Nationwide Protest vs. NDAA on Feb.3, 2012
UPDATE
Bill Introduced To Challenge Authority Of NDAA
Washington lawmakers latest to join chorus of opposition to bill allowing for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 2, 2012
Five Washington state representatives have introduced legislation in an attempt to override provisions the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 that would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.Reps. Jason Overstreet, Matt Shea, Vincent Buys, Cary Condotta, and David Taylor introduced HB 2759, the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act this week.Reps. Jason Overstreet, Matt Shea, Vincent Buys, Cary Condotta, and David Taylor introduced HB 2759, the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act this week.
Several other states, including Virginia and Tennessee are also considering legislation to nullify the NDAA provision.
~snip~
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.
Why the NDAA is Unconstitutional
by BRIAN J. TRAUTMAN
.
.
Call to Arms! Nationwide Protest vs. NDAA on Feb.3, 2012 at Your Sen/Rep’s Offices!
-
WhenFriday, February 3, 2012
-
Time12:00pm until 7:00pm
-
WhereCongressional Offices Throughout the Country
.
Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest
(facebook)
Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest
Public Event · By Suzanne Noel
This is a new facebook page to help organize protests across the country:
Office Locations for Congressmen:
Liberty oriented organizations and Meetups please schedule the event. Individuals should use blogs, forums, twitter, face book and youtube to let others know about the protest. Participants should notify the local and national media of their protests.
The objective of our demonstration is to have our congressmen repeal Section 1021 and 1022 which could lead to the indefinite military detention of Americans without due process. Make sure to contact your congressmen also. The protest is not affiliated with any particular political or grassroots organizations. We are uniting as individuals who want to stop this tyranny before it gets worse. Martin Luther King didn’t need violence to affect change, neither do we.
NDAA 2012 allows for Americans to be indefinitely detained by the military without access to an attorney or a trial by jury on orders of the executive branch. Amendments to exclude American citizens were rejected by the Obama administration and senate vote (See below).
Congress and President Obama have declared war on Americans. The last time America was declared a military zone President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Americans with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.
NDAA 2012 is unconstitutional. Sections 1021 and 1022 repeal the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law can supersede it. We have a right to our day in court with a jury of our peers.
U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.
.
[
.
We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
”One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.”
”The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.”
Our Declaration of Independence also discusses our right to trial by jury.
Senator Graham said that America is part of the battlefield, and as such, Americans can be captured, interrogated, and killed with no due process. Senators Graham, Kyl, and McCain say the law of war (military law) applies to us.
The senators claim the 2001 AUMF is in accordance with 1971 Non-Detention Act and allows Americans to be detained indefinitely without acces to an attorney. They argue that the Supreme Court has held that the President has the constitutional authority to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens.
Non – Detention Act 1971:
No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress
The senators say the act of congress that allows you be detained indefinitely is the AUMF 2001. So, no, the paragraph below from NDAA 2012 Section 1021 does not protect you. We are talking about the law of war applied to American citizens not criminal law which includes due process.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force.
UPDATE 1:
They’ve ALREADY begun! First Fed.Gvt case to invoke NDAA:
Al Madhwani Cert Opposition Filed
by Benjamin Wittes
The government has filed its opposition to cert in the case of Al Madhwani v. Obama–a Guantanamo habeas case. Al Madhwani’s cert petition seeks review of this DC Circuit opinion affirming his detention. That opinion, in turn, affirmed District Judge Thomas Hogan’s earlier opinion. The government’s argument is interesting because it explicitly invokes the new language in the NDAA:
In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the AUMF, which authorizes “the President * * * to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” AUMF § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. The President has ordered the Armed Forces to subdue both the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taliban regime that harbored it in Afghanistan. Armed conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban remains ongoing, and in connection with that conflict, some persons captured by the United States and its coalition partners have been detained at Guantanamo Bay. In Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1561 (2011), Congress “affirm[ed]” that the authority granted by the AUMF includes the authority to detain, “under the law of war,” any “person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
. . .
As relevant here, the court of appeals has repeatedly held that an individual may be detained under the AUMF if he was part of al-Qaida at the time of his capture. See, e.g., Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“The government may * * * hold at Guantanamo and elsewhere those individuals who are ‘part of’ al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011); accord Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); accord NDAA § 1021, 125 Stat. 1561 (“affirm[ing] the authority of the President to * * * detain” any “person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”).
.
.
Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest-action alert
We have been asked to share this and so we shall. Not only will we share we will advocate for this action. Sooner or later The U.S. citizen will have to stand up or remain bowed down submissive to the corporate master forever. Is that the choice you make for your CHILDREN’S lives???
Senator Graham: Under domestic criminal law, we can’t hold someone indefinitely.The only way to do that legally is under the law of war.
“I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution”. Thomas Jefferson
Text of AUMF
Obama Rejected Exclusion of Americans from NDAA 2012:
I want to clarify that my Administration
will not AUTHORIZE the indefinite military detention
without trial of American citizens.
Obama Rejected Exclusion of Americans from NDAA 2012:
Senators Confirm that NDAA 2012 Detains America:
Senate Hearing – Dec. 1st
Senator Feinstein’s Failed Amendments:
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
S Amdt 1126 – Prohibits Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial – Key Vote
Sen. Feinstein Confirms S. 1867′s Detention of U.S. Citizens w/out Trial
TEXT OF Failed Udall AMENDMENT(Senate – November 17, 2011):
At the end of section 1031, add the following:
(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens. The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
pursuant – in accordance with.
codified – Arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.
Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA
(facebook)
.
Patriot Coalition and Oath Keepers have partnered to develop anti-NDAA resolutions for state legislators and county sheriffs, for starters. We also have under development a special project site to address the NDAA and all the other “Intolerable Acts” passed by Congress since 9/11/2001, where all the resolutions our legal teams are developing can be downloaded. Hundreds of hours of research have gone into the P.C.O.K. NDAA Resolutions.
This week, the P.C.O.K. NDAA Resolution will be introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature, and we’re in discussions with state legislators across the country.
NDAA SHERIFF RESOLUTION
In a few days, our
http://theintolerableacts.org/ website will be up and running.
VISIT: http://blog.patriotcoalition.com/ for the current NDAA resolutions.
Battle against NDAA kidnapping provisions cross party lines
Battle against NDAA
.
Posted by Mike Maharrey
Politics in America typically takes the form of warfare waged across a great political chasm. Left against right. Republicans versus Democrats. Liberals facing down conservatives. We divide up and lob grenades across the aisle, hoping to destroy, or at least maim our adversary, ever maneuvering to move in for the political kill.
But every once in a while, an issue bridges the gap and brings together traditional adversaries. In the face of something particularly heinous, Americans from across the political spectrum will stand together and fight as one. It takes something ominous, an act James Madison might describe as “palpable and dangerous.” The detention provisions without due process written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the Defense Authorization Act serve as just such a catalyst.
Section 1021 affirms the military’s authority to detain “covered persons,” which includes, “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Many legal experts find the vagueness of terms such as “associated forces,” “coalition partners” and “hostilities” troubling and open to abuse.
Under 1021, a qualifying person, “may be detained under the law of war, without trial, until the end of hostilities.”
An amendment was added to section 1021 stipulating that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” (Emphasis added) This language also proves problematic. What about a U.S. citizen captured outside of the United States? Or a non-citizen captured on American soil? Does the basic right of due process in the United States only extend to citizens within the country’s borders? More troubling, both President Bush and Obama argued that the original Authorization of Military Force passed by Congress after 9-11 already grants the power to detain citizens, even on American soil. So the words “affect existing law or authorities” may not provide the protection proponents of the bill claim.
In fact, an earlier amendment specifically stating section 1021, “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities,” went down to defeat by a 55-45 vote in the Senate.
Section 1022 requires that “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and who “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war,” absent a Presidential waiver. Lawmakers pulled a sneaky trick in section 1022, titling it “Military Custody for Foreign al Qaeda Terrorists.” But nothing in the actual language of the section excludes American citizens or resident aliens. And many civil libertarians argue holding any person without due process violates basic human rights.
The disclaimer NDAA supporters point to as a protection for Americans reads, “The requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens.” But notice that the language does not preclude the option of military detention.
“It authorizes the president to employ the military to show up on any of our doorsteps and say, ‘Well, we think based upon secret facts, you’re connected in some way, linked, with some kind of associated power with al Qaeda that’s fighting against our coalition partners, whoever they are. You can’t challenge any of our evidence, and you can go to Guantanamo Bay and rot for the rest of your life.’ And that’s the end of the matter,” Bruce Fein said.
On Thursday, the Tenth Amendment Center partnered with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Demand Progress to host a press conference call highlighting state and local action against NDAA detention provisions. The call featured both Democratic and Republican Party officials, along with two well-known civil liberties activists normally considered to frequent opposite sides of the political aisle.
Author and journalist Naomi Wolf served as an adviser to Vice Pres. Al Gore during his presidential campaign. She set the tone for the afternoon, humanizing an issue that often gets wrapped up in complicated legalese.
“I am delighted that organizations from across the political spectrum are uniting on this, and it’s our only hope really, because this is pretty much the worst thing I’ve seen in my lifetime, and as a mother it frightens me very much for my children’s future. And of course, it’s completely antithetical to the very meaning of the word America.”
Wolf wrote a book about 10 steps to a closed society. She asserts that NDAA detention gets close to the end-game.
“Step number 10 is this one – suspend the rule of law. History shows once you hit this tipping-point where a law is passed to suspend the law, which is exactly how Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933; they did absolutely nothing without the rule of law, until the rule of law undermined the rule of law; once you reach that point, history shows that that is the point of no return,” she said. “Once government can take people in without charge, or trial, then, you know, journalists aren’t safe, union leaders aren’t safe, clergy aren’t safe, activists aren’t safe – nobody is safe.”
Fein also champions civil liberties, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. A lawyer and constitutional attorney, Fein served in the Reagan Justice Department. He echoed Wolf’s warning, pointing out the Sen. Lindsey Graham said the NDAA would bring the battlefield from abroad into the United States.
“Just think about that. How many times did we hear from the neo-cons that we had to fight in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere? We had to fight six, seven, eight thousand miles away to prevent fighting these terrorists at home. Now we have Lindsey Graham, who is probably the greatest megaphone on that point, and now saying; ‘Now the battlefield is at home.’”
Fein pointed out that Congress passed the detention provisions in the NDAA without any public outcry demanding Congress grant the president additional powers, no plea for protection, no demonstrations in the streets asking for it and very little support for such powers outside of the ruling class.
“And yet President Obama signed it with his infamous statement, ‘I’ll only use it on the bad people.’ How many times have we heard that? Now we have a rule of men rather than a rule of law.”
Fein called it the ultimate corruption of due process and everything that America stands for.
“We’ve turned into the mirror image of King George the Third or worse,” he said. “Just think of that. We now are worse than the tyranny we fought to establish our birth certificate in 1776.”
Wolf and Fein both called on Congress to repeal the detention provisions, but Wolf in particular expressed frustration with the political climate on Capitol Hill.
“Democracy isn’t working the way it’s supposed to right now. You know, there’s this massive, massive transpartisan outpouring of citizen horror at this legislation,” she said. “It isn’t moving the dial. So I’m just saying on the record, I’m entirely baffled because it doesn’t seem as if the usual forms of citizen pressure that should be initiating – I mean this is a winner.”
Washington State Rep. Matt Shea said that since the federal government won’t limit its own power, the responsibility falls upon the shoulders of state and local officials, pointing out they swear an oath to protect and defend both the United States Constitution and their state constitutions.
“That means in these types of cases, where something is very clearly unconstitutional, and we believe the unlawful and indefinite detention provision of the NDAA is unconstitutional, it is our duty not to comply.”
To that end Shea, along with fellow Republican Rep. Jason Overstreet and three other lawmakers, introduced HB 2759. The act condemns unlawful detention of United States citizens and lawful resident aliens under the National Defense Authorization Act, and forbids “any state employee, member of the Washington National Guard or any agent of a corporation doing business with the state” to cooperate in the federal detainment or investigation of a U.S. citizen or resident alien.
Shea said legal analysts found at least 11 violations of the U.S. Constitution and 13 violations of the Washington State Constitution in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, and he said he found it difficult to understand how the men and women in Congress, with a few exceptions, didn’t see it. He went on to assert that since Washington seems oblivious and unresponsive, state level action becomes imperative.
“Very clearly, this needs to be a state level issue. I think very clearly this is a Tenth Amendment issue,” Shea said. “Our bill, House Bill 2759 in Washington, is not a non-binding resolution. It would actually be a law that would prohibit any government official, from the National Guard on down to local law enforcement, from participating in any way, shape or form, for implementing the unlawful and indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. So I think that’s really where it needs to start is the state level.”
Washington lawmakers join legislatures in six other states considering bills in opposition to NDAA detention. Last week, the Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed its version of the legislation 96-4.
North Carolina State Sen. Ellie Kinnaird says lawmakers in the Tar Heel State continue to look at ways to combat NDAA, despite procedural hurdles in their legislature.
“There’s a very activist community in our area, very alarmed over this,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “What I will do is try to find a way to bring this to our legislature in a form that will tell our legislative delegation that we feel that this country is really threatened.”
Local officials have also joined the battle. In fact, El Paso County, Colo. Board of County Commissioners was the first government body to denounce NDAA detention without due process. The commission passed the resolution before Pres. Obama even signed the act into law. The El Paso County Sheriff’s Department also supports the resolution, providing teeth should an actual attempt to detain a person in the county arise.
“I felt it incumbent on us to be proactive, and I had no idea we were going to be the vanguard,” commissioner Peggy Littleton (R) said.
The El Paso County resolution asserts that NDAA detention and other civil liberty crushing acts in the name of the “War on Terror” hands victory to the enemy.
“Undermining our own constitutional rights serves only to concede to the terrorist demands of changing the fabric of what made the United States of America a country of freedom, liberty and opportunity.”
Six other local governments have also passed resolutions opposing sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Most recently, the Northampton, Mass. city council unanimously passed its version. Counselor Bill Dwight (D) said the body discussed the value of a small town of 29,000 passing such a resolution, asking, what difference will it make?
“The argument that we advanced was that we’re witnessing, essentially, an easy accommodation of the death of a thousand cuts of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights actually affects the 29,000 people who live in this city, who dwell in this city. That’s our province. These are the people we were elected to represent,” he said. “And then we spoke with a unified voice and said, ‘This is unacceptable.’”
Dwight lamented that we have “made this easy accommodation” and the fact that we have by-and-large allowed fear to manipulate us.
.
“We’ve reacted contrary to our oaths, as Matt Shea said. I mean, our first oath of office is to protect the Constitution of our states and the Constitution of the United States. And we have no greater obligation beyond, you know, fixing potholes and all the other sundry things we’re assigned to do, we have no greater obligation, no higher calling than to protect the Constitution, which is clearly in jeopardy.”
Dwight said he hopes other cities and counties will join his town’s admittedly small effort and come together to create a larger movement.
“Northampton originally stood…I believe the first community in the United States to stand up against the tenants of the U.S. A. Patriot Act. And at the time, it seemed like just a little, teeny whining sound from the little spot in Northampton, Massachusetts. But it actually snowballed, and communities all over the country, including large cities like Los Angles and New York and Chicago, followed our lead. We hope that’s replicated, and we hope that’s reflected in the pressure that we’re trying to exert here.”
Overstreet reflected Dwight’s faith in the ability of state and local governments to initiated change, despite the unlikelihood of Washington simply relinquishing power it now has within its grasp. But he added that garnering support and educating people who don’t fully comprehend the issue and the danger is imperative.
“They may not understand it, which is why resolutions starting at the local level are so important, on up to the county level and then to the state level. That’s how we create a critical mass,” he said.
Fein said facing down the threat of NDAA detention goes beyond that single issue, placing it in the context of a larger battle for freedom and liberty in the United States.
“The NDAA is part of this larger culture of seeking a risk-free existence by destroying freedom and liberty everywhere. And having juvenile thrill of a nation able to tell anybody anytime, anyplace that they’ve got to do whatever the United States tells them to do at the point of a bayonet, or at the end of a Predator Drone. It’s really quite disgusting and wretched.”
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.
.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
NC4FB GENERAL Question Pool Listing (Q&A)
(STARES) Shasta Tehama Amateur Radio Emergency Service
.
NC4FB Amateur Radio Blog
License exam self-study programs.
| Amateur Extra (2008 – 2012) |
| General (2011 – 2015) |
| Technician (2010 – 2014) |
| Amateur Extra (2012 – 2016) (license exam effective July 1, 2012) |
.
General License (2011-2015)
.
NC4FB GENERAL Question Pool Listing
.
NC4FB GENERAL Question Pool Listing
1. G0A01 (A) | What is one way that RF energy can affect human body tissue?
A. It heats body tissue
2. G0A02 (D) | Which of the following properties is important in estimating whether an RF signal exceeds the maximum permissible exposure (MPE)?
A. Its duty cycle
B. Its frequency
C. Its power density
D. All of these choices are correct
3. G0A03 (D) | How can you determine that your station complies with FCC RF exposure regulations?
A. By calculation based on FCC OET Bulletin 65
B. By calculation based on computer modeling
C. By measurement of field strength using calibrated equipment
D. All of these choices are correct
4. G0A04 (D) | What does “time averaging” mean in reference to RF radiation exposure?
D. The total RF exposure averaged over a certain time
5. G0A05 (A) | What must you do if an evaluation of your station shows RF energy radiated from your station exceeds permissible limits?
A. Take action to prevent human exposure to the excessive RF fields
6. G0A07 (A) | What effect does transmitter duty cycle have when evaluating RF exposure?
A. A lower transmitter duty cycle permits greater short-term exposure levels
7. G0A08 (C) | Which of the following steps must an amateur operator take to ensure compliance with RF safety regulations when transmitter power exceeds levels specified in part 97.13?
C. Perform a routine RF exposure evaluation
8. G0A09 (B) | What type of instrument can be used to accurately measure an RF field?
B. A calibrated field-strength meter with a calibrated antenna
9. G0A10 (D) | What is one thing that can be done if evaluation shows that a neighbor might receive more than the allowable limit of RF exposure from the main lobe of a directional antenna?
D. Take precautions to ensure that the antenna cannot be pointed in their direction
10. G0A11 (C) | What precaution should you take if you install an indoor transmitting antenna?
C. Make sure that MPE limits are not exceeded in occupied areas
11. G0A12 (B) | What precaution should you take whenever you make adjustments or repairs to an antenna?
B. Turn off the transmitter and disconnect the feed line
12. G0A13 (D) | What precaution should be taken when installing a ground-mounted antenna?
D. It should be installed so no one can be exposed to RF radiation in excess of maximum permissible limits
13. G0B01 (A) | Which wire or wires in a four-conductor line cord should be attached to fuses or circuit breakers in a device operated from a 240-VAC single-phase source?
A. Only the hot wires
14. G0B02 (C) | What is the minimum wire size that may be safely used for a circuit that draws up to 20 amperes of continuous current?
C. AWG number 12
15. G0B03 (D) | Which size of fuse or circuit breaker would be appropriate to use with a circuit that uses AWG number 14 wiring?
D. 15 amperes
16. G0B04 (A) | Which of the following is a primary reason for not placing a gasoline-fueled generator inside an occupied area?
A. Danger of carbon monoxide poisoning
17. G0B05 (B) | Which of the following conditions will cause a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) to disconnect the 120 or 240 Volt AC line power to a device?
B. Current flowing from one or more of the hot wires directly to ground
18. G0B06 (D) | Why must the metal enclosure of every item of station equipment be grounded?
D. It ensures that hazardous voltages cannot appear on the chassis
19. G0B07 (B) | Which of the following should be observed for safety when climbing on a tower using a safety belt or harness?
B. Always attach the belt safety hook to the belt D-ring with the hook opening away from the tower
20. G0B08 (B) | What should be done by any person preparing to climb a tower that supports electrically powered devices?
B. Make sure all circuits that supply power to the tower are locked out and tagged
21. G0B09 (D) | Why should soldered joints not be used with the wires that connect the base of a tower to a system of ground rods?
D. A soldered joint will likely be destroyed by the heat of a lightning strike
22. G0B10 (A) | Which of the following is a danger from lead-tin solder?
A. Lead can contaminate food if hands are not washed carefully after handling
23. G0B11 (D) | Which of the following is good engineering practice for lightning protection grounds?
D. They must be bonded together with all other grounds
24. G0B12 (C) | What is the purpose of a transmitter power supply interlock?
C. To ensure that dangerous voltages are removed if the cabinet is opened
25. G0B13 (A) | What must you do when powering your house from an emergency generator?
A. Disconnect the incoming utility power feed
26. G0B14 (C) | Which of the following is covered by the National Electrical Code?
C. Electrical safety inside the ham shack
27. G0B15 (A) | Which of the following is true of an emergency generator installation?
A. The generator should be located in a well ventilated area
28. G0B16 (C) | When might a lead acid storage battery give off explosive hydrogen gas?
C. When being charged
29. G1A01 (C) | On which of the following bands is a General Class license holder granted all amateur frequency privileges?
C. 160, 60, 30, 17, 12, and 10 meters
30. G1A02 (B) | On which of the following bands is phone operation prohibited?
B. 30 meters
31. G1A03 (B) | On which of the following bands is image transmission prohibited?
B. 30 meters
32. G1A04 (D) | Which of the following amateur bands is restricted to communication on only specific channels, rather than frequency ranges?
D. 60 meters
33. G1A05 (A) | Which of the following frequencies is in the General Class portion of the 40 meter band?
A. 7.250 MHz
34. G1A06 (D) | Which of the following frequencies is in the 12 meter band?
D. 24.940 MHz
35. G1A07 (C) | Which of the following frequencies is within the General Class portion of the 75 meter phone band?
C. 3900 kHz
36. G1A08 (C) | Which of the following frequencies is within the General Class portion of the 20 meter phone band?
C. 14305 kHz
37. G1A09 (C) | Which of the following frequencies is within the General Class portion of the 80 meter band?
C. 3560 kHz
38. G1A10 (C) | Which of the following frequencies is within the General Class portion of the 15 meter band?
C. 21300 kHz
39. G1A11 (D) | Which of the following frequencies is available to a control operator holding a General Class license?
D. All of these choices are correct
40. G1A12 (B) | When General Class licensees are not permitted to use the entire voice portion of a particular band, which portion of the voice segment is generally available to them?
B. The upper frequency end
41. G1A13 (D) | Which, if any, amateur band is shared with the Citizens Radio Service?
D. None
42. G1A14 (C) | Which of the following applies when the FCC rules designate the Amateur Service as a secondary user on a band?
C. Amateur stations are allowed to use the band only if they do not cause harmful interference to primary users
43. G1A15 (D) | What is the appropriate action if, when operating on either the 30 or 60 meter bands, a station in the primary service interferes with your contact?
D. Move to a clear frequency
44. G1B01 (C) | What is the maximum height above ground to which an antenna structure may be erected without requiring notification to the FAA and registration with the FCC, provided it is not at or near a public use airport?
C. 200 feet
45. G1B02 (D) | With which of the following conditions must beacon stations comply?
D. There must be no more than one beacon signal in the same band from a single location
46. G1B03 (A) | Which of the following is a purpose of a beacon station as identified in the FCC Rules?
A. Observation of propagation and reception
47. G1B04 (A) | Which of the following must be true before amateur stations may provide communications to broadcasters for dissemination to the public?
A. The communications must directly relate to the immediate safety of human life or protection of property and there must be no other means of communication reasonably available before or at the time of the event
48. G1B05 (D) | When may music be transmitted by an amateur station?
D. When it is an incidental part of a manned space craft retransmission
49. G1B06 (B) | When is an amateur station permitted to transmit secret codes?
B. To control a space station
50. G1B07 (B) | What are the restrictions on the use of abbreviations or procedural signals in the Amateur Service?
B. They may be used if they do not obscure the meaning of a message
51. G1B08 (D) | When choosing a transmitting frequency, what should you do to comply with good amateur practice?
D. All of these choices are correct
52. G1B09 (A) | When may an amateur station transmit communications in which the licensee or control operator has a pecuniary (monetary) interest?
A. When other amateurs are being notified of the sale of apparatus normally used in an amateur station and such activity is not done on a regular basis
53. G1B10 (C) | What is the power limit for beacon stations?
C. 100 watts PEP output
54. G1B11 (C) | How does the FCC require an amateur station to be operated in all respects not specifically covered by the Part 97 rules?
C. In conformance with good engineering and good amateur practice
55. G1B12 (A) | Who or what determines “good engineering and good amateur practice” as applied to the operation of an amateur station in all respects not covered by the Part 97 rules?
A. The FCC
56. G1C01 (A) | What is the maximum transmitting power an amateur station may use on 10.140 MHz?
A. 200 watts PEP output
57. G1C02 (C) | What is the maximum transmitting power an amateur station may use on the 12 meter band?
C. 1500 watts PEP output
58. G1C03 (A) | What is the maximum bandwidth permitted by FCC rules for Amateur Radio stations when transmitting on USB frequencies in the 60 meter band?
A. 2.8 kHz
59. G1C04 (A) | Which of the following is a limitation on transmitter power on the 14 MHz band?
A. Only the minimum power necessary to carry out the desired communications should be used
60. G1C05 (C) | Which of the following is a limitation on transmitter power on the 28 MHz band?
C. 1500 watts PEP output
61. G1C06 (D) | Which of the following is a limitation on transmitter power in the 1.8 MHz band?
D. 1500 watts PEP output
62. G1C07 (D) | What is the maximum symbol rate permitted for RTTY or data emission transmission on the 20 meter band?
D. 300 baud
63. G1C08 (D) | What is the maximum symbol rate permitted for RTTY or data emission transmitted at frequencies below 28 MHz?
D. 300 baud
64. G1C09 (A) | What is the maximum symbol rate permitted for RTTY or data emission transmitted on the 1.25 meter and 70 centimeter bands
A. 56 kilobaud
65. G1C10 (C) | What is the maximum symbol rate permitted for RTTY or data emission transmissions on the 10 meter band?
C. 1200 baud
66. G1C11 (B) | What is the maximum symbol rate permitted for RTTY or data emission transmissions on the 2 meter band?
B. 19.6 kilobaud
67. G1D01 (C) | Which of the following is a proper way to identify when transmitting using phone on General Class frequencies if you have a CSCE for the required elements but your upgrade from Technician has not appeared in the FCC database?
C. Give your call sign followed by “slant AG”
68. G1D02 (C) | What license examinations may you administer when you are an accredited VE holding a General Class operator license?
C. Technician only
69. G1D03 (C) | On which of the following band segments may you operate if you are a Technician Class operator and have a CSCE for General Class privileges?
C. On any General or Technician Class band segment
70. G1D04 (A) | Which of the following is a requirement for administering a Technician Class operator examination?
A. At least three VEC accredited General Class or higher VEs must be present
71. G1D05 (D) | Which of the following is sufficient for you to be an administering VE for a Technician Class operator license examination?
D. An FCC General Class or higher license and VEC accreditation
72. G1D06 (A) | When must you add the special identifier “AG” after your call sign if you are a Technician Class licensee and have a CSCE for General Class operator privileges, but the FCC has not yet posted your upgrade on its Web site?
A. Whenever you operate using General Class frequency privileges
73. G1D07 (C) | Volunteer Examiners are accredited by what organization?
C. A Volunteer Examiner Coordinator
74. G1D08 (B) | Which of the following criteria must be met for a non-U.S. citizen to be an accredited Volunteer Examiner?
B. The person must hold an FCC-granted Amateur Radio license of General Class or above
75. G1D09 (C) | How long is a Certificate of Successful Completion of Examination (CSCE) valid for exam element credit?
C. 365 days
76. G1D10 (B) | What is the minimum age that one must be to qualify as an accredited Volunteer Examiner?
B. 18 years
77. G1E01 (A) | Which of the following would disqualify a third party from participating in stating a message over an amateur station?
A. The third party’s amateur license had ever been revoked
78. G1E02 (D) | When may a 10 meter repeater retransmit the 2 meter signal from a station having a Technician Class control operator?
D. Only if the 10 meter repeater control operator holds at least a General Class license
79. G1E03 (B) | In what ITU region is operation in the 7.175 to 7.300 MHz band permitted for a control operator holding an FCC-issued General Class license?
B. Region 2
80. G1E04 (D) | Which of the following conditions require an Amateur Radio station licensee to take specific steps to avoid harmful interference to other users or facilities?
D. All of these choices are correct
81. G1E05 (C) | What types of messages for a third party in another country may be transmitted by an amateur station?
C. Only messages relating to Amateur Radio or remarks of a personal character, or messages relating to emergencies or disaster relief
82. G1E06 (A) | Which of the following applies in the event of interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater?
A. The licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference
83. G1E07 (C) | With which foreign countries is third party traffic prohibited, except for messages directly involving emergencies or disaster relief communications?
C. Every foreign country, unless there is a third party agreement in effect with that country
84. G1E08 (B) | Which of the following is a requirement for a non-licensed person to communicate with a foreign Amateur Radio station from a station with an FCC-granted license at which a licensed control operator is present?
B. The foreign amateur station must be in a country with which the United States has a third party agreement
85. G1E09 (C) | What language must you use when identifying your station if you are using a language other than English in making a contact using phone emission?
C. English
86. G1E10 (D) | What portion of the 10 meter band is available for repeater use?
D. The portion above 29.5 MHz
87. G2A01 (A) | Which sideband is most commonly used for voice communications on frequencies of 14 MHz or higher?
A. Upper sideband
88. G2A02 (B) | Which of the following modes is most commonly used for voice communications on the 160, 75, and 40 meter bands?
B. Lower sideband
89. G2A03 (A) | Which of the following is most commonly used for SSB voice communications in the VHF and UHF bands?
A. Upper sideband
90. G2A04 (A) | Which mode is most commonly used for voice communications on the 17 and 12 meter bands?
A. Upper sideband
91. G2A05 (C) | Which mode of voice communication is most commonly used on the high frequency amateur bands?
C. Single sideband
92. G2A06 (B) | Which of the following is an advantage when using single sideband as compared to other analog voice modes on the HF amateur bands?
B. Less bandwidth used and higher power efficiency
93. G2A07 (B) | Which of the following statements is true of the single sideband (SSB) voice mode?
B. Only one sideband is transmitted; the other sideband and carrier are suppressed
94. G2A08 (B) | Which of the following is a recommended way to break into a conversation when using phone?
B. Say your call sign during a break between transmissions from the other stations
95. G2A09 (D) | Why do most amateur stations use lower sideband on the 160, 75 and 40 meter bands?
D. Current amateur practice is to use lower sideband on these frequency bands
96. G2A10 (B) | Which of the following statements is true of SSB VOX operation?
B. VOX allows “hands free” operation
97. G2A11 (C) | What does the expression “CQ DX” usually indicate?
C. The caller is looking for any station outside their own country
98. G2B01 (C) | Which of the following is true concerning access to frequencies?
C. No one has priority access to frequencies, common courtesy should be a guide
99. G2B02 (B) | What is the first thing you should do if you are communicating with another amateur station and hear a station in distress break in?
B. Acknowledge the station in distress and determine what assistance may be needed
100. G2B03 (C) | If propagation changes during your contact and you notice increasing interference from other activity on the same frequency, what should you do?
C. As a common courtesy, move your contact to another frequency
101. G2B04 (B) | When selecting a CW transmitting frequency, what minimum frequency separation should you allow in order to minimize interference to stations on adjacent frequencies?
B. 150 to 500 Hz
102. G2B05 (B) | What is the customary minimum frequency separation between SSB signals under normal conditions?
B. Approximately 3 kHz
103. G2B06 (A) | What is a practical way to avoid harmful interference when selecting a frequency to call CQ on CW or phone?
A. Send “QRL?” on CW, followed by your call sign; or, if using phone, ask if the frequency is in use, followed by your call sign
104. G2B07 (C) | Which of the following complies with good amateur practice when choosing a frequency on which to initiate a call?
C. Follow the voluntary band plan for the operating mode you intend to use
105. G2B08 (A) | What is the “DX window” in a voluntary band plan?
A. A portion of the band that should not be used for contacts between stations within the 48 contiguous United States
106. G2B09 (A) | Who may be the control operator of an amateur station transmitting in RACES to assist relief operations during a disaster?
A. Only a person holding an FCC issued amateur operator license
107. G2B10 (D) | When may the FCC restrict normal frequency operations of amateur stations participating in RACES?
D. When the President’s War Emergency Powers have been invoked
108. G2B11 (A) | What frequency should be used to send a distress call?
A. Whatever frequency has the best chance of communicating the distress message
109. G2B12 (C) | When is an amateur station allowed to use any means at its disposal to assist another station in distress?
C. At any time during an actual emergency
110. G2C01 (D) | Which of the following describes full break-in telegraphy (QSK)?
D. Transmitting stations can receive between code characters and elements
111. G2C02 (A) | What should you do if a CW station sends “QRS”?
A. Send slower
112. G2C03 (C) | What does it mean when a CW operator sends “KN” at the end of a transmission?
C. Listening only for a specific station or stations
113. G2C04 (D) | What does it mean when a CW operator sends “CL” at the end of a transmission?
D. Closing station
114. G2C05 (B) | What is the best speed to use answering a CQ in Morse Code?
B. The speed at which the CQ was sent
115. G2C06 (D) | What does the term “zero beat” mean in CW operation?
D. Matching your transmit frequency to the frequency of a received signal.
116. G2C07 (A) | When sending CW, what does a “C” mean when added to the RST report?
A. Chirpy or unstable signal
117. G2C08 (C) | What prosign is sent to indicate the end of a formal message when using CW?
C. AR
118. G2C09 (C) | What does the Q signal “QSL” mean?
C. I acknowledge receipt
119. G2C10 (B) | What does the Q signal “QRQ” mean?
B. Send faster
120. G2C11 (D) | What does the Q signal “QRV” mean?
D. I am ready to receive messages
121. G2D01 (A) | What is the Amateur Auxiliary to the FCC?
A. Amateur volunteers who are formally enlisted to monitor the airwaves for rules violations
122. G2D02 (B) | Which of the the following are the objectives of the Amateur Auxiliary?
B. To encourage amateur self regulation and compliance with the rules
123. G2D03 (B) | What skills learned during “hidden transmitter hunts” are of help to the Amateur Auxiliary?
B. Direction finding used to locate stations violating FCC Rules
124. G2D04 (B) | Which of the following describes an azimuthal projection map?
B. A world map projection centered on a particular location
125. G2D05 (B) | When is it permissible to communicate with amateur stations in countries outside the areas administered by the Federal Communications Commission?
B. When the contact is with amateurs in any country except those whose administrations have notified the ITU that they object to such communications
126. G2D06 (C) | How is a directional antenna pointed when making a “long-path” contact with another station?
C. 180 degrees from its short-path heading
127. G2D07 (A) | Which of the following is required by the FCC rules when operating in the 60 meter band?
A. If you are using other than a dipole antenna, you must keep a record of the gain of your antenna
128. G2D08 (D) | Why do many amateurs keep a log even though the FCC doesn’t require it?
D. To help with a reply if the FCC requests information
129. G2D09 (D) | What information is traditionally contained in a station log?
A. Date and time of contact
B. Band and/or frequency of the contact
C. Call sign of station contacted and the signal report given
D. All of these choices are correct
130. G2D10 (B) | What is QRP operation?
B. Low power transmit operation
131. G2D11 (C) | Which HF antenna would be the best to use for minimizing interference?
C. A unidirectional antenna
132. G2E01 (D) | Which mode is normally used when sending an RTTY signal via AFSK with an SSB transmitter?
D. LSB
133. G2E02 (A) | How many data bits are sent in a single PSK31 character?
A. The number varies
134. G2E03 (C) | What part of a data packet contains the routing and handling information?
C. Header
135. G2E04 (B) | What segment of the 20 meter band is most often used for data transmissions?
B. 14.070 – 14.100 MHz
136. G2E05 (C) | Which of the following describes Baudot code?
C. A 5-bit code, with additional start and stop bits
137. G2E06 (B) | What is the most common frequency shift for RTTY emissions in the amateur HF bands?
B. 170 Hz
138. G2E07 (B) | What does the abbreviation “RTTY” stand for?
B. Radioteletype
139. G2E08 (A) | What segment of the 80 meter band is most commonly used for data transmissions?
A. 3570 – 3600 kHz
140. G2E09 (D) | In what segment of the 20 meter band are most PSK31 operations commonly found?
D. Below the RTTY segment, near 14.070 MHz
141. G2E10 (D) | What is a major advantage of MFSK16 compared to other digital modes?
D. It offers good performance in weak signal environments without error correction
142. G2E11 (B) | What does the abbreviation “MFSK” stand for?
B. Multi (or Multiple) Frequency Shift Keying
143. G2E12 (B) | How does the receiving station respond to an ARQ data mode packet containing errors?
B. Requests the packet be retransmitted
144. G2E13 (A) | In the PACTOR protocol, what is meant by an NAK response to a transmitted packet?
A. The receiver is requesting the packet be re-transmitted
145. G3A01 (A) | What is the sunspot number?
A. A measure of solar activity based on counting sunspots and sunspot groups
146. G3A02 (B) | What effect does a Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance have on the daytime ionospheric propagation of HF radio waves?
B. It disrupts signals on lower frequencies more than those on higher frequencies
147. G3A03 (C) | Approximately how long does it take the increased ultraviolet and X-ray radiation from solar flares to affect radio-wave propagation on the Earth?
C. 8 minutes
148. G3A04 (D) | Which of the following amateur radio HF frequencies are least reliable for long distance communications during periods of low solar activity?
D. 21 MHz and higher
149. G3A05 (D) | What is the solar-flux index?
D. A measure of solar radiation at 10.7 cm
150. G3A06 (D) | What is a geomagnetic storm?
D. A temporary disturbance in the Earth’s magnetosphere
151. G3A07 (D) | At what point in the solar cycle does the 20 meter band usually support worldwide propagation during daylight hours?
D. At any point in the solar cycle
152. G3A08 (B) | Which of the following effects can a geomagnetic storm have on radio-wave propagation?
B. Degraded high-latitude HF propagation
153. G3A09 (C) | What effect do high sunspot numbers have on radio communications?
C. Long-distance communication in the upper HF and lower VHF range is enhanced
154. G3A10 (C) | What causes HF propagation conditions to vary periodically in a 28-day cycle?
C. The Sun’s rotation on its axis
155. G3A11 (D) | Approximately how long is the typical sunspot cycle?
D. 11 years
156. G3A12 (B) | What does the K-index indicate?
B. The short term stability of the Earth’s magnetic field
157. G3A13 (C) | What does the A-index indicate?
C. The long term stability of the Earth’s geomagnetic field
158. G3A14 (B) | How are radio communications usually affected by the charged particles that reach the Earth from solar coronal holes?
B. HF communications are disturbed
159. G3A15 (D) | How long does it take charged particles from coronal mass ejections to affect radio-wave propagation on the Earth?
D. 20 to 40 hours
160. G3A16 (A) | What is a possible benefit to radio communications resulting from periods of high geomagnetic activity?
A. Aurora that can reflect VHF signals
161. G3B01 (D) | How might a sky-wave signal sound if it arrives at your receiver by both short path and long path propagation?
D. A well-defined echo might be heard
162. G3B02 (A) | Which of the following is a good indicator of the possibility of sky-wave propagation on the 6 meter band?
A. Short skip sky-wave propagation on the 10 meter band
163. G3B03 (A) | Which of the following applies when selecting a frequency for lowest attenuation when transmitting on HF?
A. Select a frequency just below the MUF
164. G3B04 (A) | What is a reliable way to determine if the Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF) is high enough to support skip propagation between your station and a distant location on frequencies between 14 and 30 MHz?
A. Listen for signals from an international beacon
165. G3B05 (A) | What usually happens to radio waves with frequencies below the Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF) and above the Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF) when they are sent into the ionosphere?
A. They are bent back to the Earth
166. G3B06 (C) | What usually happens to radio waves with frequencies below the Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF)?
C. They are completely absorbed by the ionosphere
167. G3B07 (A) | What does LUF stand for?
A. The Lowest Usable Frequency for communications between two points
168. G3B08 (B) | What does MUF stand for?
B. The Maximum Usable Frequency for communications between two points
169. G3B09 (C) | What is the approximate maximum distance along the Earth’s surface that is normally covered in one hop using the F2 region?
C. 2,500 miles
170. G3B10 (B) | What is the approximate maximum distance along the Earth’s surface that is normally covered in one hop using the E region?
B. 1,200 miles
171. G3B11 (A) | What happens to HF propagation when the Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF) exceeds the Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF)?
A. No HF radio frequency will support ordinary skywave communications over the path
172. G3B12 (D) | What factors affect the Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF)?
A. Path distance and location
B. Time of day and season
C. Solar radiation and ionospheric disturbances
D. All of these choices are correct
173. G3C01 (A) | Which of the following ionospheric layers is closest to the surface of the Earth?
A. The D layer
174. G3C02 (A) | Where on the Earth do ionospheric layers reach their maximum height?
A. Where the Sun is overhead
175. G3C03 (C) | Why is the F2 region mainly responsible for the longest distance radio wave propagation?
C. Because it is the highest ionospheric region
176. G3C04 (D) | What does the term “critical angle” mean as used in radio wave propagation?
D. The highest takeoff angle that will return a radio wave to the Earth under specific ionospheric conditions
177. G3C05 (C) | Why is long distance communication on the 40, 60, 80 and 160 meter bands more difficult during the day?
C. The D layer absorbs signals at these frequencies during daylight hours
178. G3C06 (B) | What is a characteristic of HF scatter signals?
B. They have a wavering sound
179. G3C07 (D) | What makes HF scatter signals often sound distorted?
D. Energy is scattered into the skip zone through several different radio wave paths
180. G3C08 (A) | Why are HF scatter signals in the skip zone usually weak?
A. Only a small part of the signal energy is scattered into the skip zone
181. G3C09 (B) | What type of radio wave propagation allows a signal to be detected at a distance too far for ground wave propagation but too near for normal sky-wave propagation?
B. Scatter
182. G3C10 (D) | Which of the following might be an indication that signals heard on the HF bands are being received via scatter propagation?
D. The signal is heard on a frequency above the Maximum Usable Frequency
183. G3C11 (B) | Which of the following antenna types will be most effective for skip communications on 40 meters during the day?
B. Horizontal dipoles placed between 1/8 and 1/4 wavelength above the ground
184. G3C12 (D) | Which ionospheric layer is the most absorbent of long skip signals during daylight hours on frequencies below 10 MHz?
D. The D layer
185. G3C13 (B) | What is Near Vertical Incidence Sky-wave (NVIS) propagation?
B. Short distance HF propagation using high elevation angles
186. G4A01 (B) | What is the purpose of the “notch filter” found on many HF transceivers?
B. To reduce interference from carriers in the receiver passband
187. G4A02 (C) | What is one advantage of selecting the opposite or “reverse” sideband when receiving CW signals on a typical HF transceiver?
C. It may be possible to reduce or eliminate interference from other signals
188. G4A03 (C) | What is normally meant by operating a transceiver in “split” mode?
C. The transceiver is set to different transmit and receive frequencies
189. G4A04 (B) | What reading on the plate current meter of a vacuum tube RF power amplifier indicates correct adjustment of the plate tuning control?
B. A pronounced dip
190. G4A05 (C) | What is a purpose of using Automatic Level Control (ALC) with a RF power amplifier?
C. To reduce distortion due to excessive drive
191. G4A06 (C) | What type of device is often used to enable matching the transmitter output to an impedance other than 50 ohms?
C. Antenna coupler
192. G4A07 (D) | What condition can lead to permanent damage when using a solid-state RF power amplifier?
D. Excessive drive power
193. G4A08 (D) | What is the correct adjustment for the load or coupling control of a vacuum tube RF power amplifier?
D. Maximum power output without exceeding maximum allowable plate current
194. G4A09 (C) | Why is a time delay sometimes included in a transmitter keying circuit?
C. To allow time for transmit-receive changeover operations to complete properly before RF output is allowed
195. G4A10 (B) | What is the purpose of an electronic keyer?
B. Automatic generation of strings of dots and dashes for CW operation
196. G4A11 (A) | Which of the following is a use for the IF shift control on a receiver?
A. To avoid interference from stations very close to the receive frequency
197. G4A12 (C) | Which of the following is a common use for the dual VFO feature on a transceiver?
C. To permit ease of monitoring the transmit and receive frequencies when they are not the same
198. G4A13 (A) | What is one reason to use the attenuator function that is present on many HF transceivers?
A. To reduce signal overload due to strong incoming signals
199. G4A14 (B) | How should the transceiver audio input be adjusted when transmitting PSK31 data signals?
B. So that the transceiver ALC system does not activate
200. G4B01 (D) | What item of test equipment contains horizontal and vertical channel amplifiers?
D. An oscilloscope
201. G4B02 (D) | Which of the following is an advantage of an oscilloscope versus a digital voltmeter?
D. Complex waveforms can be measured
202. G4B03 (A) | Which of the following is the best instrument to use when checking the keying waveform of a CW transmitter?
A. An oscilloscope
203. G4B04 (D) | What signal source is connected to the vertical input of an oscilloscope when checking the RF envelope pattern of a transmitted signal?
D. The attenuated RF output of the transmitter
204. G4B05 (D) | Why is high input impedance desirable for a voltmeter?
D. It decreases the loading on circuits being measured
205. G4B06 (C) | What is an advantage of a digital voltmeter as compared to an analog voltmeter?
C. Better precision for most uses
206. G4B07 (A) | Which of the following might be a use for a field strength meter?
A. Close-in radio direction-finding
207. G4B08 (A) | Which of the following instruments may be used to monitor relative RF output when making antenna and transmitter adjustments?
A. A field-strength meter
208. G4B09 (B) | Which of the following can be determined with a field strength meter?
B. The radiation pattern of an antenna
209. G4B10 (A) | Which of the following can be determined with a directional wattmeter?
A. Standing wave ratio
210. G4B11 (C) | Which of the following must be connected to an antenna analyzer when it is being used for SWR measurements?
C. Antenna and feed line
211. G4B12 (B) | What problem can occur when making measurements on an antenna system with an antenna analyzer?
B. Strong signals from nearby transmitters can affect the accuracy of measurements
212. G4B13 (C) | What is a use for an antenna analyzer other than measuring the SWR of an antenna system?
C. Determining the impedance of an unknown or unmarked coaxial cable
213. G4B14 (D) | What is an instance in which the use of an instrument with analog readout may be preferred over an instrument with a numerical digital readout?
D. When adjusting tuned circuits
214. G4B15 (A) | What type of transmitter performance does a two-tone test analyze?
A. Linearity
215. G4B16 (B) | What signals are used to conduct a two-tone test?
B. Two non-harmonically related audio signals
216. G4C01 (B) | Which of the following might be useful in reducing RF interference to audio-frequency devices?
B. Bypass capacitor
217. G4C02 (C) | Which of the following could be a cause of interference covering a wide range of frequencies?
C. Arcing at a poor electrical connection
218. G4C03 (C) | What sound is heard from an audio device or telephone if there is interference from a nearby single-sideband phone transmitter?
C. Distorted speech
219. G4C04 (A) | What is the effect on an audio device or telephone system if there is interference from a nearby CW transmitter?
A. On-and-off humming or clicking
220. G4C05 (D) | What might be the problem if you receive an RF burn when touching your equipment while transmitting on an HF band, assuming the equipment is connected to a ground rod?
D. The ground wire has high impedance on that frequency
221. G4C06 (C) | What effect can be caused by a resonant ground connection?
C. High RF voltages on the enclosures of station equipment
222. G4C07 (A) | What is one good way to avoid unwanted effects of stray RF energy in an amateur station?
A. Connect all equipment grounds together
223. G4C08 (A) | Which of the following would reduce RF interference caused by common-mode current on an audio cable?
A. Placing a ferrite bead around the cable
224. G4C09 (D) | How can a ground loop be avoided?
D. Connect all ground conductors to a single point
225. G4C10 (A) | What could be a symptom of a ground loop somewhere in your station?
A. You receive reports of “hum” on your station’s transmitted signal
226. G4C11 (B) | Which of the following is one use for a Digital Signal Processor in an amateur station?
B. To remove noise from received signals
227. G4C12 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of a receiver Digital Signal Processor IF filter as compared to an analog filter?
A. A wide range of filter bandwidths and shapes can be created
228. G4C13 (B) | Which of the following can perform automatic notching of interfering carriers?
B. A Digital Signal Processor (DSP) filter
229. G4D01 (A) | What is the purpose of a speech processor as used in a modern transceiver?
A. Increase the intelligibility of transmitted phone signals during poor conditions
230. G4D02 (B) | Which of the following describes how a speech processor affects a transmitted single sideband phone signal?
B. It increases average power
231. G4D03 (D) | Which of the following can be the result of an incorrectly adjusted speech processor?
D. All of these choices are correct
232. G4D04 (C) | What does an S meter measure?
C. Received signal strength
233. G4D05 (D) | How does an S meter reading of 20 dB over S-9 compare to an S-9 signal, assuming a properly calibrated S meter?
D. It is 100 times stronger
234. G4D06 (A) | Where is an S meter found?
A. In a receiver
235. G4D07 (C) | How much must the power output of a transmitter be raised to change the S- meter reading on a distant receiver from S8 to S9?
C. Approximately 4 times
236. G4D08 (C) | What frequency range is occupied by a 3 kHz LSB signal when the displayed carrier frequency is set to 7.178 MHz?
C. 7.175 to 7.178 MHz
237. G4D09 (B) | What frequency range is occupied by a 3 kHz USB signal with the displayed carrier frequency set to 14.347 MHz?
B. 14.347 to 14.350 MHz
238. G4D10 (A) | How close to the lower edge of the 40 meter General Class phone segment should your displayed carrier frequency be when using 3 kHz wide LSB?
A. 3 kHz above the edge of the segment
239. G4D11 (B) | How close to the upper edge of the 20 meter General Class band should your displayed carrier frequency be when using 3 kHz wide USB?
B. 3 kHz below the edge of the band
240. G4E01 (C) | What is a “capacitance hat”, when referring to a mobile antenna?
C. A device to electrically lengthen a physically short antenna
241. G4E02 (D) | What is the purpose of a “corona ball” on a HF mobile antenna?
D. To reduce high voltage discharge from the tip of the antenna
242. G4E03 (A) | Which of the following direct, fused power connections would be the best for a 100-watt HF mobile installation?
A. To the battery using heavy gauge wire
243. G4E04 (B) | Why is it best NOT to draw the DC power for a 100-watt HF transceiver from an automobile’s auxiliary power socket?
B. The socket’s wiring may be inadequate for the current being drawn by the transceiver
244. G4E05 (C) | Which of the following most limits the effectiveness of an HF mobile transceiver operating in the 75 meter band?
C. The antenna system
245. G4E06 (C) | What is one disadvantage of using a shortened mobile antenna as opposed to a full size antenna?
C. Operating bandwidth may be very limited
246. G4E07 (D) | Which of the following is the most likely to cause interfering signals to be heard in the receiver of an HF mobile installation in a recent model vehicle?
D. The vehicle control computer
247. G4E08 (A) | What is the name of the process by which sunlight is changed directly into electricity?
A. Photovoltaic conversion
248. G4E09 (B) | What is the approximate open-circuit voltage from a modern, well-illuminated photovoltaic cell?
B. 0.5 VDC
249. G4E10 (B) | What is the reason a series diode is connected between a solar panel and a storage battery that is being charged by the panel?
B. The diode prevents self discharge of the battery though the panel during times of low or no illumination
250. G4E11 (C) | Which of the following is a disadvantage of using wind as the primary source of power for an emergency station?
C. A large energy storage system is needed to supply power when the wind is not blowing
251. G5A01 (C) | What is impedance?
C. The opposition to the flow of current in an AC circuit
252. G5A02 (B) | What is reactance?
B. Opposition to the flow of alternating current caused by capacitance or inductance
253. G5A03 (D) | Which of the following causes opposition to the flow of alternating current in an inductor?
D. Reactance
254. G5A04 (C) | Which of the following causes opposition to the flow of alternating current in a capacitor?
C. Reactance
255. G5A05 (D) | How does an inductor react to AC?
D. As the frequency of the applied AC increases, the reactance increases
256. G5A06 (A) | How does a capacitor react to AC?
A. As the frequency of the applied AC increases, the reactance decreases
257. G5A07 (D) | What happens when the impedance of an electrical load is equal to the internal impedance of the power source?
D. The source can deliver maximum power to the load
258. G5A08 (A) | Why is impedance matching important?
A. So the source can deliver maximum power to the load
259. G5A09 (B) | What unit is used to measure reactance?
B. Ohm
260. G5A10 (B) | What unit is used to measure impedance?
B. Ohm
261. G5A11 (A) | Which of the following describes one method of impedance matching between two AC circuits?
A. Insert an LC network between the two circuits
262. G5A12 (B) | What is one reason to use an impedance matching transformer?
B. To maximize the transfer of power
263. G5A13 (D) | Which of the following devices can be used for impedance matching at radio frequencies?
A. A transformer
B. A Pi-network
C. A length of transmission line
D. All of these choices are correct
264. G5B01 (B) | A two-times increase or decrease in power results in a change of how many dB?
B. Approximately 3 dB
265. G5B02 (C) | How does the total current relate to the individual currents in each branch of a parallel circuit?
C. It equals the sum of the currents through each branch
266. G5B03 (B) | How many watts of electrical power are used if 400 VDC is supplied to an 800-ohm load?
B. 200 watts
267. G5B04 (A) | How many watts of electrical power are used by a 12-VDC light bulb that draws 0.2 amperes?
A. 2.4 watts
268. G5B05 (A) | How many watts are dissipated when a current of 7.0 milliamperes flows through 1.25 kilohms?
A. Approximately 61 milliwatts
269. G5B06 (B) | What is the output PEP from a transmitter if an oscilloscope measures 200 volts peak-to-peak across a 50-ohm dummy load connected to the transmitter output?
B. 100 watts
270. G5B07 (C) | Which value of an AC signal results in the same power dissipation as a DC voltage of the same value?
C. The RMS value
271. G5B08 (D) | What is the peak-to-peak voltage of a sine wave that has an RMS voltage of 120 volts?
D. 339.4 volts
272. G5B09 (B) | What is the RMS voltage of a sine wave with a value of 17 volts peak?
B. 12 volts
273. G5B10 (C) | What percentage of power loss would result from a transmission line loss of 1 dB?
C. 20.5%
274. G5B11 (B) | What is the ratio of peak envelope power to average power for an unmodulated carrier?
B. 1.00
275. G5B12 (B) | What would be the RMS voltage across a 50-ohm dummy load dissipating 1200 watts?
B. 245 volts
276. G5B13 (B) | What is the output PEP of an unmodulated carrier if an average reading wattmeter connected to the transmitter output indicates 1060 watts?
B. 1060 watts
277. G5B14 (B) | What is the output PEP from a transmitter if an oscilloscope measures 500 volts peak-to-peak across a 50-ohm resistor connected to the transmitter output?
B. 625 watts
278. G5C01 (C) | What causes a voltage to appear across the secondary winding of a transformer when an AC voltage source is connected across its primary winding?
C. Mutual inductance
279. G5C02 (B) | Which part of a transformer is normally connected to the incoming source of energy?
B. The primary
280. G5C03 (B) | Which of the following components should be added to an existing resistor to increase the resistance?
B. A resistor in series
281. G5C04 (C) | What is the total resistance of three 100-ohm resistors in parallel?
C. 33.3 ohms
282. G5C05 (C) | If three equal value resistors in parallel produce 50 ohms of resistance, and the same three resistors in series produce 450 ohms, what is the value of each resistor?
C. 150 ohms
283. G5C06 (C) | What is the RMS voltage across a 500-turn secondary winding in a transformer if the 2250-turn primary is connected to 120 VAC?
C. 26.7 volts
284. G5C07 (A) | What is the turns ratio of a transformer used to match an audio amplifier having a 600-ohm output impedance to a speaker having a 4-ohm impedance?
A. 12.2 to 1
285. G5C08 (D) | What is the equivalent capacitance of two 5000 picofarad capacitors and one 750 picofarad capacitor connected in parallel?
D. 10750 picofarads
286. G5C09 (C) | What is the capacitance of three 100 microfarad capacitors connected in series?
C. 33.3 microfarads
287. G5C10 (C) | What is the inductance of three 10 millihenry inductors connected in parallel?
C. 3.3 millihenrys
288. G5C11 (C) | What is the inductance of a 20 millihenry inductor in series with a 50 millihenry inductor?
C. 70 millihenrys
289. G5C12 (B) | What is the capacitance of a 20 microfarad capacitor in series with a 50 microfarad capacitor?
B. 14.3 microfarads
290. G5C13 (C) | Which of the following components should be added to a capacitor to increase the capacitance?
C. A capacitor in parallel
291. G5C14 (D) | Which of the following components should be added to an inductor to increase the inductance?
D. An inductor in series
292. G5C15 (A) | What is the total resistance of a 10 ohm, a 20 ohm, and a 50 ohm resistor in parallel?
A. 5.9 ohms
293. G6A01 (A) | Which of the following is an important characteristic for capacitors used to filter the DC output of a switching power supply?
A. Low equivalent series resistance
294. G6A02 (D) | Which of the following types of capacitors are often used in power supply circuits to filter the rectified AC?
D. Electrolytic
295. G6A03 (D) | Which of the following is an advantage of ceramic capacitors as compared to other types of capacitors?
D. Comparatively low cost
296. G6A04 (C) | Which of the following is an advantage of an electrolytic capacitor?
C. High capacitance for given volume
297. G6A05 (A) | Which of the following is one effect of lead inductance in a capacitor used at VHF and above?
A. Effective capacitance may be reduced
298. G6A06 (C) | What will happen to the resistance if the temperature of a resistor is increased?
C. It will change depending on the resistor’s temperature coefficient
299. G6A07 (B) | Which of the following is a reason not to use wire-wound resistors in an RF circuit?
B. The resistor’s inductance could make circuit performance unpredictable
300. G6A08 (B) | Which of the following describes a thermistor?
B. A device having a specific change in resistance with temperature variations
301. G6A09 (D) | What is an advantage of using a ferrite core toroidal inductor?
D. All of these choices are correct
302. G6A10 (C) | How should the winding axes of solenoid inductors be placed to minimize their mutual inductance?
C. At right angles
303. G6A11 (B) | Why would it be important to minimize the mutual inductance between two inductors?
B. To reduce unwanted coupling between circuits
304. G6A12 (D) | What is a common name for an inductor used to help smooth the DC output from the rectifier in a conventional power supply?
D. Filter choke
305. G6A13 (B) | What is an effect of inter-turn capacitance in an inductor?
B. The inductor may become self resonant at some frequencies
306. G6B01 (C) | What is the peak-inverse-voltage rating of a rectifier?
C. The maximum voltage the rectifier will handle in the non-conducting direction
307. G6B02 (A) | What are two major ratings that must not be exceeded for silicon diode rectifiers?
A. Peak inverse voltage; average forward current
308. G6B03 (B) | What is the approximate junction threshold voltage of a germanium diode?
B. 0.3 volts
309. G6B04 (C) | When two or more diodes are connected in parallel to increase current handling capacity, what is the purpose of the resistor connected in series with each diode?
C. To ensure that one diode doesn’t carry most of the current
310. G6B05 (C) | What is the approximate junction threshold voltage of a conventional silicon diode?
C. 0.7 volts
311. G6B06 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of using a Schottky diode in an RF switching circuit as compared to a standard silicon diode?
A. Lower capacitance
312. G6B07 (A) | What are the stable operating points for a bipolar transistor used as a switch in a logic circuit?
A. Its saturation and cut-off regions
313. G6B08 (D) | Why must the cases of some large power transistors be insulated from ground?
D. To avoid shorting the collector or drain voltage to ground
314. G6B09 (B) | Which of the following describes the construction of a MOSFET?
B. The gate is separated from the channel with a thin insulating layer
315. G6B10 (A) | Which element of a triode vacuum tube is used to regulate the flow of electrons between cathode and plate?
A. Control grid
316. G6B11 (B) | Which of the following solid state devices is most like a vacuum tube in its general operating characteristics?
B. A Field Effect Transistor
317. G6B12 (A) | What is the primary purpose of a screen grid in a vacuum tube?
A. To reduce grid-to-plate capacitance
318. G6B13 (B) | What is an advantage of the low internal resistance of nickel-cadmium batteries?
B. High discharge current
319. G6B14 (C) | What is the minimum allowable discharge voltage for maximum life of a standard 12 volt lead acid battery?
C. 10.5 volts
320. G6B15 (D) | When is it acceptable to recharge a carbon-zinc primary cell?
D. Never
321. G6C01 (D) | Which of the following is an analog integrated circuit?
D. Linear voltage regulator
322. G6C02 (B) | What is meant by the term MMIC?
B. Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit
323. G6C03 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of CMOS integrated circuits compared to TTL integrated circuits?
A. Low power consumption
324. G6C04 (B) | What is meant by the term ROM?
B. Read Only Memory
325. G6C05 (C) | What is meant when memory is characterized as “non-volatile”?
C. The stored information is maintained even if power is removed
326. G6C06 (D) | Which of the following describes an integrated circuit operational amplifier?
D. Analog
327. G6C07 (D) | What is one disadvantage of an incandescent indicator compared to an LED?
D. High power consumption
328. G6C08 (D) | How is an LED biased when emitting light?
D. Forward Biased
329. G6C09 (A) | Which of the following is a characteristic of a liquid crystal display?
A. It requires ambient or back lighting
330. G6C10 (A) | What two devices in an Amateur Radio station might be connected using a USB interface?
A. Computer and transceiver
331. G6C11 (B) | What is a microprocessor?
B. A computer on a single integrated circuit
332. G6C12 (D) | Which of the following connectors would be a good choice for a serial data port?
D. DE-9
333. G6C13 (C) | Which of these connector types is commonly used for RF service at frequencies up to 150 MHz?
C. PL-259
334. G6C14 (C) | Which of these connector types is commonly used for audio signals in Amateur Radio stations?
C. RCA Phono
335. G6C15 (B) | What is the main reason to use keyed connectors instead of non-keyed types?
B. Reduced chance of incorrect mating
336. G6C16 (A) | Which of the following describes a type-N connector?
A. A moisture-resistant RF connector useful to 10 GHz
337. G6C17 (C) | What is the general description of a DIN type connector?
C. A family of multiple circuit connectors suitable for audio and control signals
338. G6C18 (B) | What is a type SMA connector?
B. A small threaded connector suitable for signals up to several GHz
339. G7A01 (B) | What safety feature does a power-supply bleeder resistor provide?
B. It discharges the filter capacitors
340. G7A02 (D) | Which of the following components are used in a power-supply filter network?
D. Capacitors and inductors
341. G7A03 (D) | What is the peak-inverse-voltage across the rectifiers in a full-wave bridge power supply?
D. Equal to the normal peak output voltage of the power supply
342. G7A04 (D) | What is the peak-inverse-voltage across the rectifier in a half-wave power supply?
D. Two times the normal peak output voltage of the power supply
343. G7A05 (B) | What portion of the AC cycle is converted to DC by a half-wave rectifier?
B. 180 degrees
344. G7A06 (D) | What portion of the AC cycle is converted to DC by a full-wave rectifier?
D. 360 degrees
345. G7A07 (A) | What is the output waveform of an unfiltered full-wave rectifier connected to a resistive load?
A. A series of DC pulses at twice the frequency of the AC input
346. G7A08 (C) | Which of the following is an advantage of a switch-mode power supply as compared to a linear power supply?
C. High frequency operation allows the use of smaller components
347. G7A09 (C) | Which symbol in figure G7-1 represents a field effect transistor?
C. Symbol 1
348. G7A10 (D) | Which symbol in figure G7-1 represents a Zener diode?
D. Symbol 5
349. G7A11 (B) | Which symbol in figure G7-1 represents an NPN junction transistor?
B. Symbol 2
350. G7A12 (C) | Which symbol in Figure G7-1 represents a multiple-winding transformer?
C. Symbol 6
351. G7A13 (A) | Which symbol in Figure G7-1 represents a tapped inductor?
A. Symbol 7
352. G7B01 (A) | Complex digital circuitry can often be replaced by what type of integrated circuit?
A. Microcontroller
353. G7B02 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of using the binary system when processing digital signals?
A. Binary “ones” and “zeros” are easy to represent with an “on” or “off” state
354. G7B03 (B) | Which of the following describes the function of a two input AND gate?
B. Output is high only when both inputs are high
355. G7B04 (C) | Which of the following describes the function of a two input NOR gate?
C. Output is low when either or both inputs are high
356. G7B05 (C) | How many states does a 3-bit binary counter have?
C. 8
357. G7B06 (A) | What is a shift register?
A. A clocked array of circuits that passes data in steps along the array
358. G7B07 (D) | What are the basic components of virtually all sine wave oscillators?
D. A filter and an amplifier operating in a feedback loop
359. G7B08 (B) | How is the efficiency of an RF power amplifier determined?
B. Divide the RF output power by the DC input power
360. G7B09 (C) | What determines the frequency of an LC oscillator?
C. The inductance and capacitance in the tank circuit
361. G7B10 (D) | Which of the following is a characteristic of a Class A amplifier?
D. Low distortion
362. G7B11 (B) | For which of the following modes is a Class C power stage appropriate for amplifying a modulated signal?
B. CW
363. G7B12 (D) | Which of these classes of amplifiers has the highest efficiency?
D. Class C
364. G7B13 (B) | What is the reason for neutralizing the final amplifier stage of a transmitter?
B. To eliminate self-oscillations
365. G7B14 (B) | Which of the following describes a linear amplifier?
B. An amplifier in which the output preserves the input waveform
366. G7C01 (B) | Which of the following is used to process signals from the balanced modulator and send them to the mixer in a single-sideband phone transmitter?
B. Filter
367. G7C02 (D) | Which circuit is used to combine signals from the carrier oscillator and speech amplifier and send the result to the filter in a typical single-sideband phone transmitter?
D. Balanced modulator
368. G7C03 (C) | What circuit is used to process signals from the RF amplifier and local oscillator and send the result to the IF filter in a superheterodyne receiver?
C. Mixer
369. G7C04 (D) | What circuit is used to combine signals from the IF amplifier and BFO and send the result to the AF amplifier in a single-sideband receiver?
D. Product detector
370. G7C05 (D) | Which of the following is an advantage of a transceiver controlled by a direct digital synthesizer (DDS)?
D. Variable frequency with the stability of a crystal oscillator
371. G7C06 (B) | What should be the impedance of a low-pass filter as compared to the impedance of the transmission line into which it is inserted?
B. About the same
372. G7C07 (C) | What is the simplest combination of stages that implement a superheterodyne receiver?
C. HF oscillator, mixer, detector
373. G7C08 (D) | What type of circuit is used in many FM receivers to convert signals coming from the IF amplifier to audio?
D. Discriminator
374. G7C09 (D) | Which of the following is needed for a Digital Signal Processor IF filter?
D. All of these choices are correct
375. G7C10 (B) | How is Digital Signal Processor filtering accomplished?
B. By converting the signal from analog to digital and using digital processing
376. G7C11 (A) | What is meant by the term “software defined radio” (SDR)?
A. A radio in which most major signal processing functions are performed by software
377. G8A01 (D) | What is the name of the process that changes the envelope of an RF wave to carry information?
D. Amplitude modulation
378. G8A02 (B) | What is the name of the process that changes the phase angle of an RF wave to convey information?
B. Phase modulation
379. G8A03 (D) | What is the name of the process which changes the frequency of an RF wave to convey information?
D. Frequency modulation
380. G8A04 (B) | What emission is produced by a reactance modulator connected to an RF power amplifier?
B. Phase modulation
381. G8A05 (D) | What type of modulation varies the instantaneous power level of the RF signal?
D. Amplitude modulation
382. G8A06 (C) | What is one advantage of carrier suppression in a single-sideband phone transmission?
C. The available transmitter power can be used more effectively
383. G8A07 (A) | Which of the following phone emissions uses the narrowest frequency bandwidth?
A. Single sideband
384. G8A08 (D) | Which of the following is an effect of over-modulation?
D. Excessive bandwidth
385. G8A09 (B) | What control is typically adjusted for proper ALC setting on an amateur single sideband transceiver?
B. Transmit audio or microphone gain
386. G8A10 (C) | What is meant by flat-topping of a single-sideband phone transmission?
C. Signal distortion caused by excessive drive
387. G8A11 (A) | What happens to the RF carrier signal when a modulating audio signal is applied to an FM transmitter?
A. The carrier frequency changes proportionally to the instantaneous amplitude of the modulating signal
388. G8A12 (A) | What signal(s) would be found at the output of a properly adjusted balanced modulator?
A. Both upper and lower sidebands
389. G8B01 (A) | What receiver stage combines a 14.250 MHz input signal with a 13.795 MHz oscillator signal to produce a 455 kHz intermediate frequency (IF) signal?
A. Mixer
390. G8B02 (B) | If a receiver mixes a 13.800 MHz VFO with a 14.255 MHz received signal to produce a 455 kHz intermediate frequency (IF) signal, what type of interference will a 13.345 MHz signal produce in the receiver?
B. Image response
391. G8B03 (A) | What is another term for the mixing of two RF signals?
A. Heterodyning
392. G8B04 (D) | What is the name of the stage in a VHF FM transmitter that generates a harmonic of a lower frequency signal to reach the desired operating frequency?
D. Multiplier
393. G8B05 (C) | Why isn’t frequency modulated (FM) phone used below 29.5 MHz?
C. The wide bandwidth is prohibited by FCC rules
394. G8B06 (D) | What is the total bandwidth of an FM-phone transmission having a 5 kHz deviation and a 3 kHz modulating frequency?
D. 16 kHz
395. G8B07 (B) | What is the frequency deviation for a 12.21-MHz reactance-modulated oscillator in a 5-kHz deviation, 146.52-MHz FM-phone transmitter?
B. 416.7 Hz
396. G8B08 (B) | Why is it important to know the duty cycle of the data mode you are using when transmitting?
B. Some modes have high duty cycles which could exceed the transmitter’s average power rating.
397. G8B09 (D) | Why is it good to match receiver bandwidth to the bandwidth of the operating mode?
D. It results in the best signal to noise ratio
398. G8B10 (A) | What does the number 31 represent in PSK31?
A. The approximate transmitted symbol rate
399. G8B11 (C) | How does forward error correction allow the receiver to correct errors in received data packets?
C. By transmitting redundant information with the data
400. G8B12 (B) | What is the relationship between transmitted symbol rate and bandwidth?
B. Higher symbol rates require higher bandwidth
401. G9A01 (A) | Which of the following factors determine the characteristic impedance of a parallel conductor antenna feed line?
A. The distance between the centers of the conductors and the radius of the conductors
402. G9A02 (B) | What are the typical characteristic impedances of coaxial cables used for antenna feed lines at amateur stations?
B. 50 and 75 ohms
403. G9A03 (D) | What is the characteristic impedance of flat ribbon TV type twinlead?
D. 300 ohms
404. G9A04 (C) | What is the reason for the occurrence of reflected power at the point where a feed line connects to an antenna?
C. A difference between feed-line impedance and antenna feed-point impedance
405. G9A05 (B) | How does the attenuation of coaxial cable change as the frequency of the signal it is carrying increases?
B. It increases
406. G9A06 (D) | In what values are RF feed line losses usually expressed?
D. dB per 100 ft
407. G9A07 (D) | What must be done to prevent standing waves on an antenna feed line?
D. The antenna feed-point impedance must be matched to the characteristic impedance of the feed line
408. G9A08 (B) | If the SWR on an antenna feed line is 5 to 1, and a matching network at the transmitter end of the feed line is adjusted to 1 to 1 SWR, what is the resulting SWR on the feed line?
B. 5 to 1
409. G9A09 (A) | What standing wave ratio will result from the connection of a 50-ohm feed line to a non-reactive load having a 200-ohm impedance?
A. 4:1
410. G9A10 (D) | What standing wave ratio will result from the connection of a 50-ohm feed line to a non-reactive load having a 10-ohm impedance?
D. 5:1
411. G9A11 (B) | What standing wave ratio will result from the connection of a 50-ohm feed line to a non-reactive load having a 50-ohm impedance?
B. 1:1
412. G9A12 (A) | What would be the SWR if you feed a vertical antenna that has a 25-ohm feed-point impedance with 50-ohm coaxial cable?
A. 2:1
413. G9A13 (C) | What would be the SWR if you feed an antenna that has a 300-ohm feed-point impedance with 50-ohm coaxial cable?
C. 6:1
414. G9B01 (B) | What is one disadvantage of a directly fed random-wire antenna?
B. You may experience RF burns when touching metal objects in your station
415. G9B02 (D) | What is an advantage of downward sloping radials on a quarter wave ground-plane antenna?
D. They bring the feed-point impedance closer to 50 ohms
416. G9B03 (B) | What happens to the feed-point impedance of a ground-plane antenna when its radials are changed from horizontal to downward-sloping?
B. It increases
417. G9B04 (A) | What is the low angle azimuthal radiation pattern of an ideal half-wavelength dipole antenna installed 1/2 wavelength high and parallel to the Earth?
A. It is a figure-eight at right angles to the antenna
418. G9B05 (C) | How does antenna height affect the horizontal (azimuthal) radiation pattern of a horizontal dipole HF antenna?
C. If the antenna is less than 1/2 wavelength high, the azimuthal pattern is almost omnidirectional
419. G9B06 (C) | Where should the radial wires of a ground-mounted vertical antenna system be placed?
C. On the surface or buried a few inches below the ground
420. G9B07 (B) | How does the feed-point impedance of a 1/2 wave dipole antenna change as the antenna is lowered from 1/4 wave above ground?
B. It steadily decreases
421. G9B08 (A) | How does the feed-point impedance of a 1/2 wave dipole change as the feed-point location is moved from the center toward the ends?
A. It steadily increases
422. G9B09 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of a horizontally polarized as compared to vertically polarized HF antenna?
A. Lower ground reflection losses
423. G9B10 (D) | What is the approximate length for a 1/2-wave dipole antenna cut for 14.250 MHz?
D. 32 feet
424. G9B11 (C) | What is the approximate length for a 1/2-wave dipole antenna cut for 3.550 MHz?
C. 131 feet
425. G9B12 (A) | What is the approximate length for a 1/4-wave vertical antenna cut for 28.5 MHz?
A. 8 feet
426. G9C01 (A) | Which of the following would increase the bandwidth of a Yagi antenna?
A. Larger diameter elements
427. G9C02 (B) | What is the approximate length of the driven element of a Yagi antenna?
B. 1/2 wavelength
428. G9C03 (B) | Which statement about a three-element, single-band Yagi antenna is true?
B. The director is normally the shortest parasitic element
429. G9C04 (A) | Which statement about a three-element; single-band Yagi antenna is true?
A. The reflector is normally the longest parasitic element
430. G9C05 (A) | How does increasing boom length and adding directors affect a Yagi antenna?
A. Gain increases
431. G9C06 (C) | Which of the following is a reason why a Yagi antenna is often used for radio communications on the 20 meter band?
C. It helps reduce interference from other stations to the side or behind the antenna
432. G9C07 (C) | What does “front-to-back ratio” mean in reference to a Yagi antenna?
C. The power radiated in the major radiation lobe compared to the power radiated in exactly the opposite direction
433. G9C08 (D) | What is meant by the “main lobe” of a directive antenna?
D. The direction of maximum radiated field strength from the antenna
434. G9C09 (A) | What is the approximate maximum theoretical forward gain of a three element, single-band Yagi antenna?
A. 9.7 dBi
435. G9C10 (D) | Which of the following is a Yagi antenna design variable that could be adjusted to optimize forward gain, front-to-back ratio, or SWR bandwidth?
A. The physical length of the boom
B. The number of elements on the boom
C. The spacing of each element along the boom
D. All of these choices are correct
436. G9C11 (A) | What is the purpose of a gamma match used with Yagi antennas?
A. To match the relatively low feed-point impedance to 50 ohms
437. G9C12 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of using a gamma match for impedance matching of a Yagi antenna to 50-ohm coax feed line?
A. It does not require that the elements be insulated from the boom
438. G9C13 (A) | Approximately how long is each side of a quad antenna driven element?
A. 1/4 wavelength
439. G9C14 (B) | How does the forward gain of a two-element quad antenna compare to the forward gain of a three-element Yagi antenna?
B. About the same
440. G9C15 (B) | Approximately how long is each side of a quad antenna reflector element?
B. Slightly more than 1/4 wavelength
441. G9C16 (D) | How does the gain of a two-element delta-loop beam compare to the gain of a two-element quad antenna?
D. About the same
442. G9C17 (B) | Approximately how long is each leg of a symmetrical delta-loop antenna?
B. 1/3 wavelength
443. G9C18 (A) | What happens when the feed point of a quad antenna is changed from the center of either horizontal wire to the center of either vertical wire?
A. The polarization of the radiated signal changes from horizontal to vertical
444. G9C19 (D) | What configuration of the loops of a two-element quad antenna must be used for the antenna to operate as a beam antenna, assuming one of the elements is used as a reflector?
D. The reflector element must be approximately 5% longer than the driven element
445. G9C20 (B) | How does the gain of two 3-element horizontally polarized Yagi antennas spaced vertically 1/2 wavelength apart typically compare to the gain of a single 3-element Yagi?
B. Approximately 3 dB higher
446. G9D01 (D) | What does the term “NVIS” mean as related to antennas?
D. Near Vertical Incidence Sky wave
447. G9D02 (B) | Which of the following is an advantage of an NVIS antenna?
B. High vertical angle radiation for working stations within a radius of a few hundred kilometers
448. G9D03 (D) | At what height above ground is an NVIS antenna typically installed?
D. Between 1/10 and 1/4 wavelength
449. G9D04 (A) | What is the primary purpose of antenna traps?
A. To permit multiband operation
450. G9D05 (D) | What is the advantage of vertical stacking of horizontally polarized Yagi antennas?
D. Narrows the main lobe in elevation
451. G9D06 (A) | Which of the following is an advantage of a log periodic antenna?
A. Wide bandwidth
452. G9D07 (A) | Which of the following describes a log periodic antenna?
A. Length and spacing of the elements increases logarithmically from one end of the boom to the other
453. G9D08 (B) | Why is a Beverage antenna not used for transmitting?
B. It has high losses compared to other types of antennas
454. G9D09 (B) | Which of the following is an application for a Beverage antenna?
B. Directional receiving for low HF bands
455. G9D10 (D) | Which of the following describes a Beverage antenna?
D. A very long and low directional receiving antenna
456. G9D11 (D) | Which of the following is a disadvantage of multiband antennas?
D. They have poor harmonic rejection
SHARIA4AMERICA: A call for a revolution! March 3, 2011
February27, 2011
Americans should be on alert and wary of agent provocateurs that will create extreme chaos out of this ”Islamic State” agenda. The U.S. Government is either condoning and/or facilitating this blatant conspiracy to overthrow the de facto Federal Government for a means to an end. Otherwise they would have utilized the ”Smith Act” that is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, to prosecute those people responsible in the SHARIA4AMERICA political organization for plotting to overthrow the government . This SHARIA4AMERICA revolution can easily become the ”needed crisis” as a trigger point used to escalate martial law.
Following the Shari’ah demonstration Mar.3rd, 2011, there will be the “OneMillionMuslims” march July 4th, 2011 … on OUR traditional Independence Day celebration. PREPOSTEROUS!
.
“All we need is the right major crisis,” said David Rockefeller,
“and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
*Pingback to Government Provision to Implement a Police State
~Bonfire
SHARIA4AMERICA
A call for a revolution!
DEMONSTRATION: OUTSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Feb. 22, 2011
He recently turned heads while appearing on “Hannity” in a fiery interview defending Sharia Law. Now, Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary is back to discuss his plans to hold a demonstration in favor of Sharia Law in our nation’s capitol on March 3.
After Gretchen Carlson said to Choudary, “Americans don’t want Sharia law,” the cleric responded with, “you’d be surprised.” Hear the rest of the fascinating interview.
May 16th, 2009
THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TEACHING (dangerous lying propaganda)
Communism is Dead
Capitalism is Dying
Islam is the Solution
DO NOT OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND
The White Masjid
Have you ever wondered what America would look like under Shari’ah? The ongoing campaign to bring the US and indeed the entire world under the authority of Islam has compelled sincere Muslims to draw up realistic plans for changes that are likely to occur once all obstacles in the way of implementing the Shari’ah are removed.
One of the primary targets for immediate reconstruction in the US is the White House; originally designed by Irish architect James Hoban, this building holds significant symbolic value in representing centuries of repression under man-made law.
Unlike the British burning of Washington, one of the practical proposals for the redevelopment of the White House under Islam will be to see it converted into a flourishing mosque.
Mosques or Masjids are taken to be one of the most important buildings in Islam, acting as places of (Islamic) worship, centres of learning, places where the ill are treated and even locations where crucial decisions are made regarding domestic and international government policies; mosques also act as an opportunity for non-Muslims to learn more about Islam and even embrace this superior way of life.
With the absence of the Shari’ah worldwide, mosques are unfortunately a far cry from their glorious past, and hence the conversion of the White House into one will undoubtedly help restore the iconic status that this building has in the Shari’ah.
3rd March 1924CE
The 3rd of March is overlooked by many as an insignificant day of the year. However, this particular day should not be overlooked by the Muslims without serious contemplation.#On this day, in 1924, the Khilafah (Islamic State) was abolished by Mustafa Kamal Attaturk with the help of the British and European collaborators. It was a catastrophic day when the light of Islam was dimmed and its implementation removed from our lives, leaving the Ummah bare and defenceless against the onslaught of the Kuffar. As addressed by the British Foreign Minister shortly before the Second World War:
“We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Khilafah so we must ensure that there will never rise again unity for the Muslims whether it be intellectual or actual unity.”
The Islamic State: 24 Hours after Implementation
1. How will the state deal with economic contracts entered into before the establishment of the state?
2. How will the state deal with treaties concluded by the previous government with international and regional organisations?
3. How will Islam deal with other countries?
1. How will the state deal with crimes committed before the state was established?
Imagine
Imagine living in a society where the state provided free food, clothing and shelter for its people because it believed that it was responsible for its citizens.
Welfare in the Islamic State
“He must have sufficient food to maintain his body in good health and strength. He must have proper and suitable clothing for winter and summer. He must have adequate shelter to protect him from the weather and provide him with privacy.”
The Supremacy of the Infrastructure of the Islamic State
The following extract highlights many examples from the past in order to highlight the supremacy of the Islamic infrastructure.
Do NOT Obey the Law of the Land
Allah (SWT) says, “O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Keep your duty to Allah, and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Verily! Allah is Ever All Knower.” [EMQ 33.1]
Muslims without Shariah are like Fish out of Water
“The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until every one of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah.” [Musnad Imam Ahmed]
The 3rd of March is overlooked by many as an insignificant day of the year. However, this particular day should not be overlooked by the Muslims without serious contemplation. #On this day, in 1924, the Khilafah (Islamic State) was abolished by Mustafa Kamal Attaturk with the help of the British and European collaborators. It was a catastrophic day when the light of Islam was dimmed and its implementation removed from our lives, leaving the Ummah bare and defenseless against the onslaught of the Kuffar.
What’s the resolution to this action? The answer, the site says, is simple: “The Khilafah is the means to implement Islam with all of its values, outlook, culture and legislation. This is defined by Allah (swt), the Sovereign.”
“We call upon the Ummah to begin working for the re-establishment of the Khilafah so that our lands would be transformed into Dar-ul-Islam
Islamic Thinkers Society
The Islamic Thinkers Society is a Muslim group based in New York City that seeks the goal of restoring the Islamic Caliphate to create what they call “an ideal Islamic society.”
THE CAMELS NOSE IS IN THE TENT
Water World GJ1214b
“Water-world” alien planet confirmed by Hubble
Wed, Feb 22, 2012
Post filled in: Alien life, Discoveries, Observations, Space
.
Astronomers spotted the all-water planet through the Hubble space telescope – Agencies
.
Artist impression of the “water-world” GJ1214b, orbiting around its red-dward star. The planet represents a whole new type of exoplanet, like nothing ever observed so far in known planetary systems. (c) NASA
.
The planet GJ 1214b, shown here in an artist’s conception with two hypothetical moons, orbits a ‘red dwarf’ star 40 light-years from Earth. Observations of the planet, which measures almost three times the size of Earth, suggest that it has a thick, steamy atmosphere.
CfA/David Aguilar
.
GJ1214b has much more water than Earth, and much less rock. As a result, the internal structure of GJ1214b would be very different than our world
.
NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has confirmed the existence of a completely new type of planet.
.
The hunt for the second Earth, a similar life-bearing paradise like our own, rages on, and while no candidate came any close so far, scientists have made some extraordinary discoveries in the process. The latest exciting find is a super-Earth, a planet larger than Earth, but no bigger than Neptune, that represents the first of a new class of exoplanets – a steamy waterworld. Quick, someone call Kevin Costner!
Dubbed, GJ 1214b, the exoplanet is a mere 40 light-years away. It was first discovered in 2009 by ground-based telescopes, and a preliminary report was issued in 2010 by a team of scientists lead by Zachory Berta, from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Back then, collected data suggested that GJ 1214b’s atmosphere was likely composed primarily by water, however until recently, they couldn’t make a definitive conclusion.
Even from back then, however, Berta and colleagues knew they came across something extraordinary. Fortunately, they managed to have the Hubble Space Telescope’s wide-field camera take a glimpse in the planet’s direction and study it as it crossed in front of its star. The telescope studied the planet as it was in transit, and thus determined the composition of the planet’s atmosphere based on how it filtered the starlight.
“GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of,” study lead author Zachory Berta of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., said in a statement. “A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.”
“We’re using Hubble to measure the infrared color of sunset on this world,” Berta said. “The Hubble measurements really tip the balance in favor of a steamy atmosphere.”
An alien world filled with water
The planet is about 2.7 times the Earth’s diameter, however its mass is just seven times higher, resulting in 2 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc) density. Earth’s density is 5.5 g/cc, while that of water is 1 g/cc. It seems GJ 1214b has a lot more water and a lot less rock than our blue marble – a complete new class of alien planet, one the likes have never been found before.
[RECOMMENDED] Kepler’s hunt for Earth-like planets
It might seem like we’ve found that other life-supporting paradise, however GJ 1214b orbits its red-dwarf star at a distance of 1.2 million miles (2 million kilometers), which results in an estimated surface temperature of about 446 degrees Fahrenheit (230 degrees Celsius). This boiler-planet has no chance of serving life at its surface, covered in a steamy atmosphere. However, deep underwater might be another story. Even on our planet, biologists have found evidence of life lurking right next to hot, underwater geysers.
“The high temperatures and high pressures would form exotic materials like ‘hot ice’ or ‘superfluid water,’ substances that are completely alien to our everyday experience,” Berta said.
Still, GJ 1214b sounds extremely interesting and considering it’s relative short distance from Earth, it certainly makes an exciting prospect for follow-up observations by modern, future instruments, like the James Webb Space Telescope, slated for launch in 2018.
The study will be published in a future edition of the Astrophysical Journal.
.
.
RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY by Clare M. Lopez
Islamic government cannot be reformed, regime change is the only option!
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PMDI)Dr. Arash Irandoost
Vision, Mission and Beliefs
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI)
Clare M. Lopez
Monday, January 17, 2011
(A revised version with more links and pictures)
See also
گزارش تحقیقی در مورد شبکه لابی رژیم ایران در آمریکا بخش اول
گزارش تحقیقی در مورد شبکه لابی رژیم ایران در آمریکا بخش دوم
A complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran is pressing forward in seeming synchrony to influence the new U.S. administration’s policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. Spearheaded by a de facto partnership between the pearheaded by a de facto partnership between the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line, the network includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world.
This report documenting the rise of what can accurately be described as the “Iran Lobby” in Washington, D.C. is derived entirely from unclassified open sources and describes in detail the activities, linkages, and objectives of this alarming alliance between NIAC, CAIR and others that is aimed at co-opting America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and specifically with Iran. Understanding the involvement of the Tehran regime in the foundation and continuing activities of organizations like these and their allies will become increasingly important to understanding the extent of the regime’s influence on American foreign policy decisions regarding Iran.
As these organizations expand, multiply and, in the process, intensify their efforts to promote a shared and ominous agenda, it is imperative to recognize the role being played by what amount to their interlocking (or at least overlapping) boards of directors, donations from the same foundations and growing access to some key members of Congress and top levels of US policymaking circles. Of special concern is the growing penetration of the Obama administration by a number of individuals with such associations.
To be sure, efforts at influencing U.S. decision-making are common among a host of legitimate interest groups, including many foreign countries. But in this context, where the guiding force behind such influence operations emanate from the senior-most levels of a regime like Iran’s – which holds the top spot on the State Department list of state-sponsors of terror, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the United States and its ally, Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held hostage, kidnapped, killed and tortured American civilians and military personnel over a 30-year period – such operations must be viewed with serious concern.
Specifically, the de facto alliance between CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates named by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co- conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials, and groups such as NIAC and its predecessor, the American-Iranian Council (AIC), which long have functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime, must arouse deep concern that U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests.
Background
This paper is meant to provide a Who’s Who-style catalog of the organizations and individuals associated with the Iran Lobby in America. Some of the most influential figures involved are surely witting that their actions serve to support the objectives of the mullahs in Tehran, while others may not realize that their actions inevitably result in such consequences. Either way, the group as a whole is openly portrayed in the Iranian media as the regime’s “Iranian lobby” in the United States.1
Some of these entities also share another connection – to Iranian and international business interests, especially in the oil industry. Whatever their differences, the members of the Iran lobby have one thing in common: They insist that the United States must adopt a new policy towards Iran of conciliatory negotiations without preconditions.
Known supporters of the Tehran regime such as NIAC (founded in 2002), CAIR (founded in 1994), the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII, founded in December 2005) and their associates have methodically fostered an expansive web engaged in influence operations in the United States. In recent years, they have been joined in promoting appeasement of Iran by several newer organizations, including the Center for a New American Security CNAS, founded in February 2007), the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI, founded in June 2008), and the American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP, founded in December 2008).
A number of these groups count prominent Middle East and Iran experts among their boards and advisory councils, as well as a shifting cast of pro-regime advocates who periodically swap leadership positions in these and other organizations. What is more, whether directly influenced by the pro-Iran lobby network or not, several established fixtures on the Washington and New York think tank landscape – such as the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for Science and International Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center – have also weighed in urging the United States to eschew any consideration of a military option to deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in favor of diplomatic measures in preparation for living with a nuclear Iran.
It has taken at least a decade of maneuvering behind the scenes of Washington policymaking to create this “Iranian Lobby” for the purpose of edging U.S. foreign policy on Iran closer to the preferred positions of the clerical regime in Tehran. Participating organizations have benefited from the support of powerful business interests associated with and/or seeking the favor of the mullahs that have a deep stake in perpetuating the status quo. Some may even view expansion of Iranian dominance in the Persian Gulf as to their benefit. Available evidence, moreover, suggests that the Iran Lobby in America is coordinated in Iran at various government levels and within establishment circles both governmental and industrial. An official agency of the Iranian regime called The Supreme Council for Iranians Living Abroad was formed at the highest levels of the Iranian regime at some point in the early part of the decade with the specific objective of “establishing specialized groups and non-governmental bodies among Iranians living abroad.”2 This should come as no surprise since the Iranian government’s has sought to influence U.S. policy from the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
A glimpse of Tehran’s more recent role in the establishment and activities of its lobby in America can be found in frank discussions about the National Iranian-American Council in regime-controlled media such as the Fars News daily. For example, in a March 2007 piece, Fars News describes NIAC as a “non-profit” organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a legal lobby group, and to silence those opposing the regime and enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the United States in order to “penetrate U.S. politics.”3 Interestingly, the same Fars News article drew a comparison between what it termed “harassment” against NIAC by so-called American “neocons” and an “increase in negative publicity” against CAIR, implying at the least the two share a common agenda.4
n fact, while details about the full extent of CAIR’s partnership with advocates for the Iranian regime in the United States are difficult to pin down, it is easy to document CAIR’s public support for the Islamic Republic, which closely parallels and sometimes overlaps that of NIAC and other affiliates in the Iran Lobby network. CAIR as an organization, as well as individual CAIR representatives, long have taken a public stance that minimizes the criminality of Tehran’s human rights abuses, its non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threats of genocide against the state of Israel and support for terrorism throughout the Middle East. CAIR’s public positions also have advocated a policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives and negotiations with the Tehran regime, while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions or the threat of military action.
Sometimes, CAIR (or other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates) and other members of the Iran Lobby make joint public appearances or statements, as when former Iranian president Khatami visited the U.S. in 2006. Another example also dates from 2006, when an interfaith group of religious figures joined in drafting and signing a statement entitled, “Words, Not War, With Iran.” Among the signatories was Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism funding trials.5 The statement’s core message urged “that the U.S. engage in direct negotiations with Iran as an alternative to military action in resolving the crisis.”6
Robert Gard
Interestingly, as will be described later in this report, a similar statement under the same title was issued by a group of former military leaders and foreign policy officials in August 2006. Among those signatories are two names that are prominent among the Iran Lobby network of influential Washington-based organizations. They are Ambassador Charles ”Chas” W. Freeman, member of the AIC’s Board of Directors, and retired Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, one of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran’s experts.
Nihad Awad
Representative Keith Ellison
The case of Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) is a prime example of how the Iran Lobby achieves and exerts influence in Washington through groups like NIAC and CAIR and at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking. The first Muslim representative elected to Congress, Rep. Ellison makes appearances at both NIAC and CAIR events and expresses support for an agenda that opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and pressure of any kind against the Tehran regime.
Parvez Ahmad
During the 2006 congressional campaign, CAIR threw at least one fundraiser for Ellison, held at a Crowne Plaza hotel outside Minneapolis.7 Ellison accepted thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, and Parvez Ahmed, then CAIR chairman.8 In a short piece defending their campaign donations to Ellison, the two wrote, “We are proud of our personal donations to Ellison’s campaign” and criticized what they called “Muslim-bashing” during the campaign season. 9
Shortly after his election in November 2006, Ellison appeared at a CAIR fundraising event in Arlington, Virginia where he was a featured speaker.10 In December 2008, Congressman Ellison made the hajj, the pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca; according to his hometown Minneapolis daily, the Star Tribune, “his expenses were paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota.”11 The MAS was founded in 1992 by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and is identified as its representative in the U.S.12
Rep. Ellison moves easily between his NIAC associations and CAIR connections. One theme that bridges the two for Ellison is his consistent support for “peaceful resolutions” to conflicts in the Middle East. This takes the form of vocal opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom and any coercive measures, whether sanctions or military action, to bring Iran into compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions or its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In February 2008, Ellison spoke at a NIAC-hosted event in Palos Verdes, California that was chaired by , a member of NIAC’s board of directors. “The [Dec 2007 Iran] NIE estimate shows that engaging in dialogue can work,” Ellison reportedly said.13 The press release advertising the event was posted on both the NIAC website14 and the Payvand Iran News website.15
Then, on May 28, 2008, Rep. Ellison hosted a group of Iran “scholars” for a Minneapolis community forum dedicated to the U.S.-Iran relationship. One of his invited co-panelists was NIAC president Trita Parsi. Commenting on his purpose in holding the forum, Ellison said: “Nary a day goes by that someone isn’t saying something about Iran in the media. Part of my responsibility as a U.S. congressman is to be [sic] a forum to discuss the critical issues we face and to promote dialogue about the most pressing issues.”16
In fact, Ellison said the forum was in preparation for a national call-in day on June 10, 2008 when Americans were asked to phone their representatives and senators, urging that the U.S. not attack Iran. That event was cosponsored by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran, an Iran Lobby organization founded in February 2008 together with official Partner organization, NIAC.
Ellison’s support for the non-confrontational U.S. policy towards Iran favored by the Tehran regime was spelled out in a June 2008 article carried by the website of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran – a NIAC affiliate described in greater detail below. The article is entitled, “Congressman slams U.S.’s Iran policies,” and notes that Ellison “pointed out that he always votes ‘nay’ to sanctions against Iran in the U.S. Congress. He maintains that the sanctions are fruitless and only worsen the situation.” 17 Ellison’s ideological position spanning his support for the Iranian regime and as a unalloyed apologist for Islam in general is captured in his final comment, expressing criticism “of the U.S. and Western mass media, which generally offer a pre-judgmental image of Iran and a negative view of Islam.”18
The American‐Iranian Council
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi
The American-Iranian Council (AIC) was established in the United States in the 1990s with backing from multinational oil companies such as Aramco, Chevron Texaco, and Conoco Phillips. Leadership figures of these corporations have served on the AIC’s board of directors. The AIC’s founder and president, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, is an Iranian regime insider and close associate of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Amirahmadi also ran as a presidential candidate in the same June 2005 elections that ultimately brought Ahmadinejad to power.
While the AIC’s website states that its mission “…Provides for a sustainable dialogue and a more comprehensive understanding of US-Iran relations” and claims that, according to its vision, “The United States and Iran should and will work together, as their common interests far outweigh their differences,” its apparent unofficial objective was to create a U.S. lobbying web to further the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.19
The following are among the prominent figures associated with this arm of the Iran lobby:
‘Chas’ Freeman
Ambassador Charles (“Chas”) W. Freeman Jr., president of the Middle East Policy Council, was a member of the AIC board of directors. Freeman is reportedly the Obama administration’s pick to be the next chairman of the hugely sensitive National Intelligence Council, a position from which he would be able to exercise profound influence on U.S. policies towards Iran.20 Freeman served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He maintains close ties to members of the Saudi royal family and is a member of the Saudi-American Forum and a frequent contributor to the Saudi-U.S. Relations Information Service. In August 2006, Amb. Freeman was one of nearly two dozen diplomatic and military notables who signed the “Words, Not War, with Iran” statement. Its short petition directed itself to the Bush administration and called for direct talks without preconditions with the terror regime in Tehran:
As former military leaders and foreign policy officials, we call on the Bush administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and settle differences over the Iranian nuclear program.
We strongly caution against any consideration of the use of military force against Iran. The current crises must be resolved through diplomacy, not military action. An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq, and it would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims elsewhere.
A strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran will serve the interests of the U.S. and its allies, and would
enhance regional and international security.21
Richard Matzke
A former vice chairman of the Chevron Texaco Corporation, Richard Matzke, served as a co-chairman of the AIC. Matzke, who retired from Chevron Texaco in 2002 after some 40 years with the oil company, called in 2001 for a complete review of U.S. sanctions against energy investment in Iran saying, “It’s clearly time to reevaluate all sanctions but it’s a little early to tell what the Bush administration will do….They have serious issues to contend with. Iran’s not the highest thing on the priority list. But it will get there.” (Emphasis added.)22
Mehdi Karroubi.
At that time, Matzke added that he thought the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was the “driver” behind existing sanctions on business with Iran, and noted that oil companies such as Chevron could play an influential role. “We’ve got to look beyond oil companies, but oil companies can be used as a framework for national dialogue,” he said.23 Matzke also was present, together with Exxon Mobil and Conoco representatives, at a September 2000 meeting in New York City with the speaker of the Iranian Majles (parliament), Mehdi Karroubi. According to the accompanying announcement made by AIC President Hooshang Amirahmadi, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways of working against U.S. trade sanctions on Iran.24
J.M. “Michael” Stinson
Another AIC board member, J. Michael Stinson, is also retired from the Conoco Phillips Company, where he was senior vice president for government affairs. He, too, looked forward to the possibility that companies like Conoco might one day gain access to Iranian oil fields. Speaking in November 2001 about the relationship between Iran and the U.S., he said: “’We’ve been encouraged in the last couple of months….We see evidence of things going on, like very quiet government-to-government talks about the issues that are separating us. If they succeed, we have a bright future.”25
William G. “Bill” Miller
One of the other prominent fixtures in the Iran Lobby is Ambassador William G. Miller. He too was a member of the AIC’s board of directors and advisory council. Miller is currently Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington and Senior Advisor to the US-Iran Program at Search for Common Ground since 1998.
Miller served as political officer for the U.S. Embassy in Tehran from 1962 to 1964 and at the U.S. Consulate in Isfahan, Iran from 1959 to 1962. His affinity for the mullahs was evident when he subsequently served as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1979. During that era, Miller actually recommended that the U.S. support the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom he thought would be a “progressive force for human rights.”26
A fluent Farsi speaker, Miller travels regularly to Tehran, where he maintains a relationship with the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Miller was an attendee at the April 2006 Pugwash Conference held in Tehran and entitled “Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program: Policies and Prospects.”27 Miller is also a close associate of NIAC President Trita Parsi.
In the decades since the Khomeini Revolution, Miller has been a consistent advocate for a more convivial relationship between the U.S. and Iran. In a 1999 statement broadcast by the Voice of America, Miller said that “the more Americans and Iranians interact the better.” Incredibly, he added his belief that “Iran is not fundamentalist. Iran is a very complicated society which has a varied approach to many of the aspects of life. Its religion is led by people of great learning and distinction. It has men of great openness and character among the religious leadership with whom you can have a very direct and constructive dialogue.”28 On this and other issues involving the U.S.-Iran relationship, Miller’s position regularly and reliably reflects that of the Iranian clerical regime.
Thomas Pickering
One of the most prominent names among AIC’s board of directors that reappears repeatedly in legitimating positions elsewhere in the Iran Lobby network, is that of Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering. A career diplomat, Pickering served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from May 1997 through the end of 2000. He subsequently was a senior vice president with the Boeing Company until 2006. Currently he is vice chairman of the international business consulting firm, Hills & Co. and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (whose executive committee includes, interestingly, George Soros).
Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. He also cites positive experiences as a tourist in Iran, where he recalls that ordinary Iranians on the streets expressed friendliness towards him.29
John Esposito
Another AIC board member was John Esposito, the director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Esposito is perhaps best known as an apologist for radical Islamism; his Center is the recipient of a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
According to Prof. Esposito, it was actually the 1979 Iranian Revolution that catapulted his academic career into national prominence, as his books and articles about the Iranian clergy suddenly took on new relevance. “I owe my Lexus and my career to the Ayatollah Khomeini,” he tells his students at Georgetown.30
Illustrative of Esposito’s thinking about Iran is the following comment from his introduction to Modernizing Islam: Religion in the Public Sphere in Europe and the Middle East, the book he co-edited with Francois Burgat: “…Iran, long regarded as a terrorist threat, has in fact provided a major example of the mobilizing power of an appeal to democratization and civil society.”31 Esposito’s rose-colored formulations about Iran’s terrorist regime continue with commentary about the presidency of Mohammed Khatami: “Khatami’s support for civil society, the rule of law, and democratization, though not imposed, has become part of the political culture and debate within Iran.”32
Esposito manages to garner plaudits from both sides of the Sunni-Shia split, as demonstrated by his August 2005 award from the Saudi-associated Islamic Society of North America. ISNA honored Esposito for his contributions to the understanding of Islam. Sayyid Syeed, ISNA’s secretary general even went so far as to compare Esposito to Abu Taleb, the uncle of the Prophet Mohammad, who never converted to Islam, but defended the new faith nevertheless.33
Bruce Laingen
Ambassador Lowell Bruce Laingen, a former Tehran Embassy hostage and another AIC board member, is president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. He appeared on a December 2007 panel with NIAC founder and president Trita Parsi at the National Cathedral in Washington called “The Dialogue Conference.” The event was sponsored by Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane (and is described in greater detail later in this paper).
Surprisingly for the American Charge d’Affaires at the Tehran Embassy in 1979 who, together with his staff, saw his country’s embassy overrun and was then held hostage for 444 days, Laingen consistently displays a lack of outrage over that assault on American sovereignty. In an extensive interview he gave in 1993, for instance, Laingen expressed regret that the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Iran had not yet returned to normal:
…The hostage crisis, if you will, is still with us, now 14 years after the taking of the Embassy. Still with us in the sense that we don’t have now after all those years a relationship with Iran. In many ways that is unnatural….It will be very difficult for Washington, even when the time comes to try to reestablish a relationship, to deal with this public distaste out there among the American public. It is a burden on the future and is going to require some very deft handling on the part of Washington to overcome. Both we and Iran, both governments today, will be bringing a lot of emotional, political baggage to the negotiating table when we sit down eventually and try to talk. I think this is overdue. We should be talking to put this business behind us.34
One of the American-Iranian Council’s most intensive, but ultimately unsuccessful, campaigns was an effort to prevent the renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 2001 and to achieve the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Perhaps Amirahmadi’s most noteworthy achievement as part of this campaign was his recruitment of then-U.S. Congressman Robert William (Bob) Ney (R-OH). On behalf of AIC and its Iranian masters, Ney led congressional efforts to defeat ILSA and encourage a more Tehran-friendly U.S. foreign policy.35
Ney was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a federal prison term for conspiracy and making false statements in relation to the Jack Abramoff lobbying and bribery scandal of 2006. Ney reportedly accepted bribes from Abramoff and two foreign businessmen in return for using his congressional position to assist their illegal circumvention of U.S. sanctions on selling U.S.-made aircraft parts to Tehran.
Amirahmadi served more recently as professor of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. In late 2008, however, he left Rutgers and now teaches in the Department of Sociology at Kings College, Cambridge.
Even before Amirahmadi’s departure from the United States left the future of the AIC in doubt, Tehran decided that a more intensive effort was required to promote the Iranian regime’s agenda in U.S. policymaking circles. In part, Tehran viewed AIC shortcomings as due to a failure to attract the Iranian expatriate community to its program. The 2000 formation of the Supreme Council for Iranians Living Abroad (a.k.a. the Secretariat of Supreme Council for Iranian Expatriates) established the official authority that henceforth would direct the Iranian regime’s program to infiltrate Iranian communities abroad, create entities to pose as their ostensible representatives and work to promote policies favorable to the regime. The Iranian president heads the Council and the Ministers of Culture and Islamic Guidance, and Intelligence are Council members who collaborate to implement Council initiatives.37
The National Iranian-American Council
Trita Parsi-NIAC Lobby
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) began its existence as a concept proposed in a 1999 paper written by Trita Parsi, then a young Iranian-Swede living in Stockholm, and Siamak Namazi, a young businessman who lived in Tehran. The title of the paper was “Iranian-Americans: The Bridge Between Two Nations.” It was presented at a conference organized by the Iranian regime in Cyprus. (The paper is listed on Trita Parsi’s personal website at http://www.tritaparsi.com/publications.htm but is blocked to readers.)
The Parsi-Namazi paper explicitly proposed the formation of an Iranian lobby in the U.S. capital to promote Tehran’s interests in Congress and oppose the powerful Israeli lobby, the American Israeli Political Action Committee. Two years later, in 2001, Parsi came to the United States to pursue his graduate studies but also went to work as a managing director for Hooshang Amirahmadi at AIC.
As it happens, Parsi took a second position as an assistant in the Capitol Hill office of Rep. Bob Ney Even though Parsi and his friends were unable to prevent the renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 2001, Tehran seems to have had faith in the Iranian-Swede’s abilities. The mullahs chose in 2003 to transmit what was purported to be a proposal originated by the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations between Iran and the United States through Parsi and his boss Rep. Ney. The latter delivered it to the White House.38
While nothing came of the initiative at the time, Parsi’s usefulness had been established. And so the National Iranian-American Council was created. Parsi and three other individuals named on the NIAC website formed the organization as a tax-exempt 501(c)3 entity in 2002, claiming its “express mission [is] to promote Iranian-American civic participation.” Importantly, such a tax status is not supposed to be used by lobbying organizations.
David DiStefano
Yet, among NIAC’s founders were Roy Coffee and Dave DiStefano, both Washington lobbyists who were later investigated by the Justice Department for activities conducted on behalf of Bob Ney. DiStefano was Ney’s Chief of Staff in the mid-late 1990s. In fact, Rep. Ney, Amirahmadi’s long-time man on the Hill, was instrumental in helping their mutual protégé, Trita Parsi, launch NIAC and establish it as an influential player in Washington. The regime in Tehran was thrilled. In an August 5, 2008 interview with Parsi, Iran’s Aftab News openly described him and his organization as the successors to the AIC and its founder/president, Hooshang Amirahmadi.39
Simak Namazi
Another key NIAC co-founder and friend of Parsi is Siamak Namazi, the Tehran-based political analyst who graduated from Tufts University (B.A., International Relations) and Rutgers University (M.S. Planning). Namazi began his professional work at Tehran’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning from 1994-98. In 1998, he founded the Future Alliance International, a Washington-based consulting company with a focus on the risks of doing business with Iran. This was a rather peculiar choice of venue for such a venture given that Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995 had banned all U.S. trade with and investment in Iran.
Namazi’s career really took off after he co-authored the 1999 Cyprus conference paper with Trita Parsi. Doors in Washington opened and Namazi served in a succession of think tank appointments, including as a visiting scholar at the Center for Strategic and Intelligence Studies (CSIS), a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center (2005) and a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), where he studied the role of the private sector in promoting good governance.
Namazi’s affiliation with Trita Parsi and NIAC, however, is curiously absent from the NIAC website. The relationship is only fleetingly apparent online from a single photograph of Trita Parsi that is included in a photo gallery depicting Namazi’s August 2000 trip to Yazd, Iran.40
The relationship between the two men is important because Namazi is also a partner in and the managing director of Atieh Bahar Consulting – one component of the sprawling Atieh family business in Tehran. Indeed, Atieh is a major Iranian conglomerate, well-connected to the clerical regime, that does business in a range of key industries, including banking, finance, and energy.41 The depth of regime trust in Atieh is demonstrated by its multiple contracts to provide network and computer services for Iranian banks, the Majles (parliament), and other important national institutions.42
Also noteworthy is the fact that Muhammad Baquer Namazi, Siamak’s father and a former United Nations (UN) and UNICEF representative, is currently the Director of Hamyaran, a so-called NGO Resource Center formed in March 2001. Ostensibly, Hamyaran’s mission is to serve as an Iranian NGO umbrella group. In practice, it functions as the regime’s watchdog to monitor and control other NGOs.43
Against this backdrop, the financial support provided to NIAC by the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) warrants close scrutiny. NED is a private non-profit organization created in 1983 “to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.” It receives an annual congressional appropriation for this purpose.
NED has provided thousands of dollars in grants to NIAC, ostensibly “to foster cooperation between Iranian NGOs and the international civil society community and to strengthen the institutional capacity of NGOs in Iran.” With that money, NIAC has conducted weeks of training programs on project design and grant writing for Iranian “civil society leaders” inside Iran.44 Iranian NGOs, though, are required to belong to the Hamyaran government umbrella organization – the one headed up by Muhammad Baquer Namazi, the father of Trita Parsi’s friend and partner, Siamak Namazi.
So, when U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to NED are granted to NIAC, the ultimate beneficiary is actually an organization closely affiliated with the Iranian regime. And NIAC, which channels these funds to Iran, is itself called an Iranian lobbying organization by that regime, whose purpose is to promote the positions of Tehran to Washington, policymaking circles.45 Under the leadership of Trita Parsi, and amply funded by a host of generally left-wing foundations, NIAC conducts an active agenda of interviews, lobbying, and outreach that has succeeded in developing a complex network of influence throughout the Washington academic, legislative, media, NGO, and policymaking communities. Thanks as well to an echo chamber it enjoys from a retinue of prominent American Middle East experts, an authority on Iranian matters has been conferred on NIAC that is unmatched by any opposing organization in the United States.
For example, recent screeds include nasty criticism of Israel’s military tactics during its latest incursion into Gaza that the journal likens to Nazi-style tactics and allege that American politicians fail to criticize Israel out of fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic.”46 The visceral antipathy and extreme bias against Israel on display in this journal would be deeply disturbing from any editor; when that editor may be the next chairman of the National Intelligence Council, there are grounds for serious concern.
The Middle East Policy Council’s National Advisory Committee compounds such misgivings. The Committee includes Georgetown University’s Dr. John. Esposito; his colleague at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Dr. Yvonne Haddad; and Gary G. Sick, Senior Research Scholar and adjunct professor at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Barbara Slavin
Esposito and Haddad both attend events sponsored by NIAC’s ally, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and Esposito has in the past called CAIR (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials) “a phenomenal organization.”47 A January 2008 meeting organized by the Middle East Policy Council and entitled “Iran’s Strategic Concerns and U.S. Interests” was held in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill. The panel featured presentations by Professor Sick, Council on Foreign Relations Iranian scholar Ray Takeyh, Barbara Slavin (then a U.S. Institute of Peace fellow and USA Today reporter),48 MEPC’s Chas Freeman and Trita Parsi – every one an advocate for a U.S. government policy of more concessions, dialogue and accommodation with the Iranian regime.
To focus on just one of the experts on this panel, the positions and connections of Prof. Gary Sick illustrates the broad reach of the AIC-NIAC network. A former member of the AIC Board of Directors and currently at Columbia University, Sick served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis. He is a member of the Board of Human Rights Watch (HRW) in New York City and chairman of the advisory committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East.
Mohammad Jafar Mahallati
Prof. Sick was also the executive director of Gulf/2000, an international research project on political, economic, and security developments in the Persian Gulf conducted at Columbia University from 1994-95that was partly financed by oil interests.50 The Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation and Exxon/Mobil Foundation were among the major funders.51 Sick’s appearances at other conferences together with Iranian regime insiders such as Tehran’s former Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, are representative of his cordial connections to the Iranian regime
Through influential positions and relationships such as these, Prof. Sick has developed over the decades an extensive network of contacts with access to both Iranian and U.S. policymaking circles at the highest levels. To his American audiences, he routinely promotes the interests of Iran’s clerical rulers, finding ways to excuse their terrorism, advocate more understanding on the part of the U.S. government and encourage accommodation with Tehran.
Gary Sick and Trita Parsi
For example, Sick excuses Iranian support for Hamas terrorist activities: “Iran’s support for terrorist activities carried out by Hamas is a matter of dispute. Iran claims that its support for Hamas is no different than the Saudi’s support. They give money for clinics and medical needs, but that money is used for terrorism. Iran has a different view on this. So it’s a matter of dispute.”52 About the 1992 and 1994 Iranian-directed terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the professor suggests that rogue elements of the Iranian secret service were responsible, with “little interference by the central authorities and no apparent coordination with Iran’s foreign policy agenda.”53 Such statements are contradicted by specific evidence that the attacks were, in fact, coordinated out of Iran’s Embassy in Buenos Aires. Fawning comments about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid the groundwork for Sick’s key role in securing the invitation for the former to speak at Columbia University following his 2007 appearance at the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In yet another example of NIAC President Trita Parsi’s success in network-building, on April 8, 2008, he moderated a speakers panel entitled “Breaking the U.S.-Iran Stalemate:
Reassessing the Nuclear Strategy in the Wake of the Majles Elections.” Speakers included Dr. Hans Blix, currently chairman of the UN’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission and former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Dr. David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who delivered the keynote address; Ambassador Thomas Pickering; and Barbara Slavin. Slavin is notable for her trips to Iran on visas she unabashedly admits are at least in part dependent on her willingness to follow her hosts’ agenda.54
Ambassador Pickering is a member of NIAC’s Advisory Board, a position he shares with former Rep. Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD). In December 2008, Congressman Gilchrist co-authored a letter to the newly installed speaker of the Iranian Majles, former Islamic Republican Guard Corps commander, and nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijni, to congratulate him on his election to that post and to urge dialogue between Iranian and American lawmakers.55 On February 22, 2008, Amnesty International (AI) sponsored an event in Los Angeles, under the title “Human Rights in Iran: It is striking that, AI chose Trita Parsi to be one of their panelists.
After all, at the aforementioned January 2008 meeting on Capitol Hill, Parsi publicly denied that NIAC had a human rights role. In response to a question about why NIAC never takes any meaningful stand against human rights violations in Iran, Parsi responded: “NIAC is not a human rights organization. That is not our expertise.”56 Instead, he defends continuity for the mullahs’ regime and rejects any struggle for democracy in Iran, claiming that “…The current choice Iranians face is not between Islamic tyranny and democratic freedom. It is between chaos and stability.”57
The Unfolding Drama
The Iranian government and its friends are making no secret of its ambitions for the Iran Lobby. AIC’s president Hooshang Amirahmadi was in Tehran in November 2008 and spoke with the Etemad newspaper about the importance of the presidential transition period then taking place in the United States. He warned that a contest among Arab, Iranian, and Jewish lobbies was unfolding in the U.S. capital, each trying to capture the “hearts and minds” of the new administration. He likened the scene to a “bazaar” and urged the friends of Iran to act quickly and
decisively.58
Hassan Qazwini
Indeed, Israel is central to Iranian concerns and, given that Obama is on record describing Israel as “This constant wound…this constant sore [that] does infect all of our foreign policy,”59 the Tehran regime might expect an easy time with the new American president. In fact, the day after he made this statement, the Iranians scored a major coup when Sen. Obama stopped at Macomb Community College in Warren, MI. There, on May 14, 2008, he met one-on-one behind closed doors with Imam Hassan Qazwini, the smooth-talking head of the Dearborn, Michigan Islamic Center of America. Qazwini, an Iraqi Shi’ite who grew up in exile in Iran during the Saddam Hussein years, requested the meeting, which reportedly was arranged by a former U.S. congressman from Michigan with a long record of sympathy for Arab, Iranian and Muslim causes: David Bonior. 60 Qazwini is close to Lebanese Shi’ite Ayatollah Fadlallah, known for his relationship with the Hizballah terrorist group.
At present, a major objective of the Iran lobby is to weaken U.S. support for Israel. The lobby advocates permitting the Iranian nuclear weapons program to push forward with no serious consequences, while urging an “evenhanded” policy that would ban all nuclear weapons from the Middle East region. An impressive array of prominent think tanks and Middle East experts has been lining up to echo this party line.
For example, the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center produced a new report in December 2008 entitled “Restoring the Balance—a Middle East Strategy for the Next President.” An overview chapter by Richard N. Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (and reportedly an Obama special envoy-in-waiting) and Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center, was followed by individual chapters devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict, counterterrorism, Iran, Iraq, and more.
Ray Takeyeh
The Iran chapter was written by Council on Foreign Relations husband-wife team of Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney and urges direct engagement and rapprochement with the Iranian government. Maloney, who previously had the Iran portfolio at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, and Takeyh are among the army of scholars and experts whose gloss of authority helps legitimate the Iranian party line in U.S. policy making circles.
Dr. Takeyh, who is featured in a number of articles carried on the NIAC website, consistently downplays the seriousness of Iran’s outlaw behavior and instead characterizes the perpetrator as victim, asserting that “the leadership in Tehran has been thoroughly demonized.” He adds that in any case, Iran’s “rhetoric is worse than its conduct” 61 and emphasizes the need for U.S.-Iran negotiations as well as Israeli “restraint” in the face of Iran’s genocidal threats.
A December 29, 2008 opinion piece by Takeyh was featured in the Washington Post. In it, he writes hopefully of the prospect of “direct dialogue” with Iran. His plaintive query, “What does Iran want?” (which, in a moment of candor, he terms “a critical unknown”) is beyond disingenuous. With not a word of condemnation for Iran’s intransigence on its nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism or continuing role in destabilizing Iraq and killing U.S. troops there, Takeyh presents a pleasantly soothing agenda for potential bilateral talks.
Blithely suggesting that “As Tehran gains power and influence in the Gulf, it may prove moderate on more distant terrain,” Dr. Takeyh also dispenses summarily with Tehran’s genocidal threats against the state of Israel. He contends, without any evident basis in fact that “The Islamic Republic will never recognize Israel, but it may limit its mischievous interventions in Palestinian affairs.”62 (This article is also featured on the home page of the Payvand
Iran News, a news site that is never critical of the Tehran regime.)
Takeyh’s purpose, like that of his similarly-minded media and think tank associates, appears to be to lull the American public and its leadership into a false sense of security with regard to Iran by portraying its behavior as pragmatic, non-threatening and even on the road to internal reform — if only given the chance to do so by the United States. The cumulative effect of such efforts is insidiously to edge U.S. foreign policy on Iran closer and closer to the one most preferred by Tehran’s clerical clique: acceptance of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and an end to all pressure for the regime to comply with international norms of behavior. Such a policy would be greatly detrimental to U.S. national security interests and those of its partner and ally, Israel.
Council for American‐Islamic Relations
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was, like NIAC established as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization, founded in Washington, DC in 1994 with a stated mission “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”63
In truth, CAIR has had a very different agenda. It has been linked in the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents to the latter’s North American network and has been named in two federal terrorist trials as an unindicted co-conspirator for participation in the illicit channeling of funding to Hamas.64 Based on its activities, associations, and statements, CAIR’s unspoken objectives seem to be directed to blurring the aggressive and violent history of Islam and attacking all official U.S. government efforts to crack down on Islamist terrorism and its associated financial and recruitment activities in the United States, as well as using America’s own legal system to silence critics.
CODE PINK
ess well appreciated is CAIR’s de facto alliance with the movement to steer U.S. foreign policy towards rapprochement with the Iranian mullahs’ regime in Tehran. It is clear that senior CAIR representatives were speaking and writing actively on behalf of the mullahs’ regime as early as the late 1990s. 65 In fact, CAIR as an organization also has consistently supported Tehran regime positions, as in the following instances:
In December 1997, CAIR condemned the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance for a display that featured Adolf Hitler juxtaposed with the Ayatollah Khomeini. In March 1999, CAIR attacked an article by Elaine Sciolino that appeared in the New York Times the previous month because the piece had criticized Iranian discrimination against women.66
Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah (Caroline Keeble)
Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah (nee Caroline Keeble) was a member of CAIR’s board of directors in 1999 when she co-hosted a panel sponsored by the United Association for Studies and Research (a no-shuttered Hamas front group and another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials) entitled “U.S. and Iran: Time to Talk.” The Iranian ambassador to the UN, Sayyid Hadi Najad had been invited to appear, but was barred from the event by the Department of State.
In addition, CAIR promotes the normalization of U.S. relations with Iran. Its March 17, 2000 press release applauding Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s statements of abject apology to the Tehran regime is a representative example of its views in this regard. 67
As noted above, CAIR’s aggressive legal harassment of analysts, bloggers, speakers, writers and others who seek to expose the spread of the Islamic Jihad agenda in the United States is well-documented and constitutes a prime sample of the phenomenon dubbed “lawfare,” whereby litigation, treaties and international as well as domestic courts are turned into weapons used against America and its interests.
CAIR has also turned its attention to journalists and even cartoonists who have had the temerity to criticize Iranian support for terrorism across the Middle East. A case in point is the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez, whose September 2007 depiction in the Columbus Dispatch of cockroaches scurrying out of a sewer grate labeled “Iran” and “Extremism” and across a map of the Middle East, prompted CAIR to post an Action Request upon its website, urging the organization’s members and friends to register their criticisms of the artist.68
Khatami and Awad of CAIR
CAIR’s consistent advocacy on behalf of Tehran kicked into high gear with the Department of State’s decision in 2006 to issue a visa to former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami so he could attend the Alliance of Civilizations meeting at the UN. The decision by then-Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to allow Khatami to participate in the sixth annual commemoration of the 9/11 attacks seems downright obscene in light of the fact that this consummate regime insider was president during the years when Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons program, that he presided over the so-called “chain murders” of Iran’s most prominent scholars and academics in 1998, of Iran’s most prominent scholars and academics in 1998, that he crushed the student uprising of 1999, and that he represents a regime that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers, as well as safe haven to al-Qaeda killers fleeing Tora Bora.
IRI Bribing Public Officials
That was not, of course, the way CAIR saw it. National CAIR leaders, including Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s director of Strategic Communications, executive director Nihad Awad, and national vice chairman of the board of directors Ahmad Al-Akhras were all on hand to welcome Khatami to a private dinner and reception at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia on September 8, 2006. Sharing the dais with Khatami were AIC President Hooshang Amirahmadi and the Sudanese Ambassador to the United States.
Supreme leader and John Bryson Chane
Kahatmi & John Bryson Chane
The Episcopal Bishop of Washington’s National Cathedral, John Bryson Chane, also had hosted the terror regime’s former president earlier that same day. Khatami used his “Dialogue of Civilizations” speech before a packed crowd in the Cathedral of 1,200 to defend Iran’s nuclear program as “peaceful” and suggested the world should focus instead on Israel’s nuclear arsenal.69 After Bishop Chane accepted a reciprocal invitation to visit Iran in 2007, he returned to convene a panel discussion on “The U.S. and Iran: A Difficult History” at the Cathedral on October 29, 2007. Featured panelists were a number of the Iran Lobby’s “usual suspects” including: former Tehran hostage Ambassador Bruce Laingen, NIAC’s Trita Parsi and the panel moderator, NIAC advisory board member and former U.S. Congressman Wayne Gilchrist.70 Other participants were former New York Times reporter and author Stephen Kinzer and Dr. Abbas Amanat, a Yale University Professor of History and International and Area Studies.
The following interconnected organizations and their leaderships will illustrate even more clearly the varied and complex relationships nurtured both subtly and overtly by NIAC, CAIR and others on behalf of the Tehran regime.
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
Abbas Edalat CASMII
The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) was founded by Abbas Edalat, an adjunct professor at Sharif University in Tehran, and a group of “Iranian and non-Iranian academics, students and professionals of different political and ideological persuasions” at a meeting in London in December 2005.71 The U.S. branch was established in early 2006 under the leadership of Rostam Pourzal, whose profile notes that he advocates direct and sustained dialogue without pre-conditions between Iran and the United States. Pourzal visits Iran regularly.72
CASMII describes itself as a campaign organization whose purpose is to oppose all forms of international pressure on Iran and identifies lobbying and public advocacy as its chosen means to disseminate its views. It is difficult to find information about the CASMII official leadership structure on its website, but what is there shows a pre-dominance of Persian names.73 There is also some overlap between CASMII and NIAC. For instance, Alexander Patico, a founder of NIAC, a member of its board of directors until 2008 and currently a member of its advisory board, serves on CASMII’s board of directors. Daniel Pourkesali is listed as a member of the CASMII International Steering Committee and is also an active member of NIAC.
Trita Parsi and Karim Sadjadpour
A perusal of articles posted on the website is more illuminating, however. Found there are pieces by Trita Parsi and articles featuring interviews with regime apologists such as the Iranian-born Carnegie Endowment analyst, Karim Sadjadpour. Typical of Sajadpour’s pro-Tehran regime advocacy is an October 2008 Carnegie Policy Brief that he authored, entitled “Foreign Policy for the Next President.” In it, Sadjadpour opines that the “relevant question is not whether to talk to Iran but how to talk to Iran” His advice is simply to ignore those pesky areas of conflict in the U.S.-Iran relationship, such as Iran’s nuclear weapons program and Israel.74 NIAC returns the favor by carrying on its website a number of pieces that feature Sadjadpour calling for more engagement with Iran.
Center for a New American Security
Another relatively new organization on the Washington think tank scene that has weighed in with policy recommendations on Iran for the Obama administration is the Center for a New American Security, established in February 2007. Prior to her appointment as the Obama administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice was among CNAS’s impressive board of directors. Dr. Rice also formerly served as a Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, whose sympathies for rapprochement with Tehran have been addressed previously.
Among the policy experts tapped to contribute to the CNAS Iran report are names notable as much for their Linkages to other individuals and groups affiliated with the Washington Iran Lobby as for their policy recommendations seeking dialogue with Tehran.
Vali Nasr
In September 2008, CNAS produced a report intended specifically for the next U.S. administration, although the Obama victory was still some six weeks in the future at its publication. Entitled “Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options,” the report boasts a clutch of Iran and U.S. foreign affairs experts among its authors: James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, Kurt M. Campbell, Dennis Ross, Suzanne Maloney, Ashton B. Carter, Vali Nasr, and Richard N. Haas.
Of these, one deserves a closer focus here: Dr. Vali Nasr (a.k.a. Dr. Sayeed Vali Reza Nasr), s a former professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He served as professor at the Fletcher School, Tufts University prior to his recent designation as a senior advisor to President Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. Born in Iran but raised in Scotland and the United States after his family’s departure from Iran in 1979, Nasr is the son of Iranian-American scholar Professor Sayeed Hossein Nasr, with whom he has authored several texts on Shia doctrine and philosophy. His 2006 book, The Shia Revival, is a study of the intra-Islamic split between Sunnis and Shiites. Glowing book reviews from Georgetown’s John Esposito and Karen Armstrong can be found on the dust jacket.
Nasr’s chapter in the CNAS report is entitled, “The Implications of Military Confrontation with Iran,” and catalogs in some detail the likely response of the Iranian regime to a military attack by the United States. Nasr emphasizes that Iran possesses substantial, if largely asymmetrical, means of causing damage to U.S. interests in retaliation for any such attack.75 This conclusion leaves the impression that a strike on Iran – either to target its nuclear weapons infrastructure or to attempt regime change – is extremely ill-advised. That assessment is also in keeping with the extensive record of Nasr’s other publications, congressional committee testimony and White House briefings in which he maintains that Iran is already too powerful a regional actor for the United States even to consider taking on because of its control over Iraqi Shiite terror militias and its Lebanese Hizballah proxy. According to Nasr, the best course for future U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran is one of accommodation with the mullahs’ regime – even if, and especially after, it achieves nuclear weapons status.
Tehran revealed its favorable view of Dr. Nasr in a glowing October 2006 article that appeared on the regime-controlled online news outlet Baztab. The piece notes Dr. Nasr’s esteemed family connections, his glittering academic credentials and also details his valued association as an expert advisor for the U.S. Department of State and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Baztab also approvingly characterized Dr. Nasr’s views on U.S.-Iran relations, which call for diplomacy, negotiations and a renewed political relationship.76
In keeping with themes favored by regime-controlled media such as Baztab, Dr. Nasr is featured elsewhere on the news site as co-author with Council on Foreign Relations Iran scholar Ray Takeyh of an opinion piece that criticizes what they call the United States’ “policy of coercion” towards Iran, while advocating instead a “policy of engagement.” Implausibly, the two also claim that Iran “… abandoned the goal of exporting its revolution to its Persian Gulf neighbors at the end of [the] 1980s and has since acted as a status-quo power.” Their bottom line might have been penned in Tehran: “the United States should propose dialogue without conditions with the aim of normalizing relations.” 77
Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran
Yet another new entrant in the Iran Lobby’s efforts is the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran CNAPI bills itself as:
a transpartisan coalition of diverse groups which share the objective of promoting responsible and effective U.S. diplomacy and leadership in resolving long-standing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Campaign supporters share the basic core beliefs outlined in the mission statement and urge direct, sustained, and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran as a realistic way to resolve all outstanding issues…Supporters of CNAPI believe sustained, direct, bilateral, and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran represent a realistic way to resolve long-standing conflicts that destabilize the Middle East and by extension, threaten the global economy.78
CNAPI’s official partners include more than three dozen organizations, among them CASMII, CAIR, the Episcopal Church, NIAC, and the Open Society Policy Center. The list of CNAPI “Experts” is likewise an interesting one that includes: Amb. James Dobbins, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation and a retired career State Department diplomat; Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Phil Giraldi, former CIA counterterrorism specialist; the writer Stephen Kinzer; Amb. William Miller, Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Amb. Thomas Pickering and, of course, the ubiquitous Trita Parsi.
Ommani
CNAPI launched its pro-Iran activities in February and March of 2008 with a cross-country event called “The Folly of Attacking Iran Tour” which crisscrossed the United States. NIAC was among the Tour’s “Partner Organizations”, while its “Endorsers” included: Code Pink; Common Cause; Payvand Iran News (a pro-Khatami news organization operated by Iranian expatriates out of the San Francisco Bay area); the American Iranian Friendship Council in Portland (whose online website suggests its affinity with NIAC and Payvand Iran News); Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s District Office; the Middle East Institute at Columbia University; and many others. The featured speaker at each stop along the way was Stephen Kinzer, the former New York Times foreign correspondent and author of Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
The not-so-subtle message of the “Folly” tour was: “Together, we can push our elected leaders to support real talks with Iran without pre-conditions – and to oppose a military attack. Join the effort by asking your congressional representatives to support diplomacy, not confrontation, with Iran.”79
Reza Asalan
Other tour speakers included such familiar figures associated with the Iran Lobby as: Barbara Slavin, now an editor with the Washington Times; retired Brig. Gen. John Johns; Rep. Earl Blumenauer; NIAC’s Trita Parsi; and retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard. Among the other participants were author Dr. Reza Aslan, William A. Nitze, an energy and environmental policy expert, and Dr. Ervand Abrahamian, an Iranian-born Armenian scholar and author.
Stephen Kinzer
As an example of the Coalition for a New American Policy on Iran’s pro-Tehran stance, a snapshot of the busy schedule of Stephen Kinzer will serve. “CNAPI Expert” Kinzer, the former New York Times reporter who now teaches journalism and political science at Northwestern University, is an outspoken advocate of a U.S. foreign policy of rapprochement with Iran. Writing in the Chicago Tribune in May 2008, he beats the familiar drums for “direct, bilateral, comprehensive and unconditional negotiations” with Iran and speculates that were such talks to occur, “the U.S. might soon discover that these two countries share many security interests.”80
Kinzer may or may not be aware of the Tehran regime links and agenda among his CNAPI colleagues – or know that CNAPI official partner CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terror funding case. Since he is a veteran foreign affairs correspondent for a paper like the New York Times, however, it strains credulity to suppose that he would not be knowledgeable about these facts. For instance, a simple online check shows that at the same time the Payvand Iran News ebsite carried approving accounts of Kinzer’s pro-Iran activism on Capitol Hill, including his meetings with congressmen and support for a 2008 Congressional Resolution (Con Res 321) that called for direct diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran,81 Payvand’s homepage also carried links to Tehran regime media outlets such as Baztab, Ettela’at, Jomhouri Eslami, Quds, Kayhan, and IRNA.82
As with other Iran Lobby initiatives, CNAPI and its fellow advocates for direct talks with Iran’s mullahs have made inroads onto Capitol Hill. As described above, one key ally there is Minneapolis’ Muslim Democratic congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison, who hosted a “Public Forum on U.S. Foreign Affairs with Iran” in Minneapolis in May 2008. Ellison’s co-panelist was NIAC’s Trita Parsi.
Then on June 10, 2008, CNAPI co-sponsored a “National Call-in Day for Diplomacy with Iran” together with CAIR. The event and press conference, called “Time to Talk with Iran,” was held on Capitol Hill on the terrace outside the Cannon House Office Building. The idea of this stunt was to make live calls “to ordinary Iranians in Tehran” using a “row of 60’s-era red ‘hotline’ telephones” set up especially for the event. CAIR’s National Director Tahra Goraya plugged the call-in, saying, “Increasing understanding through dialogue is a critical step in preventing a potential U.S.-Iran conflict.”83 CNAPI speakers called for direct, bilateral and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran.
American Foreign Policy Project
Close to indistinguishable from the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) in purpose and some membership names is the American Foreign Policy Project which launched on November 18, 2008 with the issuance of a “Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran” at a Capitol Hill panel presentation held in the Senate Hart Office Building. The event was moderated by NIAC’s Trita Parsi and featured talks by: AFPP “Experts” Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and James Dobbins; arms control advocate Joseph Cirincione, who was identified in the program as “an advisor to the Obama transition team”; and several others.
Led by Executive Director Richard Parker (who is a School of Law professor at the University of Connecticut), AFPP’s Experts list reads like a remix from other Iran Lobby entities and includes: Ambassadors James Dobbins, William Miller, and Thomas Pickering; Professors Gary G. Sick and Juan R. Cole, Philip Giraldi, Stephen Kinzer, Trita Parsi, and James Walsh.
Explicitly billed as a program of advice for then President-elect Obama, the statement touted the extensive experience of its scholars, experts, and diplomats and urged the new administration to “deal successfully with Iran in the future.”84 Given the complexion of the signers, it should hardly come as a surprise that their “five-step strategy” urges the United States to abandon any thought of regime change in Tehran, acknowledge and acquiesce to Iran’s bid for hegemony in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region, and re-engage in the Arab-Israeli “peace process.”85 Notable among the AFPP experts is former CIA counterterrorism expert Philip Giraldi On November 14, 2007, Giraldi appeared on a panel co-hosted by the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA, about which more will be said in a moment) and the Nixon Center with the theme of finding alternatives, any alternatives, to threats of U.S. military action against Iran.
In lockstep with fellow panelist, Trita Parsi, Giraldi downplayed Iran’s progress toward acquisition of a nuclear weapon, and called on U.S. policymakers “to stop the demonization process.” In any case, he declared obligingly, “I do not believe Tehran poses a real threat to the United States.”86
Interestingly, in September 2007, Giraldi had written an essay on the antiwar.com website, entitled, “What World War III May Look Like” that makes clear that Iran could certainly threaten the United States and its interests – assuming the latter attacked the former. The article presented a worst-case scenario in the event so-called neoconservatives in Washington got their way in pursuing a hard line against Iran. The article works through a cascade of unintended consequences that wind up with rioting, fighting, and suicide bombings building inexorably to a nuclear crisis across the region.87
Another of Giraldi’s screeds, this one a vintage anti-Israel diatribe carried on the NIAC-affiliated CASMI website, dismisses the Iranian threat against Israel, attests to the essential rationality of the mullahs’ regime, and waxes histrionic about Washington neoconservatives.88 Giraldi, who served as CIA Chief of Base in Istanbul in the 1980s, should know better. In an exceptionally frank interview with Balkanalysis.com Director Christopher Deliso in September 2006, the former clandestine agent recounts working against the Iranian intelligence agencies and describes their success in discovering and assassinating the CIA’s agents in Iran, many of them regime dissidents.89 Yet, this is the regime he would now have the U.S. accommodate.
The presentation of AFPP’s Joint Experts’ Statement marks the latest realization of the Iran Lobby’s concerted, multi-year effort to gain access to the top foreign policymaking circles in Washington. . Offered in the confident expectation that the Obama administration will want to stake out a foreign policy on Iran that would be distinctly different from that of the Bush administration (which “the Experts” portray as needlessly confrontational and insufficiently respectful of Iran’s developing regional stature), the Statement’s Key Steps urge an approach that is conciliatory and multilateral. The Statement also addresses what it terms “Basic Misconceptions about Iran” and devotes a 2-page annex to addressing eight so-called “myths” about Iran. The entire publication might have been written in Tehran, so closely does it hew to the regime’s own propaganda. Its authors call into question the quality of their expertise by claiming that Iran is really not such a threat to U.S. interests, does not really want to “wipe Israel off the map,” does not actually mean [to acquire] nuclear weapons and is not ideologically motivated.
American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA)
This public policy group is the creation of Grover Norquist, an anti-tax conservative activist with a record of ties to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and Islamist front groups.90 It was founded in early 2008 and, until recently, housed in Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform offices. 91 ACDA Board Members include Samah Norquist, secretary (also Grover Norquist’s wife); Peter Gemma, treasurer; and Philip Giraldi, the Francis Walsingham Fellow.
Norquist’s role in Islamist influence operations is an ominous one. He founded a front organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute in 1998 together with a Muslim activitist long associated with Muslim Brotherhood operatives named Khaled Saffuri “to promote a better understanding of Islam in America.”92
Among others who contributed start-up money to the Islamic Free Market Institute was the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front group with headquarters in Herndon, Virginia. In 2008, IIIT was the focus of a Department of Justice investigation for alleged terror support activities.93 Norquist’s lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC, formerly was officially registered as a lobbyist for IIIT as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of a prominent Brotherhood front known as the American Muslim Council (AMC).94 Saffuri was Deputy Director of the AMC under its then-head, Alamoudi. The latter is currently serving a twenty-three year federal prison term on charges of terrorism financing and illicit dealings with Libya.95
During the presidential campaign of 2000, Norquist arranged a meeting between Alamoudi and then- Republican presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush.96 Later, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush appeared at a prayer service with Alamoudi and apparently remained unaware of his terrorist links for a number of years after that.97
Another troubling connection is Grover Norquist’s close relationship with Faisal Gill, Policy Director of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division for the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush. In 2004, it was discovered that Gill, who was a political appointee, had failed to disclose his own formerly close working relationship with Alamoudi, whom he apparently served as spokesman for the American Muslim Council. Nevertheless, Gill was permitted to retain his government position.98
Although the American Conservative Defense Alliance claims to advocate for a strong U.S. national defense policy, it eschews any initiative that would entail “imposing American-styled ‘democracy’ abroad” or engaging in “nation-building.”99 ACDA’s place within the Iran Lobby network can be discerned from a look at key figures among its leadership boards, website links to other Iran Lobby entities and posted statements by its associates that scoff at evidence of the Tehran regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and involvement in supporting terrorist militias in Iraq.100
For example, the ACDA website homepage features a “Special Projects Campaign for a New Policy with Iran” tab that links directly to the CNAPI website. On that CNAPI page is a Welcome message that addresses the Obama Transition Team with policy recommendations for establishing a dialogue with Iran. A notice for the June 10, 2008 CNAPI “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference also advertises for the “National Call-In to Congress Day” and quotes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, to the effect that the U.S.” should find a way to open dialogue with Iran.”101
Another member of the ACDA board is its Treasurer, Peter Gemma. Gemma’s ACDA bio page also features a link to the CNAPI website. Gemma also has written a glowing book review carried on the ACDA website for Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States,
a 2007 book by NIAC President Trita Parsi. The Gemma review writes approvingly of Parsi’s position that, “It is in the best interest of the U.S., and ultimately Israel, to reconcile with Iran” and takes no issue with the latter’s claim that “Tehran is not necessarily motivated by opposition to Israeli or even religious ideology….”102
ACDA board member Philip Giraldi’s association with NIAC and Trita Parsi has been described previously in this paper. Giraldi’s contributions to the Iran Issues link at the ACDA website include several written pieces that minimize the Iranian threat to U.S. national security and urge that the U.S. adopt a policy towards Iran that “takes into account Iran’s own interests and its legitimate security concerns.”103
An April 2008 posting at the ACDA website displays a March 2007 open letter entitled “No War with Iran” and addressed to Members of Congress. The letter marshals a number of the Iran Lobby’s familiar arguments to persuade Congress to oppose consideration of a military strike against Iran and “support diplomacy between the United States and Iran without preconditions.” Among its positions are preposterous statements that “There is little credible intelligence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon” and “Claims that Iran is directly assisting insurgents in Iraq remain unsubstantiated and implausible since the majority of identified insurgents are Sunnis (including al-Qaeda), while the Iranians are Shia.” The letter is co-signed by ten representatives of various policy groups, including Philip Giraldi, listed as “contributing editor, The American Conservative,” and Trita Parsi for NIAC.104
The ACDA links with NIAC’s Trita Parsi also include a November 14, 2007 event at the Nixon Center that was co-sponsored by ACDA and featured a panel discussion about U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. Panelists included Philip Giraldi and Trita Parsi. The event was posted on the personal website of Michael D. Ostrolenk, ACDA President and Board Member. Ostrolenk’s homepage also highlights an October 17, 2007 discussion with Trita Parsi about his then just-released book, Treacherous Alliance.105
Conclusion
The foregoing makes clear that the Iran Lobby has spawned myriad organizations, many of which are staffed or associated with the same individuals, for the purpose of advancing Tehran’s policy agenda in America. The numerous conferences, articles, panel discussions, press conferences and other gambits they initiate have in common a largely unchanging and small pool of actors but the same, consistent bottom line: The Iranian regime must be accommodated, not confronted. It poses no threat except if attacked. Those who challenge these contentions pose a threat to America and her interests, not the mullahs and their proxies.
As the Obama administration begins to staff up, it is especially disquieting to see how many of the figures named in this paper are being tapped for important jobs where they will deal directly with Iran and other critical Middle East issues. The Iran Lobby will soon no longer have to try to influence official U.S. government policy from the outside. All other things being equal, its operatives and their friends will be shaping it from inside key national security agencies across Washington.
Consider the implications of just one personnel decision: Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman’s reported appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which prepares the Intelligence Community’s collective National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). It will be recalled that the December 2007 NIE on Iran concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, thus effectively precluding any Bush administration military action to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is inconceivable that a man as publicly and closely aligned with the views of Iran and its agents of influence in America will be able to exercise truly independent judgment about what the mullahs are up to, let alone offer objective intelligence analysis about how best to contend with them.
Others who have been associated in one way or another with the Iran Lobby who have or are expected to secure key jobs in the Obama administration include:
• Fletcher School professor and Middle East scholar, Dr. Vali Nasr, who will, as noted above, be Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s senior advisor – a position that will assuredly involve decisions about dealings with Afghanistan’s neighbor.
• Dr. Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s new Ambassador to the United Nations. Amb. Rice served on the board of directors for the Center for a New American Security. While CNAS is not formally connected directly with either NIAC or Trita Parsi, the foreign policy positions of its affiliates correspond strongly to the preferred policy positions of Tehran’s mullahs.
• Ambassador Dennis Ross, who will be a senior advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Iran policy, was previously an “Expert” for CNAS.
• Council on Foreign Relations Committee president and another CNAS “Expert” Richard Haas, reportedly is under consideration for a top job in the Obama foreign policy team.
In short, the pattern outlined in this paper is one of penetration of our national security infrastructure by agents of influence, be they witting or unwitting, whose actions, intentionally or unintentionally, serve to support the objectives of a hostile foreign power. To date, however, there has been no serious public review of the activities of this Iran Lobby or its affiliates from a counterintelligence perspective. And yet, given the serious nature of the complex challenges that Iran – and especially a nuclear-armed Iran – can be expected to pose in coming months, it is more important than ever to consider the consequences of appointing aggressive advocates, or at least apologists, for this terrorist regime to high posts within U.S. national security leadership. That so many respected Middle East and foreign policy experts seem to have bought into the Iranian regime’s agenda is testament to the extraordinarily effective information operation that has been waged against U.S. national security interests by the Iran Lobby’s network over the last several years.
If the Obama administration does not hear a persuasive alternative position, cogently presented, and soon, Iran’s carefully-crafted clandestine intelligence operation to exercise effective control over America’s Iran policy could succeed – to the profound detriment of U.S. national interests and those of our friends and allies in the Middle East region and around the world.
__________________________________________________________________
Pro Iran (Islamic Republic) Websites and Links
Articles of Interest on IRI Lobby
Please refer back to original article
CLARE M. LOPEZ
Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies. Ms. Lopez received her B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and a M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. She speaks and writes widely on Middle East issues.
Disclaimer:
All credits of this paper go to the owner of the blog, Dr. Arash Irandoost and to the author, Clare M. Lopez. I am posting this ‘article’ as close to the original that I can minus pdf hyperlinks to share and to preserve it. Knowledge is Power!
Leaders unite across party lines to defend Constitution from NDAA
.
Media Event
The Tenth Amendment Center is building a coalition across the political spectrum to nullify federal kidnapping powers in the NDAA. On Thursday, we’ll be holding a join Media Conference for press, bloggers, and the like.
.
.
.
SAT February 25th TAC at Liberty Forum – NH
.
FRI March 2nd Baltimore/Severn, MD
.
Mar 31st – Tom Woods, Sheriff Mack Nullify Now! Philadelphia
Crowne Plaza. Liberty, Constitution, and Declaration Ballrooms
Philadelphia Downtown
CLICK HERE for tickets
.
Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Founder and Executive Director
.
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran
This comes after US agreed to back a UN resolution to back the UN in military use of force against IRAN !
.
.
On February 5, 2012, President Obama invoked the NDAA, which authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the “threat” of Iran a National Emergency. The video below shows this issuance of President Obama executive order which declares Iran’s threat to cut off oil supplies a national emergency.
.
.
.
.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
February 06, 2012
Executive Order — Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– - – - – - -
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN
AND IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (NDAA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran’s anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran’s activities, hereby order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to: (a) the making of any
contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. (a) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
(b) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order do not apply to property and interests in property of the Government of Iran that were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, and thereafter made subject to the transfer directives set forth in Executive Order 12281 of January 19, 1981, and implementing regulations thereunder.
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “Government of Iran” means the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran;
(e) the term “Iran” means the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and
(f) the term “Iranian financial institution” means a financial institution organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran (including foreign branches), any financial institution in Iran, any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, and any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by any of the foregoing.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order, other than the purposes described in section 11. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions and authorities to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(1)(A) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by sections 1245(e)(1) and 1245(e)(2) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 13. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.
Sec. 14. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 6, 2012.
BARACK OBAMA
.
Obama Freezes Iran Finance, Property
US President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Monday that freezes all property belonging to the Government and Central Bank of Iran, and all other Iranian financial institutions.
.
.
.
US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely
• Growing view that strike, by Israel or US, will happen
• ‘Sweet spot’ for Israeli action identified as September-October
• White House remains determined to give sanctions time
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012
Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.
.
Zbigniew Brzezinski on Iran
( CFR member, creator of Rapid Deployment Force aka Central Command, chief foreign policy adviser for the Obama for President campaign and Former National Security Advisory.)
Warns of false flag attack to trigger War on Iran
.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: An Israeli attack on Iran would be a disaster
January 17, 2010
Puppet Master
.
Pingback to
Elite View The World In The Globalist Map Room
NEW WORLD ORDER
.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it”
We know that this false flag is campaign propaganda. Would the puppet masters blow up the universe to win the election for their means to an end?
Like this:
Elite View The World In The Globalist Map Room
A serious movement,for good or ill,generally develops strategies and plans for long-term execution. Such strategies may not be evil in and of themselves. The end result will eventually reveal the true nature of the scheme.
Sun Tzu wrote the seminal “Art of War” somewhere at the turn of the 5th century B.C.,whose timeless strategies may be used for good or ill in numerous contexts.
“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won,whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”[1]
Niccoló Machiavelli developed a sophisticated system of management,laying “down the law about how princes should rule;because just as men who are sketching the landscape put themselves down in the plain to study the nature of the mountains and the highlands,and to study the low-lying land they put themselves high on the mountains,so,to comprehend fully the nature of the people,one must be a prince,and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen.”[2]
God wrote a set of instructions for the Judeo-Christian peoples in what is known as the Bible,whose countless ancient manuscripts date back thousands of years.
G. Edward Griffin developed a secular stratagem and “Creed of Freedom”for the 21st century in what is today known as Freedom Force International.
Thus,as Machiavelli states,for the ordinary citizen to comprehend the nature of the frog prince globalist,let them march themselves upon the highlands.
Mackinder’s “Heartland” (1904)
“Who rules East Europe commands the Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island, Who rules the World Island commands the World.”
Sir Halford Mackinder, a master British geopolitical strategist, is a figure whose work all should study to some extent. The “Heartland” idea first came about in a 1904 presentation to the Royal Geographical Society.[3] The Heartland was defined as the former U.S.S.R. in addition to what he termed Lenaland and whose theory he found even more prescient in 1943 than 1904.[4] The World Island was of course the great landmass of Eurasia. He interestingly notes how when coal and oil are exhausted,t he Sahara may be where the planet will focus its energies in deriving solar power.[5]
Spykman’s “Rimland”(1938)
Nicholas J. Spykman redefined Mackinder’s theory, believing that control of the Outer Heartland, the Crescent or Rimlands, is key to planetary domination. Believing power needed to be centralized from great centers moving outward,he drafted what today seems to be regionalism and what George Orwell may have alluded to in the ever-warring Eastasia, Eurasia and Oceania.
“Spykman sketched a geopolitical world framework consisting of two great landmasses, Eurasia and North America; three islands, South America, Africa, and Australia; and five major bodies of water. Spykman concluded that the United States, with direct access to the Atlantic and Pacific basins, was ‘the most favored state in the world from the point of view of location.’”[6]
Post-War New World Map (1942)
Created by some Maurice Gomberg, this map warrants serious study,f or many of its “plans” have already come to pass.[7] Years ahead of time,it had Israel located as “Hebrew Land.” Furthermore,it had the world divided into regions such as the United States of Africa (today the African Union), the United States of South America (today the Union of South American States) and finally a North American Union which today is in its embryonic NAFTA and Common Security Perimeter stage.[8]
“The bottom of the map contains a detailed explanation of the U.S. policy for the New World Order. Some of the points of this policy are as follows:(Biblioteca Pleyades)
- A new world order for permanent peace and freedom will be established at the end of the War.
- The U.S.A. must, altruistically,assume the leadership of the newly established world order.
- The U.S.A., Britain, and the U.S.S.R. will undertake to guarantee peace to the nations, which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized.
- The U.S.A. will become invincible as a military, naval, and air power.
- The U.S.S.R. will acquire the republics of Eastern Europe after the War.
- There will be a demilitarized, federated United States of Europe.
- Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean islands will be incorporated into the United States of America.
- The land of the ancient Hebrews,known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, will be united as a demilitarized republic called Hebrewland.
- All natural resources will be nationalized and distributed to all nations.
- Banking, investments, railroads, and power plants will be nationalized everywhere.
- A world common monetary system will be established.
- The unified “Supreme War Council of the United Nations”will be reorganized and transformed into a “Supreme Military and Economic Council” to assist in reconstruction and to enforce world peace.”
[Click to Enlarge]
Club of Rome (1968)
The infamous globalist Club of Rome first met in 1968. Their white papers dictate mass population reduction and the proponing of a false environmental religion. They developed a map carving the world up into ten regions.
The interesting thing with this map is if compared to the historical text of the Book of Daniel, whose manuscript dates back over two thousand years, Daniel interpreted that the fourth (Roman) empire would break into two legs of iron (Byzantine,ca. 324-395 A.D.) and that finally there would be ten toes of iron and clay ruling the world. Well,here we have ten planned regions written up by, ironically, the Club of Rome.[9]
FEMA’s Ten Regions (1970)
Ongoing efforts from Nixon’s Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to subsequent executive orders have carved the United States into ten FEMA regions with each region having its own capital. This seems to go along with the preparations put in place for Continuity of Government (COG) as described by diplomat and professor Peter Dale Scott.
Bernard Lewis and the “Arc of Crisis”(1979)
Bernard Lewis was British Intelligence and a Bilderberg attendee. Utilizing the “Clash of Civilizations” mythology,the foundation for the Arab terrorist narrative was laid as the Cold War narrative was on its way out.[10]
UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project (1992)
Dr. Michael Coffman’s fantastic effort to map out the United Nations radical environmental agenda for North America.
Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997)
War criminal Kissinger called the southern rim of Asia a “pivot of world security” demonstrating the continuation of thought since the time of Mackinder and Spykman. Brzezinski, in his magnum opus “Grand Chessboard”, tells us to keep the “barbarians” from coming together, implying a “global zone of percolating violence.”[11]
.
Project For A New American Century (2000)
Click the picture to explore this massive map.
Thomas P. M. Barnett (2003)
Strategic Naval War College researcher discusses the “Pentagon’s New Map,” which evidently seeks to bring in line the “non-integrating gap” or “non-globalized” sovereign part of the world into the “functioning core” or “globalized” world system. This is at the heart of what is happening in Libya today.
[Click to Enlarge]
Trans-Texas Corridor or NAFTA Superhighway (2005)
The required infrastructure under a North American Union, pushed along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Obama has just signed a deal allowing Mexican truckers into the U.S.
Ralph Peters and the “Project for the New Middle East”(2006)
This NATO training map was put together by the Lieutenant-Colonel in what seems to be the “Project for a New Middle East.”[12]
Color Revolutions (2008)
The ever-evolving blueprint used by the globalists in their color revolutions.[14]
Igor Panarin prediction of the collapse of America. (2009)
Project for the New World Order
People still want to talk to me about the spontaneity and greatness of the “Arab Spring,””democracy,” European Union regionalism now spreading like a virus and the Agenda 21 inroads we are beginning to see in nations worldwide, as if they just don’t get it.
Look at the maps. Look at the documentation going back a century. To see these designs and not factor them into world events is simply delusional.
The diagrams clearly dictate that the “Arab Spring”sprang from globalist think tank, Pentagon and NATO map rooms, composing one key variable of events now occurring in the Middle East. The NAFTA corridor eerily resembles something akin to European Schengen and clear progress toward the superhighway and integration is obvious. The UN Wildlands project seems to be coming alive in the Rural Council’s now being assembled by President select Obama. And,well,I’ll venture to say again that the old Club of Rome document resembles descriptions from a certain ancient text.
The New American: Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite To Oppose NDAA
February 15th, 2012
The New American:
Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite To Oppose NDAA
-
Read at The New American:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10859-coalition-of-patriot-groups-unite-to-oppose-ndaa
Written by Joe Wolverton, II * Tuesday, 14 February 2012
The Intolerable Acts was the name used by American colonists to describe a series of oppressive measures passed by the British Parliament in 1774 relating to the amount of self-government permissible in the American colonies. The acts sparked outrage and firm resistance to the tyrannical regime of King George III throughout the 13 colonies. These arbitrary violations of the rights of the colonists — rights enjoyed by all Englishmen — resulted in the convening of the First Continental Congress in order to organize a formal denouncement of the decrees and to unite the Americans in their resistance to the Crown. Despite various attempts by several delegates to reconcile with Britain, independence was declared within two years and the American War for Independence raged until liberty was achieved in 1783.
Lately, the government of the United States of America has been passing measures masquerading as laws that are easily as arbitrary and deleterious of freedom as any of the coercive measures passed by the despotic regime of the British Empire that caused our ancestors to take up arms and reassert their freedoms. The latest and perhaps most egregious of these is the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).
President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law on New Year’s Eve 2011, granting himself absolute power to deploy the armed forces of the United States to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being “belligerents.”
With the President’s signing of this act, the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.
If the foregoing description isn’t sufficient evidence of the similarities between the autocratic acts passed in the 18th-century English Parliament and those passed by our own 21st-century Congress, further proof is found in the coalition of patriot organizations (including The John Birch Society, among others) uniting to call upon states to nullify these measures in the several state legislatures.
Toward that noble aim, these groups, under the direction of the Patriot Coalition and the Oath Keepers, have created a website that serves as both an educational portal and a repository of sample nullifying resolutions.
In a statement posted on the website explaining why the NDAA merits special attention from friends of freedom, the Patriot Coalition/Oath Keepers declared:
Our legal team has spent hundreds of hours developing the most detailed and in-depth NDAA resolutions for state legislators you will find anywhere. There are also resolutions for county sheriffs, and others in the works for other state and local governments, veteran service organizations, grassroots organizations, and more. In the coming weeks and months, “The Intolerable Acts” legal team will also produce and distribute model resolutions and legislation related to the entire spectrum of “intolerable and coercive acts” passed since 9/11/2001.
Senator Lindsey Graham is not alone in his belief that Miranda and due process should be waived because in his words, America IS the battlefield! He should read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Watch the videos below to hear Senator Graham in his own words. Rather than destroy the Constitution, how about we end the VISA Waiver Program that allows foreigners to just waltz in, virtually unannounced? The VISA Waiver Program should be suspended at the very least until “the end of hostilities” since, according to Senator Graham (and others) we “are at war.” Hmm… where’s that declaration of war? Oh… don’t have one. Still leaning on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress approved to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11/2001? Is this Groundhog Day, in which every day is 9/12/2001?
In a demonstration of historic awareness of the urgency of the constitutional crisis we are experiencing, the website is appropriately named theintolerableacts.org. In an interview with The New American, Richard Fry, the general counsel for the Patriot Coalition, explained the impetus behind this unique and constitutionally sound approach to defeating these latest acts of absolutism: “The federal attempts to fight the NDAA just do not get the job done. Most of the congressional proposals toward that end are nothing more than controlled opposition,” said Fry.
To their credit, the groups supporting the efforts of theintolerableacts.org are seeing success spreading through the nation.
As reported earlier, State Representative Charles Key of Oklahoma has introduced a resolution drafted by the legal team of the Patriot Coalition and the Oath Keepers, which includes Fry and Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers and a graduate of the Yale Law School. The bill officially requests that the U.S. Congress repeal Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Furthermore, the legal effect of those two sections would be void in Oklahoma.
In a statement released concurrent with the introduction of the resolution, Rep. Key wrote:
President Barack Obama has said he would not hold citizens indefinitely; it is deplorable that he would sign into law legislation that contains clauses that would authorize him to do just that. Oklahomans have taken notice of this repugnant new law and as state lawmakers it is our duty to apply pressure to Congress and the president to undo this debacle.
Fry indicates that the push in Oklahoma is only the beginning. He informed The New American that his group has a “commitment from State Representative Glen Bradley of North Carolina” to file a similar measure, as well as “serious interest” from state lawmakers in South Dakota.
Currently, the website offers anti-NDAA resolutions for state legislators and county commissioners in the following states:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia
The consortium of concerned patriotic partners behind theintolerableacts.org is not focusing solely on state assemblies, however.
Sheriffs are provided with a sample resolution, as well. In that document, a participating county sheriff can express his view that
all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented, enforced, or otherwise supported in this county, and it is the express policy of the Sheriff that no officer, employee, or agent of the Sheriff’s Office may implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions including seizure, detention, or trial by the United States Armed Forces, and/or any other agents of the United States government, both foreign and domestic, of any person, including any United States citizen and/or lawful resident within this county, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and/or employment, and will subject them to discipline up to and including termination and potential arrest for assault, battery, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and other unconstitutional actions under the color of law.
According to Fry, renowned constitutionalist Sheriff Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), introduced the model sheriff’s NDAA resolution.
Americans zealous to protect their Republic and the Constitution that limits the power of the government thereof are advised to contact their county and state elected representatives to encourage them to review the model resolutions provided at theintolerableacts.org and to present them for consideration to the appropriate lawmaking body.
.
.
NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential – Tenth Amendment Center
Today is the day. REPEAL the NDAA! Call any time all day long
Take Action Against the NDAA in Your Own State!
-
.
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
.
Like this:
American Native!
”I am a Freedom Fighter and Oath Keeper that advocates for and fights to Defend the Constitution, Restore the Republic, Preserve our Liberties, Freedoms and our Nation’s Sovereignty.”
Hokaheh, Hoka hey, Hoka hay
“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague” -Tullius Cicero
“Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!” ~Michael Badnarik
“Those who give up their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither and lose both”
~Benjamin Franklin
“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.”
~ Ayn Rand
The preamble to the United States Constitution
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
-
BonfiresBuzz Channel
Greetings
Music Playlist
Live Precious Metal prices
Oath Keepers
Operation Sleeping Giant
Patriot Coalition
The Patriot Code
SoCal Patriots
U.S. Border Patrol
Border Invasion Pics
Border Invasion Pics Channel
Secure Border Intelligence
U.S. Evolutions Channel
Blue Servo
M3 Report
Borderland Beat
San Diego Minutemen
Diggers Realm
Patriot Guard Riders
Sons Of Liberty Riders
GOOOH
American Indian Tea Party
Yurok Tribe
Survivor Topics
Oath Keepers Testimonials- Behold A Pale Horse _ Charlie Daniels on the New World OrderWow! Hot new documentary movie, with Tenth Amendment teeth. Charlie Daniels leads the charge against the New World Order. View the trailer here.
- President Ronald Reagan’s D-Day Speech 1984"The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would […]
- Karen Kwiatkowski’s Memorial Day MessageThis weekend, and I hope every day, let us remember the ideals of a free and noble America, and know that these ideals are worth fighting for. Let us say a silent prayer for our fellow veterans, our brothers and sisters in arms. Let us make time to aid and assist the widows and widowers, the children who have lost a parent, and the parents who have lost thei […]
- Stewart Rhodes will Speak on NDAA at Educational session for North Carolina LegislatureOath Keepers, we are proud to announce that NC. state Representative Glen Bradley, a Founding Member of Oath Keepers, has introduced a resolution against the NDAA before the N.C. Legislature (based on the model legislation co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, Richard Frye, and Jeff Lewis). Stewart Rhodes will address the North Carolina Legislature, May 30, 2012.
- Breaking! North Carolina NDAA/PATRIOT ACT Press ReleaseMore on this shortly, but first, here is the video!
- Behold A Pale Horse _ Charlie Daniels on the New World Order
National Terrorism Advisory System
County Sheriff Project
CSPOA
Support Joe Arpaio
Let’s Say Thanks
Wounded Warrior Project
MIAP
Special Operations Warrior Foundation
Veteran Defenders olf America
Support LTC Terry Lakin
Eagle Forum University
Tenth Amendment Center
NullifyNow!
Gun Owners of America
JPFO
The Daily Bell
Publius-Huldah’s Blog
The Federal Observer
Registered Sex Offenders
Amber Alerts
Animal Recovery Mission
Eagle Nest Cam
-
Recent Comments
- InfoWars
- Alex Jones Banned From Bilderberg Hotel, Calls For Press MobPaul Joseph Watson | Media not welcome at site of power brokers' confab.
- Mass Illegal Immigration Voter Fraud in Florida… and the Feds Don’t Care.Minuteman PAC | As many as 180,000 illegals are estimated to have already registered to vote in Florida alone.
- Facebook Shares Hit New Low Falling Below $30Washington Post | After Zuckerberg's pump and dump scandal, the social network's shares have been slowly tumbling down.
- Live Video and News from Bilderberg 2012Infowars.com | Check this page for the latest news and information on Bilderberg 2012.
- Drones Shot Down Over TexasPaul Joseph Watson | Surveillance drones blasted out of the sky in protest against 4th amendment intrusion.
- Ancient Roots of Bilderberg Reveal Prusso-Teutonic Agenda for World DominationJurriaan Maessen | Just a few days from now, the world’s economic, political and scientific elites will gather near Chantilly, Virginia.
- Alex Jones Banned From Bilderberg Hotel, Calls For Press Mob
- Live Counters
- livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms. March 23, 2012livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms.
- livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0 January 31, 2012livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0
- livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5 January 6, 2012livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5
- livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH January 4, 2012livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH
- livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms. March 23, 2012
