran and other enemies of the U.S. from having the capability to carry out this kind of attack? Some experts say that Iran would still need a year to construct an actual nuclear bomb after acquiring the necessary highly enriched uranium and would need years after that to develop a nuclear warhead that can fit onto a ballistic missile.
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry: Any state or group possessing any nuclear weapon and any missile capable of reaching an altitude over 30-40 kilometers can make an EMP attack. An ICBM is not necessary. An EMP attack can be delivered by a short-range missile launched from a ship, such as a commercial freighter, operating near U.S. shores. Iran has practiced such a delivery mode. Iran already has missiles, such as Scuds and its Shahab-III, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
Officially, the Obama Administration claims that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Personally, I have written several articles warning that Iran might already have the bomb. Our intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program is not good. Historically, our intelligence community has a bad record on predicting the advent of new nuclear weapon states and was taken by surprise by the development of nuclear weapons by Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Supposedly, Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for 20 years, yet during World War II, the U.S. Manhattan Project developed the world's first nuclear weapons using 1940’s era technology in just three years. Why should Iran, with access to the now declassified Manhattan Project papers and copious other U.S. documents on nuclear weapons design and helped by North Korea and others and equipped with modern technology, not be able to accomplish in 20 years what the U.S. accomplished during the 1940’s in just three?
The difficulty of miniaturizing a nuclear warhead for missile delivery is often exaggerated. Pakistan deployed nuclear warheads on its Ghauri missile just one year after its first nuclear test. Israel, according to the respected Wisconsin Project, has developed a sophisticated array of nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear warheads and weapons miniaturized for delivery by missiles and artillery--all without nuclear testing.
Sunday, May 04, 2014
What was Obama doing while terrorists attacked Americans in Benghazi?
You couldn’t help but feel for Robert Lovell. The retired brigadier general is haunted by the failure of AFRICOM, the U.S. military’s Africa Command, to respond when Americans were under siege in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. His congressional testimony this week was somber — no faux “What difference, at this point, does it make?” indignation, no “Dude, this was two years ago” juvenilia for him.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the State Department’s Sean Smith were killed in the early stage of the jihadist attack. By then, the actions that would surely have saved their lives — e.g., an adult recognition that Benghazi was no place for an American diplomatic facility, or at least the responsible provision of adequate security — had already been callously forsaken. It seems unlikely AFRICOM could have gotten there in time for them on that fateful night, though that does not come close to excusing the failure to try.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are a different story. They fought valiantly for many hours after our military learned, very early on, that the battle was raging. Unlike AFRICOM, the SEALs did not stand pat. They ran to the sound of the guns. After saving over 30 of their countrymen, they paid with their lives. The armed forces, General Lovell recalled, knew that terrorists were attacking them. Yet no one came to their aid.
Lovell bears the burden of their abandonment with a heavy heart. His moving testimony made that clear. Still, his version of events is deeply unsatisfying. Why did AFRICOM fail to respond? “Basically,” he stammered, “there was a lot of looking to the State Department.” Unfortunately, we’re told Secretary Hillary Clinton and her minions were unclear “in terms of what they would like to have.” Come again? “They didn’t come forward with stronger requests for action.”
This Foggy Bottom focus had me groping for my pocket Constitution. Sure enough, Article II was as I remembered it. Much as Hillary Clinton may desire to be the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, that job does not belong to the secretary of state.
It was the solemn duty of the president to come forward with not requests but commands for action. Why was AFRICOM hanging on the State Department’s preferences? Why were our troops hamstrung by what Lovell described as “deference to the Libyan people?” On the night of September 11, 2012, AFRICOM was not beholden to Mrs. Clinton or Tripoli. They answered to Barack Obama.
Of course, no one can answer to a commander-in-chief who abdicates his command, a commander-in-chief who is AWOL.
A commander-in-chief does not get to vote “present.” Over 19 months have elapsed since terrorists savagely attacked the United States in Benghazi. Yet we are still waiting, ever waiting, for an account of where the president was, what he was doing, and what if any directives he gave during the hours and hours during which Americans were being tormented and killed.
If the president’s name were Bush or Reagan, we would long ago have had a minute-by-minute accounting of his every move. And if the incident involved some faraway American warrior’s slaying of a jihadist emir, we would long ago have had a Situation Room photo depicting Obama as maestro . . . with an accompanying soundtrack of classified leaks portraying his courage while others were under fire.
Benghazi, however, is a catastrophe wrought by Obama’s pro-Islamist policies, one that puts the lie to his oft-repeated claim to have “decimated” al-Qaeda. So with Benghazi we get the stonewall, a barricade his praetorian media have been only too happy to fortify.
We know that less than a day after Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were martyred protecting Americans out of a sense of duty, the commander-in-chief in whom that duty is actually reposed was at a Las Vegas fundraiser, insouciantly repeating his campaign line: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”
Only hours before in Cairo, al-Qaeda operatives empowered by the president’s pro-Islamist policies had rioted outside our embassy, replacing the Stars and Stripes with their jihadist black flag and chanting, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” Even fewer hours before, in Benghazi, the United States was dealt a humiliating defeat by the very jihadists Obama was still risibly claiming to have quelled. Yet for those hours, we to this day have no accounting of Barack Obama’s whereabouts and activities.
Well, next to no accounting. We do know that the president was informed about the Benghazi siege only minutes after it began — because military officials, who have felt obliged to account for their actions, have reported telling him about it. We know, as The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol notes, that “while Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to [Israeli] Prime Minister Netanyahu” — a call made because Obama was wooing Jewish voters unsettled by his notorious disdain for Netanyahu, and thus a call it was in his interest to publicize. We have been told, moreover, that about five hours after learning that Americans were under attack, Obama had a phone call with Secretary Clinton — immediately after which, even as Woods and Doherty were still fighting for their lives, Clinton put out a statement spinning the Benghazi violence as the product of an obscure anti-Muslim Internet video . . . the same fraudulent claim Clinton subordinates had already made about the earlier Cairo violence.
Interestingly, the White House had initially — and apparently falsely — insisted that the president had not spoken on the phone with Secretary Clinton or other senior cabinet and military officials. Obama’s sparse version of events changed only after Clinton felt obliged to account for her activities in congressional testimony. Obviously, the president of the United States perceives no similar obligation.
I’ve written a book about presidential lawlessness and dereliction of duty, called Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, which will be released in a few weeks. It is not a call for the president’s impeachment. It is an acknowledgment that impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one; thus the executive’s provable commission of serial impeachable offenses counts for little unless and until there is broad public consensus that a president should be removed from power. Impeachment is a political case that must be carefully built; partisan hackery is no substitute.
The foundation of any such political case is simply this: The executive branch is designed to make the president singularly accountable. That is why he is the sole official in whom the Constitution vests all executive power — AFRICOM moves, or doesn’t move, based on his orders because it is his authority that the armed forces exercise. The chief executive, James Madison asserted, would be wholly “responsible for [the] conduct” of his subordinate officials. Therefore, it would “subject [the president] to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.” When AFRICOM abstains from battle, or Lois Lerner obstructs an investigation, or Eric Holder misleads Congress, or Michael Morell doctors talking points, or Susan Rice serially lies on national television, Barack Obama is responsible. It is his bidding that they do, and by failing to fire or discipline them he implicitly endorses their malfeasance.
Outnumbered and fighting off wave after jihadist wave, Americans were left to die in Benghazi while administration officials huddled, not to devise a rescue strategy, but to spin the election-year politics. The most powerful and capable armed forces in the history of the world idled, looking not to their commander-in-chief but to a State Department that busied itself writing press releases about phantom Islamophobia. The president of the United States, the only constitutional official responsible for responding, was nowhere to be found.
We are left with four dead Americans and an emerging paper trail of dereliction stretching from Benghazi to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Benghazi is not about what Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta or Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes or Jay Carney or Robert Lovell did or didn’t do. The only question is: What was President Barack Obama doing, and not doing, during the critical hours when his sworn duty required decisive action? Mr. Obama owes Americans a detailed answer. Now.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His next book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, will be released by Encounter Books on June 3.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
I’ve made it no secret. I believe Barack Obama is a colossal fraud and that his true mission leading up to, and during his reign as president, is far more sinister than most people are willing to believe.
Arguing about the legitimacy of Barack Obama always gets mired in minutia — single issues – because people don’t stand back and look at the big picture. We argue Reverend Wright, or Bill Ayres, or socialism or the suspicious birth certificate, and so on. The left accuses the right of dirty politics. The right accuses the left of protecting a non-patriot.
To understand the real person behind that endearing facade is to know every segment of his life and look at him in a mosaic. Mosaic art is made of many tiles fitted together. Each tile has shapes and colors but no form. It’s those formless tiles that we waste time arguing about because none of them show the big picture. But in order to know the truth we must see all the tiles in place, for then they are no longer just shapes and colors, they show the entire mural of who and what Barack Obama really is.
So let’s start with one tile after another and put them together like a jigsaw puzzle.
1) Obama’s mother had an affair with and married an African-Kenyan, a Muslim.
2) There is also plethora of literature to suggest that Obama’s father was a committed communist at the time he and Obama’s mother were involved in their relationship.
3) Obama’s mother divorced his father, and then remarried to another man who was also a Muslim and citizen of Indonesia.
4) Barack Obama lived mostly in environments dominated by Islam until he was ten years old.
5) Obama’s religion was listed in his Indonesian school as “Islam.” With an Islamic father and stepfather, and registered as an Islamic, it is reasonable to assume he was subjected to Islamic indoctrination and teachings.
6) He went by the name Barry Soetoro during the years he was adopted by his stepfather.
7) After age ten, his mother left the stepfather and Barry Soetoro returned to Hawaii where he was cared for by his maternal grandparents.
8) Obama’s grandparents were known to have strong political/socialist leanings.
9) Obama’s close mentor during his high school years was Frank Marshall Davis, an ardent member of the CPUSA (Communist Party)
10) Obama’s roommates during his first two years at Occidental College, California, were Muslims from Pakistan.
11) In 1981, Obama traveled with his Muslim friends to Pakistan on vacation, when Pakistan was in political turmoil and most American visas were not accepted. (This was in addition to a leg of his journey to see his mother in Indonesia) This leaves open the yet unanswered question of what passport he traveled with. (Unlikely it was American)
12) I have found no evidence that Barack Obama ever legally changed his name back from Barry Soetoro
13) There is no evidence that Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Obama, changed his citizenship back from Indonesia to the United States or that he traveled and/or entered college with an American passport and/or I.D.
14) Following Occidental College, he enrolled in Columbia University and later Harvard. To this day, Obama does not explain why he — this “transparent” president — refuses to release any college/university records regarding his registration, finances, passports, birth records, school papers, writings, grades — nothing.
15) Despite many Columbia U. enrollees interviewed from that period, same major (political science), including George Stephanopolous, no one remembers Obama on campus or in class.
16) The former president of Manhattan Borough, Percy Sutton, a prominent attorney, (now deceased) revealed in 2008 that in the 1980′s, Obama was being supported and promoted by notorious radical Muslim cleric Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour who acted as an in-between for a wealthy Saudi named Al Waleed Bin Talal. The Saudi was interested in helping Obama get into Harvard. Sutton wrote a letter at the Al-Mansour’s request to help the Saudi, Bin Talal, get Obama into Harvard.
17) Raised by atheists and Muslims, never a Christian, Obama strangely becomes a Christian and joins the Trinity Christian Church headed by anti-American, Marxist, racist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in 1988. Obama not only attended this church for 20 years, he was deeply involved in its activities. Note: Being labeled as a “Christian” strongly helps achieving political power, certainly more than atheist or Muslim.
18) 1992, Wright presided over the marriage of Barack and Michelle Obama. However, there is no record that can be found of a prior relationship Obama had with any other women, until Michelle. No past girl friends.
19) Obama becomes deeply involved in Chicago politics, primarily mustering blacks to register to vote.
20) In 1991, Obama graduated law school and began writing his biography, “Dreams Of My Father”, an autobiography which is published in 1995. But why? Curiously, he’s a young man who has yet to accomplish much of anything significant, but he writes and publishes an autobiography?
21) Obama was instrumental in assisting the Jew-hating leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrahkan, in formulating the Million-Man March on Washington in 1995.
22) With very little, or no experience as a practicing attorney, Obama decides to run for state senate. He is hand-picked by then state senator, Alice Palmer, D – Ill., to succeed her as she runs for the U.S. congress. Palmer wrote for the Communist Party newspaper, “People’s Daily World” and had appeared in the Soviet Union to attend the 27th congress of the Communist Party in 1986.
23) 1995, Obama’s political career for the Illinois State Senate was launched by communist advocate Alice Palmer at the home of William Ayres and Bernadine Dorn, known anti-American Marxists/Activists, and past terrorists. Obama also shares a table and worked closely with terrorist Ayres on the board of directors of the Woods Foundation.
24) During his seven-year tenure as a state senator, Obama voted “Present” 129 times, thereby avoiding a left/right stand on selected issues.
25) Obama developed a close relationship with radical Islamic professor, Palestinian, Rashid Khalidi, who he associated with at the U. Of Chicago. In 2000, Khalidi held a fund raiser for Obama during his failed bid for the U.S. Congress.
26) Obama runs for and wins U.S. Senate seat in 2004. Almost immediately, he hits the ground running for president.
27) During the campaign, Obama is endorsed by many radical organizations, including the American Communist Party, while Palestinians in the Middle-East form phone banks to raise money for his election. Gaddafi refers to Obama as a Muslim.
28) Obama’s half brother Obongo “Roy” Obama is a Luo activist, militant Muslim and Marxist.
29) Obama’s Kenyan cousin, Odinga, whom Obama later supported in his quest for political power, is an avowed Marxist and militant Islamist dedicated toward establishing Sharia (Islamist) courts in Kenya.
30) After his election, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says that Obama privately told him in confidence, “I am a Muslim.” (As reported in Israel Today, May 2010)
31) During his first trip as president to the Middle East, Obama speaks passionately to the Egyptian assembly, lauding his early life in a Muslim land….claiming that Islam has always been a great part of the American experience. (?)
32) During an interview on TV, Obama misspeaks: “John McCain has not made an issue of my Muslim faith.” To which George Stephanopolous corrects him, “You mean, your Christian faith.” (How many of us have made such a slip?)
33) Obama has hired one at least one devoted communist to be a part of his Czar team, Van Jones, who has since resigned. Many others are questionable. His 38 czars are not vetted by congress and supercede many of the functions normally within the purview of cabinet posts.
34) Obama has employed devout Muslims with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in his White House staff and within the Department of Homeland Security. These people have access to the inner workings of our government and the highest of classified information. The top aide to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is a devout Islamic woman with family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Sisterhood.
35) Obama (and Eric Holder) do not permit the mentioning of Islam in any references to terrorism. Mentioning Islam in terrorist training for federal officers, is banned. The military’s Fort Hood massacre report — where 41 people were shot — does not mention Islam, or terror, or the Muslim shooter, Nidal Hassan, anywhere in the report, despite the obvious motivations. Eric Holder, when questioned in congress, will not acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism. Janet Napolitano is under orders to avoid the use of terms like “war on terror” or “Islamic terrorism” and instead, call it “Man-Caused Disasters”
36) Every act/decision of Barack Obama before and during the so-called Arab Spring has been to the advantage and support of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, including the removal of Mubarak of Egypt, Gadaffi of Libya, the leader of Tunisia and now the effort toward removing Assad of Syria. In all these places, the Muslim Brotherhood is now rising to power. Interestingly enough, Obama did not call for regime change in Iran when their citizens took to the streets to demonstrate in 2009 and 2011.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s formative documents, and their many secret manifestos recovered by law enforcement agencies since, show — unambiguously — that their goals are to spread Islamic caliphates, and Sharia law, across the western world, to conquer from within, using deception and infiltration. This is a known fact to those who endeavor to pay attention.
Get the picture?
These are but the highlights, to keep it short. A more detailed list of horrors regarding Barack Obama could be found in any number of books, including:
1. The Manchurian President, by Aaron Klein
2. Radical-in-Chief, by Stanley Kurtz
3. Muslim Mafia, by P. David Gaubatz
4. Culture Of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin
These books are crammed with researched and documented facts, not off-hand right-wing opinions as some might claim. See for yourself.
In this article, I chose to omit any references to Obama’s legitimacy for holding the office of president in order to avoid distractions from the focus of this mosaic. There remains cause for many doubts in that areas as well, not limited to just the birth certificate.
The focus of this mosaic is simple: Obama’s highest of priorities are tied to a surreptitious socialist/communist revolution and his strong leanings toward Islamist causes, and perhaps, he is a non-acknowledging Muslim himself.
To those who are inclined to vote for this person in November, I ask:
Is he worth the risk to America?
I could list dozens of links to support all the items listed above, but that would consume another two pages or more. People reading this who want to know, are welcome to use Google just like I do.
But, to highlight…here’s a few:
Click here: Eric Holder Deep in Denial about Islamic Terrorists – YouTube
Click here: Fort Hood Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named – TIME
Click here: Gaddafi Insists Barack Obama Is A Muslim | Sweetness & Light
Click here: “I am a Muslim,” Obama Tells Egyptian Foreign Minister
Click here: Obama: “My Muslim Faith” – YouTube
Click here: Archived Blog: Obama’s Good Friend Rashid Khalidi
Click here: Percy Sutton approached by Khalid A-Mansour – YouTube
Click here: Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood | FrontPage Magazine
Click here: Socialism, Marxism, Communism & Obama