Geopolitical impacts of Iran Deal & Threats to Energy Grid: Jacki Daily Show

The host of the Jacki Daily show has had an impressive career in energy, law, and politics.

Most recently, Jacki served as General Counsel to an engineering firm specializing in energy, national security and environmental cleanup. Previously, she served many years as legal counsel on Capitol Hill to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and the former Ranking Member of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, advising on the oversight of federal agencies. Prior to her career in Washington, she worked as a corporate litigator, and as an Assistant Vice President for a national bank.

She entered public life at a young age, as a finalist in the Miss Teen of America pageant. She also served as the Public Relations Director for a statewide political organization.

Jacki studied Economics, Spanish, and World History at Marshall University (Society of Yeager Scholars), Oxford University in the United Kingdom, and the University of Zaragoza in Spain. She is an alumna of the Vanderbilt University Law School, where she served as the President of the law school’s Federalist Society chapter.

Jacki has an extensive network in her six overstuffed rolodexes from which the show draws its guests—including industry leaders representing all parts of the energy sector (oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind), and government officials, journalists, and political insiders. Often, Jacki will know the day’s most-wanted guest and be able to secure the guest with a personal call.

Jacki is from the Ohio River Valley, where the shale runs deep. She descends from a long line of energy workers, including roughnecks, railroaders, coal miners, and nuclear energy specialists.

Listen to Jacki Daily Podcasts at Jacki's webpage by clicking here!

I am repeating this show a lot because of what the show’s content says:

Our nation is in grave danger from within and without, and our President and our Congress and Senate have intentional blinders on. We face the greatest perils of destruction as we have never seen, knowing that our own leaders do not show the slightest concern for our own survival, let alone our personal safety.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/7673#.VjAEMLerRD8

In March of 2015 Breitbart and other News Outlets reported that a Kuwaiti Newspaper (Al-Jarida) claimed that President Obama thwarted an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program in 2014 by threatening to order American Military Forces to shoot down Israeli Jets.

In 2009 Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser) and considered for a Cabinet Post by the Obama Administration recommended shooting down Israeli Jets if they attempted to strike Iran. He said, “Are we just going to sit there and watch?” Israeli Jets would be given “the choice of turning back or not”. He left little doubt what he was suggesting. There was no official response from the White House to the Al-Jarida report. This was right before Prime Minister Netanyahu was to speak against the Iran deal to Congress.

Now the Wall Street Journal in its front page story on Friday October 23rd entitled, “Spy Vs. Spy:The Fraying U.S.-Israel Ties”-”Distrust Get Allies to Snoop on Each Other After Split Over Iran Deal:Each Kept Secrets”, seems to lend credence to the Kuwaiti Story which has never been confirmed. Adam Entous who wrote the article for the Wall Street Journal says, “the U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012 fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.”

After Israel had flown in and out of Iran in 2012 in a possible “dry run” for a commando strike, the White House sent a second Aircraft Carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft. Since then U.S. spy agencies according to Mr. Entous increased satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. Now that the agreement has gone into effect one clause says the United States and the rest of the P5+1 powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against “sabotage”. This clause suggests that the United States will warn the Iranians of any imminent attack by Israel. The President is to meet the Prime Minister on November 9th.

I hope a lot is clarified. Israel’s ability to strike the Iranian Nuclear Facilities has been severely limited not only on the basis of this “clause”, but on the threats emanating from the White House, and the sale of S300 Anti-Aircraft Batteries to Iran by Russia. The President would do well to level the dangerous playing field he created by:1)agreeing that Iranian cheating will not be tolerated i.e. zero tolerance, 2)sharing of Intelligence data, 3)Reassurance of the strong Israel-U.S. Alliance, 4)send the 30,000 pound Bunker Busters to Israel once and for all, and 5)No more threats of shooting down Israeli Warplanes. This is the least the President can do to make sure Iran does not get a Nuclear Bomb.

Iranian aggression since Obama nuclear deal looms as 2016 headache for Democrats

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/25/iranian-aggression-since-obama-nuclear-deal-looms-/?

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 25, 2015
For any Democrat anxious to see the unpopular Iran nuclear agreement fade from public view between now and November 2016, it’s been a rough couple of weeks.

Headlines about the GOP Senate’s failed battle to stop the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action had all but disappeared when Iran launched an Oct. 11 test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Suddenly foes of the deal were back in the news, accusing Iran of breaking the agreement.

The White House and Iran countered that the launch did not violate the nuclear deal because it does not include missile testing. Even so, a group of Senate Democrats responded with a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry denouncing Iran’s move as a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and calling for “unilateral and multilateral responses.”

“There must be no ambiguity in our willingness to enforce Iran’s obligations under UN resolutions and the JCPOA,” said the Oct. 21 letter signed by 11 Democratic senators.

Only two of those — Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland and Charles E. Schumer of New York — voted against the deal.

The episode exemplifies a worst-case scenario for Democrats as they head into next year’s election, namely that Iran will give Republicans ample “I-told-you-so” opportunities by breaking the agreement, violating other international sanctions or keeping the issue in the public eye with recurring acts of aggression or anti-U.S. rhetoric.

House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Edward R. Royce weighed in after the formal adoption of the nuclear agreement on Oct. 18, known as Adoption Day, by ticking off a list of Iran’s recent transgressions, including Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani’s travel to Moscow in violation of sanctions.

“It’s sure tough to look at Iran’s actions over the last three months — let alone 35 years — and think Tehran will live up to its end of the nuclear bargain,” Mr. Royce said in a statement. “If this is what the last 90 days look like, the next few years look like a disaster.”

One day after the long-range missile launch, Iran was hit with more criticism for convicting Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian on espionage charges, prompting a blast from House Speaker John A. Boehner.

“President Obama’s gamble that a nuclear deal would lead to a more responsible Iran has already failed,” Mr. Boehner said. “This sham of a trial violated every international standard and made a mockery of Iran’s own legal system.”

Senate Republicans, joined by four Democrats, approved a resolution of disapproval Sept. 10 by 58-42 but were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to override President Obama’s veto.

The advocacy group J Street, which ran ads in favor of the nuclear deal leading up to the Senate vote, agreed that the ICBM test was a “gratuitous violation of a U.N. Security Council Resolution” but insisted that it did not breach the JCPOA itself.

“It’s not surprising that groups who oppose the JCPOA are seeking to cast every instance of Iranian bad behavior as a violation of it,” said J Street Vice President of Government Affairs Dylan Williams. “It would be much better for U.S. and Israeli security if those still hoping to kill the deal pivoted to working with the U.S. government to ensure its strict implementation.”

There’s little indication, however, that opponents of the JCPOA intend to back off given the enormous media and political campaign waged over the summer in an effort to defeat the agreement, which lifts economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear capability.

Opponents like the American Security Initiative and Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran outspent supporters like J Street as of Sept. 4 by a margin of $13 million to $2 million, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing Kantar Media.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/23/report-obama-used-spy-agencies-dissuade-israel-strike-iran-nuclear-facilities/

REPORT: OBAMA USED SPY AGENCIES TO DISSUADE ISRAEL STRIKE ON IRAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES

by JORDAN SCHACHTEL23 Oct 2015Washington, DC244
Instead of supporting Israel in a planned raid against Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration utilized the nation’s premier espionage resources to engage the regime in Tehran and keep Jerusalem in the dark, a Wall Street Journal report recounted.

“Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site,” the report said, explaining that Israel’s activities in 2012 led to a “mutual distrust” that created a divide between the Obama White House and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel.

While Israel was readying the military option, the United States was opening up a back-channel to the Ayatollah’s regime in Tehran.

In 2011, the White House dispatched John Kerry, who was then serving as a U.S. Senator, to open up the back-channel through Oman.

Another major revelation in the story was that Israel’s spy service, the Mossad, unilaterally neutralized some of Iran’s nuclear scientists, according to U.S. officials. Some have speculated that the assassination of regime scientists was a coordinated effort between the United States and Israel.

Moreover, Obama so distrusted the Israeli Prime Minister that he refused to update Netanyahu on the ongoing negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Only when Israeli intelligence identified American planes flying back and forth from Oman did President Obama’s officials finally admit that they were engaging Iran, the report adds.

“The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks,” commented Robert Einhorn, who was a State Department official at the time of the early negotiations.

U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice refused to meet with her Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, to discuss the status of negotiations, adding to Israel’s distrust of the administration, the report states.

The report ends with a quote from Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA, who admitted he’s not sure whether Obama would back Israel or Iran in the case of an Israeli-led strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

“If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Gen Hayden asked. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”

October 22, 2015
India Fears U.S.-Pakistan Nuclear Deal

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/india_fears_uspakistan_nuclear_deal.html

The meeting today between Pakistan Prime Minister Sharif and President Obama at the White House is a continuation of a dangerous charade engaged in for decades by the United States. By perceiving Pakistan, a failed Islamic terrorist state, as a valuable strategic ally when it, in fact, has a blatant history of actions and circumstances to the contrary, the United States is pursuing a delusional foreign policy that further endangers American national security.

The meeting with Pakistan occurs at a time when the ink is barely dry on the dubious Iran bomb deal. Now, President Obama stands poised to sign a second nuclear agreement that will threaten U.S. ally, India, and likely destabilize the region. The first agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was led by the United States and finalized in July. Six world powers endorsed giving Iran a sure path to nuclear weapons, lifting international sanctions, providing a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, putting neighboring Israel and Arab Gulf states at grave risk and proscribing timely, comprehensive inspections. Nearly 60% of Americans oppose the JCPOA and believe it will make the world less safe, according to a national poll in August by Quinnipiac University.

A possible second nuclear agreement, perceived by India and Hindu activist groups as inimical to that region’s security and to India’s interests, could be brokered during the meeting. A White House spokesman played down the prospect of an agreement, yet expressed confidence in Pakistan’s ability to “understand the importance and high priority that the world places on nuclear security.” This statement rings hollow in light of the recent signing of the much-maligned JCPOA.

In the wake of the widely opposed Iran deal, the White House could again be making unrealistic assumptions: this time about Pakistan’s cooperation and the likelihood of mutual agreements on inspections. India’s skepticism is heightened by the U.S. lack of timely intelligence about the activities of the A.Q. Khan network, named after Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, which has provided illicit nuclear information to Iran, North Korea and Libya over several decades. Of equal concern is U.S. unwillingness to take decisive action to curtail the activity after the fact. Also, little faith exists in the U.S. capacity for oversight concerning Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions.

Many fear that Obama will repeat his Iran debacle in yet another ill-conceived nuclear agreement. This despite Pakistan’s long record of supporting Islamic terrorism, including its role in the 9/11 attacks, its sheltering of Osama bin Laden, its past nuclear proliferation, its aggression toward U.S. ally India, and its interference in U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has long been a haven for Islamic terrorist groups which successive Pakistani governments have engaged and supported in insurgent activities in Afghanistan and India. The Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has been accused by the West of aiding Islamic terrorist groups, including Laskar e-Toiba, perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2006 Varanasi bombing and the 2001 shooting in the Indian Parliament. The ISI has also provided training and assistance for hundreds of mujahedeen attacks in Jammu and Kashmir that have left more than 47,000 people dead. Since 9/11, more than 2,300 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan by the Pakistani-trained and supported Taliban. After coalition forces overthrew the Taliban as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, then-President Musharraf authorized the release from jail of 2,500 suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters caught in Afghanistan during the war.

In 2011, the revelation surfaced that, despite repeated denials, Pakistan had long been harboring Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden while at the same time Pakistan maintained its position as a “partner in the global war on terror’ (GWOT), conferred by the Bush administration, and received $31 billion in U.S. aid since 9/11.

In response, the United States threatened to withdraw military aid if Pakistan failed to crack down on regional Islamic terrorism. Successive American administrations conditioned aid based on Pakistan meeting vague goals that demonstrated a commitment to combatting terrorist groups in their midst. Yet, the State Department has consistently waived these conditions. Additionally, Pakistan has been the recipient of generous Coalition Support Funds (CSF) that reimburse its dubious counter-terrorism operations. This even though a 2008 Rand Corporation study disclosed that individuals within Pakistan’s government are providing assistance to the Taliban and other Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan, effectively crippling American attempts to stabilize the country. The study singled out Pakistan’s powerful military intelligence, the ISI, as the key culprit. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI and Indian intelligence disclosed that former ISI head, General Mahmud Ahmed ordered that $100,000 be wired to Pakistani 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta.

In 2004 A. Q. Khan confessed to abetting nuclear proliferation. A letter from Khan to his wife, discovered in 2003, revealed that the Pakistani military had full knowledge of Khan’s nuclear deals. According to national security expert Bill Gertz, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report from 2001 disclosed that Iran was building enriched uranium-based nuclear arms with assistance from the Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network.

Following U.S. exposure of the network in 2004, neither Khan nor his co-conspirators faced criminal charges in Pakistan. The Bush administration at the time sought then-Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf’s assistance in the war in Afghanistan to rout Al Qaeda and the Taliban and U.S. nuclear proliferation concerns took a back seat to the region’s geostrategic interests. In noteworthy contrast, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was banned from the U.S. for close to a decade based on false and eventually disproven charges that he failed to stop deadly riots between Muslims and Hindus in the state of Gujarat when he was a newly elected chief minister.

According to a story in the UK Telegraph, world intelligence agencies concur that the Saudis have paid for more than half of Pakistan’s nuclear program in return for the ability to purchase warheads. Concern has arisen that the recent nuclear deal with Iran will serve as a catalyst for more nuclear proliferation in the region as Saudi Arabia calls in its warhead chits.

Even during periods of economic distress, Pakistan managed to finance nuclear weapons production. In 1972, President Zulfikar Bhutto, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program said if India built an atomic bomb, “we will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.” In 1974, when India did successfully test a nuclear device, Bhutto proclaimed that Pakistan must develop its own “Islamic bomb.”

In an effort to quell negative publicity and criticism about the upcoming meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister, the White House has downplayed the likelihood of any upcoming nuclear deal with Pakistan and characterized Prime Minister Sharif’s visit to the White House as part of an ongoing dialogue on the importance of nuclear security.

Given Pakistan’s troubled history with Islamic terrorist groups, U.S. officials have been justifiably concerned about the security of its nuclear arsenal. Obama indicated that in this week’s meeting he would urge the Pakistani leader to end sanctuaries for the Taliban and press them to return to peace talks in order to bring a semblance of stability to Afghanistan.

Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama’s primary objectives for the meeting are preventing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups and exploring a deal to provide Pakistan greater access to nuclear technology in exchange for limits on Pakistan’s arsenal. This is reminiscent of Obama’s recent ill-advised offer of state-of-the-art nuclear equipment to Iran to downsize its nuclear program.

The Indian government is justifiably concerned that any U.S.-Pakistan nuclear agreement will result in Pakistan’s strategic parity with India. In 2005, India signed a civil nuclear deal, the 123 Agreement, with the U.S., lifting a three-decade moratorium on nuclear trade. The agreement provided assistance to India’s civilian energy program and established cooperation between the U.S. and India on related technology. The Indian government is justifiably concerned that Pakistan will be awarded a similar deal to ostensibly enhance a dubious strategic relationship. In contrast, India has been a trustworthy ally, not harbored, armed or trained Islamic terrorists, not provided nuclear materials to other countries nor been responsible for the death of Americans. What’s more is that India is a significant bilateral trading partner that is not dependent on U.S. military or economic aid.

India is also concerned that a U.S.-Pakistan agreement would exert greater pressure on India to make concessions in Kashmir, a region long disputed between India and Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan has attempted to engage the U.S. to further its interests in Kashmir and shift the balance of power in the region away from India.

Additionally, India fears that increased U.S. aid to Pakistan that will be used to foment terrorism in India and Afghanistan. Until 2010, India had been a “no first use” nuclear power, a policy never adopted by Pakistan. India’s policy changed when Pakistan increased its nuclear weapons production and stockpile of fissile material and joined the “nuclear 100 club,” doubling its nuclear arsenal from 2007.

India has valid concerns about Obama’s upcoming White House meeting as yet another nuclear deal could further inflame the already volatile region. Recently, Saudi Prince Mohammed al-Saud declared, “Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct threat to the entire region and constitutes a major source and incentive for nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.”

Whereas India has been a reliable ally and substantial trading partner, Pakistan has harbored, supported and trained Islamic terrorists, been responsible for the death of Americans, interfered with U.S. operations in Afghanistan causing military fatalities, fomented violent jihad in India, engaged in clandestine nuclear proliferation and soaked up billions in U.S. aid. A nuclear agreement with the Islamic state of Pakistan would further incite the situation in South Asia and beyond, lead to increased destabilization and foster a widespread nuclear arms

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/india_fears_uspakistan_nuclear_deal.html#ixzz3poVMWPZl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/10/27/ayatollah-khameneis-grand-nuclear-strategy/

Secure Freedom Radio is made possible by listeners like you.

With Dr. Harold Rhode, Andy McCarthy, Amb. Ken Blackwell, Amb. Roger Noriega

Dr. HAROLD RHODE, Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, former Turkish Desk Officer at the US Department of Defense:

The Islamic world’s war against Israel
Falsehoods of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority/Hamas
Strained US/Israeli alliance being projected to other leaders in the Middle East
PART TWO:

Iran’s actions showing contempt towards the United States
Ayatollah Khamenei’s grand strategy in the nuclear negotiations
Obama’s openness in dissent for American values
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s strategy to defeat the Kurdish party in Turkey
ANDY McCARTHY, former federal prosecutor:

Pros and cons of Congressional hearings
Was Hillary Clinton really blind to the U.S.-sponsored gun running taking place in Libya?
FBI and Justice Department officials easing up on Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner
Amb. KEN BLACKWELL, Senior Fellow of Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission:

Will Congress disband the Export-Import Bank?
Potential of Export-Import Bank to help American companies succeed in the global market
Amb. ROGER NORIEGA, Visiting Fellow at AEI, former Undersecretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs:

Cuban troops carrying out Moscow’s agenda both in Syria and in the Western Hemisphere
Defection of Venezuelan prosecutor in the case of presidential candidate, Leopoldo Lopez
Venezuela’s oil economy being used to launder funds in support of narco-terrorism
Russia establishing a “counter-narcotics center” in Nicaragua

podcast 1
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/ujt8v5/Seg1_Rhode1_Web.mp3

podcast 2
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/k2qgrx/Seg2_Rhode2_Web.mp3

podcast 3
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/pqebnz/Seg3_McCarthy_Web.mp3

podcast 4
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/568t2w/Seg4_Blackwell_Web.mp3

podcast 5
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/ns3bcp/Seg5_Noriega_Web.mp3

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/09/30/bringing-down-the-u-s-electric-grid/

Secure Freedom Radio
Bringing Down the U.S. Electric Grid

Secure Freedom Radio Podcasts | September 30, 2015 | Asia, Infrastructure and EMP, Middle East, Nuclear Deterrence

Secure Freedom Radio is made possible by listeners like you.

With Amb. Henry Cooper

Amb. HENRY COOPER, Former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and President Reagan’s Chief Negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/5y2qxj/Seg1_Cooper_Web.mp3

Reactions to the ObamaBomb Deal
History behind nuclear proliferation
PART TWO:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/u7chai/Seg2_Cooper_Web.mp3

Administration’s claim regarding the inspections of Iranian sites
Iran and North Korea’s threat to the U.S. electric grid
Short range nuclear device fired from off the U.S. Coast
PART THREE:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/zwx7rp/Seg3_Cooper_Web.mp3

Weapon size needed to generate an EMP attack
Means of countering missile attacks on our grid
PART FOUR:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/wc52xa/Seg4_Cooper_Web.mp3

How the U.S. can secure its grid
“Brilliant Pebbles” Initiative under President Reagan
PART FIVE:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/e9yvmg/Seg5_Cooper_Web.mp3

U.S. losing control of the high frontier in space to China
Deterring the nuclear capabilities of the Beijing and Moscow regimes
Possibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent failing

Secure Freedom Radio
Iran’s EMP Threat Doctrine
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/08/31/irans-emp-threat-doctrine/

With Amb. R. James Woolsey, Nik Hanlon, Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, Gordon Chang

Amb. R. JAMES WOOLSEY, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Chairman for the Foundation of Defense of Democracies:

Dangers of passing the President’s nuclear deal with Iran
Negotiation of non-proliferation treaties
Rising threat of conventional weapons trade between Iran and Russia
NIK HANLON, Chief Africa Policy Analyst at the Center for Security Policy:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/6hd2mf/Seg1_Woolsey_Web.mp3

The Khartoum regime in Sudan as a state sponsor of terror as well as a major ally to Iran
IRGC’s uranium exploitation in Africa
Boko Haram’s manifestation in Libya and what that means for Islamic State migration into Europe
Amb. ZALMAY KHALILZAD, Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/zwjpqd/Seg2_Hanlon_Web.mp3

Is it too late to fix the ObamaBomb deal?
Effects of the nuclear deal within the Middle East
Purpose of American power projection
Does the United States need a fundamental course correction regarding foreign policy?
GORDON CHANG, Author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World”:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/b5c9x8/Seg3_Khalilzad_Web.mp3

China’s persecution of economic journalists
Obama’s plan to host a State dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping
America’s military shift back towards the Asia-Pacific theater
China’s WWII 70th anniversary parade
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/jhpez4/Seg4_Chang_Web.mp3

Secure Freedom Radio
Iran’s EMP Threat to the U.S. Homeland

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/08/14/irans-emp-threat-to-the-u-s-homeland/

With Sen. James Lankford, Dr. Sean McFate, Fmr. Gov. John H. Sununu, Rep. Randy Weber

Sen. JAMES LANKFORD, United States Senator from Oklahoma:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/vmya9f/Seg1_Lankford_Web.mp3

Problems with the Iran nuclear deal and how the Senate should proceed with it
The President falsely advertising the agreement’s verification regime
Could the upcoming IAEA report immediately lift restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic technology?
The threat posed by an EMP attack on the U.S. electric grid, especially from Iran
Hillary Clinton compromising national security through her email system
Dr. SEAN McFATE, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, author of “The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order”:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/andjxf/Seg2_McFate_Web.mp3

Private military contractors bringing cost-cutting effectiveness and private sector innovation to security-related problems
Complex environments, lack of a regulatory framework, and a conflict of interests all hurdles for the private military industry
Mercenaries fighting today in Syria and Nigeria
Fmr. Gov. JOHN H. SUNUNU, former Governor of New Hampshire, former White House Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush, author of The Quiet Man: The Indispensable Presidency of George H.W. Bush:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/7tue2i/Seg3_Sununu_Web.mp3

The new world order established by George H.W. Bush at the end of the Cold War
Did the U.S. miss an opportunity to completely eliminate the old Soviet guard that now operates under Putin?
Hillary Clinton’s trouble and concerning conduct
Rep. RANDY WEBER, (TX-14) Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
http://securefreedomradio.podbean.com/mf/web/7ktivn/Seg4_Weber_Web.mp3

The need for the Iranian regime to release all American hostages, dismantle all centrifuges, and recognize the right of Israel to exist
The high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) threat from Iran to the United States
Why cutting all federal funding to sanctuary cities is essential to stemming the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S.