Monthly Archives: January 2013

Leftist loon blames Chicago violence on climate change

One can expect to hear any number of ridiculous claims by guests – not to mention hosts – on the far-left MSNBC network, but one talking head recently shared an opinion so unbelievable it actually stood out among the rest of the propagandistic rhetoric.

Christie Hefner, spokesperson for the Center for American Progress, was on the air with pseudo-Republican host Joe Scarborough to share her amazingly obtuse view that climate change is responsible for Chicago’s spike in gun violence.

Climate change – a catch-all term much harder to dispute than “global warming” – has been blamed for almost all of the world’s ills by those on the fringe left. Hefner’s diatribe, however, found a new and baffling way to target Americans for their supposed disrespect of the environment.

Citing some “contributing factors” for the violence, she said “there is a dramatic increase in gun violence when it is warmer and we are having this climate change effect that is driving that.”

Embroiled in a culture of violence and suffering under corrupt leadership, Chicago has plenty of causes for its deadly reputation. A normal fluctuation in global temperature is not one of them, despite Hefner’s emphatic contention.

For his part, Scarborough seemed to realize her point was sufficiently controversial and used the opportunity to take a jab at conservative writers.

Telling her “conservative bloggers across America thank you” for the commentary fodder, he couldn’t resist adding that she “made a lot of people in the basements of their mother’s homes very happy.”

For all the left’s hand-wringing over a perceived bias at Fox News, there is absolutely no comparison to the blatant political prejudice found in the mainstream media. By comparison, I suppose a network daring to actually expose the conservative viewpoint to its audience would seem biased.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.


Mullin Disappoints Once Again

I attended a town hall meeting in Claremore on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 featuring Markwayne Mullin, the newly elected congressman from Oklahoma’s 2nd District. Some of his statements sounded strange coming from Markwayne Mullina “conservative” but one response to a question bothered me more than the rest.

A man asked Mullin about the executive orders being used by Barack Obama to by-pass Congress, and what can be done to nullify them. Mullin’s response was that the way to stop an EO was for the House to pass legislation nullifying the order, then send it to the Senate where Dingy Harry Reid would refuse to allow it to be heard. And even if it could be passed by the Senate it would have to go to Obama for his signature.

Mullin asked if anyone thought Obama would undo his own executive order by signing such a bill. And of course the answer is “NO”. His next comment astounded me. Mullin then said, to paraphrase, “what’s the point of going through all that when there is no chance of prevailing?”

Isn’t this just accepting business as usual and admitting he has no say in what goes on in Washington? Isn’t this the same point Hillary Clinton just made about Benghazi, that nothing matters? What difference does anything make in Washington? Why is Mullin there then? He might as well come home and run his plumbing business if he is that impotent in Congress. Why have any of them there if they can only follow the dictates of party “leadership”? Why not just let the Traitor John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and Obama make all the decisions and save us the money we spend for Congress and their massive staffs?

I tire of hearing how spineless Republicans are powerless to make any changes in the way the establishment in both parties runs our nation as a dictatorial oligarchy. “We only have one half of one third of government” is the usual whine from Republicans who didn’t do anything to shrink government when they had total control. We the People are told almost daily that “that is how things work in Washington”. Even those we think are conservative don’t take long to tell us there is nothing that can be done to change government.
I wish Mullin would have told me this during the campaign. I might as well have helped his opposition in the primary run-off. I thought supporting George Faught in the Republican run-off would net me the words I am hearing now from the guy I supported and campaigned for.

How are We the People ever going to get the Bald Eagle back as the symbol of the greatest nation in history with this kind of mealy-mouthed garbage coming from those we elect to public office? Party loyalty trumpsLiberty Eagle loyalty to the Constitution and We the People every time it seems.

I like Mullin, as I got to know him during the campaign, but I hear the same bird crap I heard from his predecessor, Democrat Dan Boren. We change birds in Congress but find the same bird crap falling on our heads after changing the breed of birds.

The problem with changing which party is in control of government is that there isn’t any distinguishable difference in the political parties today. When you look at a pile of horse manure how do you tell if it came from a Republican horse or a Democrat horse? I have often written that John F. Kennedy could not win the nomination for president in the Republican Party today because he would be too conservative. That is a sad state of affairs.

This week Marco Rubio, the non-natural born citizen and presumptive Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election, became the poster child for the newest “latest and greatest” amnesty scam being foisted upon We the People by the Republican Party establishment. It seems “expanding the Republican tent” means making room for every group but those who have supported the party low these many years since Reagan, the last conservative to sit in the White House. Will Mullin, when faced with voting for amnesty, tell us once again “that is how things are done in Washington” and go on to explain how powerless he is?

The Globalist Oligarchy Party (GOP) has abandoned everything it used to stand for and now embraces the same policies as the Marxist dominated Democrat Party. Liberty is dying in America and there are so few in republican logogovernment willing to stand up for the Constitution and We the People. Unfortunately, Oklahoma is not very well represented in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool). Five of our six Republican congressmen voted to put the Traitor John Boehner back in the Speaker’s chair in spite of overwhelming opposition to Boehner by We the People of the state.

Changing party affiliation doesn’t change the crap being dropped on our heads so what is the answer? I am looking for the people with the courage to step up and represent my conservative views in government and it won’t happen until we get a 3rd party. True conservatives in both political parties need to leave their bird nest and do something that will benefit America not just their particular set of special interest groups. I though Mullin was one of those but he is proving me wrong.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 31, 2013

The Reality of Long Term Unemployment

unemployment_5In his “Mission Accomplished” moment, Barack Hussein Obama ended his jobs council on Thursday, January 31, 2013.

Despite the fact that more than 12 million people in the U.S. are still out of work.

Obama’s allies will point out that when the jobs council began two years ago, unemployment was above 9 percent and has since improved to 7.8 percent.  What they conveniently overlook is that the unemployment number has shifted downwards in large part due to people who have exceeded their unemployment benefits are no longer being counted.

So, if you are a middle aged worker who has experienced long term unemployment, you have forever lost what for most people were the peak earning years of life.  A time when under normal circumstances, the opportunity to save for retirement was most feasible financially.

Instead you were drawing unemployment benefits worth less than half what you used to make.  As the result, instead of saving for retirement, you reduced your expenditures (read: standard of living) by half.

Not to mention the loss of medical, vacation, 401k and other employer provided benefits.

Then to add insult to injury, the self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class decide that the expiration of the unemployment benefits that sustained your Spartan existence means that for the purposes of their statistics, you are no longer out of work.

Even if you have honestly sought work for years and have been unsuccessful thanks to an economy crippled by their “progressive” economic policies, have used up all your personal savings and are a month or two away from living on the street.pelosi_obama_reid

The reality of long term unemployment is not being accurately portrayed by the Obama administration, their “progressive” political allies, or their devoted supporters within the institutionalized “progressive” left.

The economy is not growing.  Jobs are not being created.  If you are unemployed, prospects for future employment look bleak.

Their big government “stimulus” spending was devoted primarily to helping their “progressive” allies in blue states that needed the money to balance their own indebted balance sheets.

Every dollar spent on “stimulus” was obtained through a tax on the private sector.  Instead of the private sector having the money they earned to invest in growing business and creating jobs, it was sent to Washington DC, where the cost of an ever growing, bloated bureaucracy was first removed, then redistributed to those deemed fit by the same self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class that has shown through their handling of the nation’s unemployment statistics that they are far more concerned with retaining their own grip on power than truly helping the little guy.

If you have a job, thank God and pray to keep it.
Watch Episode 1 for free

The Abortion Fallicy

It’s been over a week since the anniversary of Roe V. Wade but I wanted to post some thoughts here for my first article on this site. First let me say that those who say all of us born after January 22nd, 1973 should thank our mothers for not aborting is going a bit too far. I am passionately pro life but I do not believe that Roe made any woman who wanted a baby have an abortion. My mother was a married woman in her thirties. Abortion wasn’t even a consideration. So while I thank my mother for having me, I do not consider my birth, on April 11, 1973, anything out of the ordinary. Not where the issue of abortion is concerned.

With that out of the way, I would like to bring up a few points that these rabid pro abortion groups would like to conveniently forget. They like to frame their argument with the idea that women can do what they want with their own bodies. Well, abortion is not the same as getting your appendix out, or a body piercing. It is the taking of a life and once that is done it is done. This argument also dismisses the inconvenient fact that when there is a baby, there’s a father.  Yes, there are cases of rape and even incest. Those situations are few and much more complicated. But under the usual circumstance, a man and a woman have intercourse and, well you know how it works. We have increasingly become a society that dismisses and diminishes the role men play in the lives of their children. Women adopt as single parents or even use sperm banks. The message being, I don’t need a man. Betty Friedan is proud I’m sure. Over the years society balks at traditional families and pushes for the acceptance and embrace of  “all kinds of families”. My parents divorced when I was thirteen so I didn’t have for most of my life a regular family. But I did have a dad. He was far from perfect but I loved him. Fathers are important to sons and daughters. That child a woman carries doesn’t just belong to her.

So I guess I should admit here that I do not have children. I also have never had an abortion or even been faced with an unplanned pregnancy. I suppose this will garner many “you don’t know what your talking about” and “how would you know what it’s like to face that decsion?” responses when people read this. That’s fine. I don’t know what it’s like. But I would ask them, do you know what it’s like to be told you cannot have children? I do. What you take for granted, I’ll never know. Now, lest you think I’m all depressed and weepy, I’m not. I have known for many years and have made peace with it. I believe God has something else besides marriage and motherhood in mind for me. But there were many tears before that acceptance came. Ten, fifteen years ago when my friends started getting married having babies, it was very hard because our relationships changed and our lives took different directions. But that is life and I don’t dwell on it. I have embraced my single hood. But the point I would lite to make is this: the next time you think about abortion so casually, remember those who mourn for children that will never be. Not because they aborted them, but because they could never have them.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – Bring Your Own Munchies!

When: Thursday, Janurary 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:Join me and Tom LaDuke of From The Right Radio as we talk about the impact of legalized marijuana and industrial hemp. Bring your own munchies.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Apartment complex bans soldier’s small flag display

Just months after returning from a nine-month deployment to Afghanistan, U.S. Army National Guard veteran Tyler Barge was embroiled in another fight defending the American flag. This time it involves the management of his Salem, Va., apartment complex.
A small American flag, displayed in a cup of dirt on his patio wall, is a violation of the building’s code, he was told.
Barge received a notice informing him he must remove the flag, along with a few other items – a broom and table, for instance – deemed inappropriate.
“We need your help to keep our community one of the best in Salem,” the notice read, giving Barge several days to remove the offending items. A list that inexcusably included a veteran’s American flag.
“I like to keep a flag on display in honor of those who have died fighting for our freedom,” he said in an interview. He went on to say he “saw the flag flying in Afghanistan; it’d be nice to see it flying here, too.”
While I understand the necessity of apartment complex codes designed to maintain a clutter-free exterior, it is almost unfathomable a small flag would be seen as anything but an affirmation of one’s honor for his or her country.
Unfortunately, today’s America includes individuals who seem to include catering to fringe groups and trashing traditional patriotism among the greatest of virtues.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Rebuttal of RINO Mick Mulvaney and Dem Keith Ellison’s lies

In an op-ed published on January 3rd in the extremely liberal Huffington Post, RINO Congressman Mick Mulvaney (RINO-SC) and extremely liberal Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) made a number of false claims and a few straw man arguments while promoting their campaign to gut America’s defense together with leftist think-tanks. (Their false claims, previously made in a letter to Congressional leadership, have been refuted here.)

They begin their op-ed by claiming that defense spending must contribute to deficit reduction because it has grown by 1/3 since FY2001. But that’s a straw man argument. Defense spending, in case they haven’t noticed, has already contributed mightily to deficit reduction: to the tune of over $900 bn since FY2010 alone. This included over 50 weapon program terminations in FY2010 and FY2011 (saving $330 bn), cutting the US nuclear arsenal unilaterally under New START (which allows Russia to grow its arsenal), the $178 bn Gates Efficiencies Initiative (upheld by Leon Panetta) and the $487 bn in savings required by the first tier of the Budget Control Act – savings which Sec. Panetta has found and programmed.

By the way, successive SECDEFs and other DOD leaders have repeatedly asked, indeed begged, Congress for authorization to address the REAL cost drivers in the defense budget – military healthcare and retirement programs – and to retire obsolete/niche aircraft (e.g. C-23s, C-27s, and the oldest F-16s, A-10s, and C-130s) and close unneeded bases (Leon Panetta has requested authorization for TWO base closure rounds). Congressional consent is needed for all of these reforms (and for virtually everything else).

Yet, the Congress has repeatedly and consistently refused to authorize ANY of these reforms for purely parochial reasons.

Thus, members of Congress, including Reps. Mulvaney and Ellison, should stop blaming the DOD and look at themselves. THEY are to blame – not the DOD.

But even if such reforms were authorized, the savings would not be nearly big enough to justify deep defense budget cuts. Yet, Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that such savage, deep defense spending cuts are possible without harming the US military, even though that is a blatant lie. There is some waste in the defense budget, but not enough of it to make deep defense budget cuts, contrary to what the supporters of such cuts (all of whom are strident liberals) falsely claim. Any deep cuts would have to come from the force structure (which has already been cut excessively), training, maintenance, and modernization (i.e. the development and procurement of new, badly needed equipment, as well as the modernization of existing gear).

Mulvaney and Ellison blatantly lie in their op-ed that “respected policy organizations from across the political spectrum, such as the CATO Institute, the Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Project on Defense Alternatives” have come up with ways to “responsibly” achieve “$550 bn in defense savings over a decade”, and that the cuts proposed by these organizations would not weaken the US military at all.

But the fact is that the cuts proposed by these leftist organizations would gravely weaken the US military. That is not an opinion. That is a FACT.

Moreover, the cuts proposed by these leftist organizations seem to be deliberately designed to cripple America’s armed forces.

I have already refuted the proposals of all of these organizations here, here, here, here, here, and here. A very detailed analysis of Russia’s and China’s military capabilities is available here. In this article, I’ll refute a few of their destructive proposals to illustrate how badly their treasonous defense cuts proposals would cripple the US military.

All of these leftist organizations propose to dramatically cut America’s nuclear deterrent, even though it has already been dramatically reduced since the end of the Cold War (from over 20,000 to just 5,000 warheads) and is in urgent need of modernization, and even though Russia, China, and North Korea are rapidly GROWING their nuclear arsenals. Russia alone has 2,800 strategic and untold thousands (up to 4,000) of tactical nuclear warheads, all of which are deliverable: Russia has 434 ICBMs (most of them being multiple-warhead missiles), over 250 strategic bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, Tu-22Ms), and 13 ballistic missile subs (with 200-220 missiles, each capable of carrying varying numbers of warheads) to deliver its strategic nukes, and untold thousands of tactical delivery systems (such as warships, aircraft, and artillery pieces) to deliver its tactical warheads (which range from bombs to nuclear depth charges to nuclear artillery shells).

Dramatically cutting the US nuclear arsenal or failing to modernize it – as CATO, the PDA, the NTU, POGO, and TCS all propose to do – would be worse than an utter folly. It would be suicidal, inviting a Russian or possibly even Chinese nuclear first strike on the US. This is for two reasons. Firstly, to be survivable, a nuclear arsenal has to be large, especially if the enemy’s arsenal is also large. A few hundred ICBMs, a few SSBNs, and a few bomber bases would be quite easy for the enemy to take out. Secondly, only a large arsenal can threaten the majority of Russia’s and China’s military assets (the things they really care about) and thus threaten CREDIBLE retaliation upon Russia or China in case of aggression. A small arsenal could only threaten population centers – which Russian and Chinese leaders don’t care about – and would thus not be credible at all. “Minimum deterrence” is no deterrence at all. Contrary to CATO’s and PDA’s false claims, the US nuclear arsenal is not oversized at all, and the US does not have any “overkill” in that regard.

All of these leftist organizations also propose to cut the SSBN fleet down to just 7-8 boats, meaning that only 3-4 at most would be at sea at any time; to cancel the overdue construction of new nuclear facilities to replace old, dilapidated ones; and to cancel the Next Generation Bomber.

The Next Generation Bomber is absolutely and urgently needed, and the need for it has been proven many times already (vide e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and reaffirmed numerous times by successive Defense Secretaries (Rumsfeld, Gates, Panetta), USAF Chiefs of Staff (Moseley, Schwartz, Welsh), other USAF leaders, and by Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

Why is it needed, when B-1s and B-52s have decades of service life left? These legacy bombers have huge radar signatures, meaning they are extremely easy even for legacy Soviet radars (let alone modern Russian and Chinese air defense systems such as the S-300, S-400, S-500, and HQ-9) to detect and for enemy SAMs to shoot down from a long range. Any airspace defended by even primitive 1960s Soviet systems, such as the SA-2/3/4/5/6, let alone the newest Russian and Chinese air defense systems, is thus firmly closed to the B-1 and the B-52.

And that makes these legacy bombers completely useless, because a bomber’s sole purpose is to penetrate enemy airspace and deliver bombs to its targets. If it cannot do so for any reason whatsoever – e.g. being unable to penetrate enemy airspace due to a large radar sig and thus high risk of getting shot down – such aircraft is useless. Launching cruise missiles is no solution: cruise missiles have small bodies and small warheads and thus can strike only small, soft, unhardened, static targets. And due to their cost, they are useful only for short, scope-limited campaigns.

Today, the USAF’s only bombers capable of surviving in enemy airspace are its 20 B-2s (which POGO opposed, BTW) – and 20 bombers are nowhere near enough to defeat anyone but the most trivial adversary.

Thus, the NGB is urgently needed – NOW.

PDA and CATO also propose to dramatically cut the Navy’s size, to just 230 ships and 8-9 carrier groups. Similarly deep cuts would fall on submarine, surface combatant, amphibious assault, and landing dock ships. PDA and CATO would also dramatically cut the procurement of Virginia class submarines (which are needed to replace noisy LA class subs) and P-8 Poseidon aircraft. This would make the Navy unable to meet many of the missions it currently has to meet. The Navy is already able to supply only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their needs for submarines. With the cuts that PDA and CATO propose, the Navy would be able to meet even fewer of COCOMs’ needs – probably less than half. In other words, the majority of Combatant Commanders’ needs would go unmet. National security would suffer as a result – because the missions required to keep America safe would not be executed.

A ship, no matter how advanced technologically, can be in only one place at any given time. Yet, the world hasn’t shrunk since the 1980s, the world’s sealanes – which must be safeguarded – are long, the Persian Gulf remains volative, China cannot be allowed to turn the WESTPAC into an internal Chinese lake, and thus, the Navy has many commitments around the world which it must meet.

I could go on and on like this all day. PDA, CATO, POGO, TCS, and the NTU demand deep, crippling defense cuts across the board: in the ground force, in the fighter fleet, in support aircraft (such as the wrongly-maligned V-22) in crucial weapon programs across the board, in missile defense, etc.

The fact is that, contrary to the pious denials of those RINO and Democrat Congressmen, the massive defense cuts proposals of these think-tanks would severely weaken the US military and imperil national security for the reasons stated above. So despite their pious denials, national security would be severely compromised and harmed.

In short, for all of the reasons listed here and the linked articles, their defense cuts proposals would gravely weaken the US military and put US national security at risk – despite their, Mulvaney’s, and Ellison’s pious denials. Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that they wouldn’t embark on this cause if it would lead to weakening America’s defense – but this is precisely what their campaign and those leftist organizations’ deep defense cuts would lead to. If they don’t know it, they should stop pontificating about issues they know nothing about.

(And does anyone really believe that strident liberals like Keith Ellison give two hoots about America’s defense?)

By the way, those “policy organizations” are not “from across the political spectrum”. Only the NTU could be said to be on the political right. CATO, the Massachusetts-based (and Barney-Frank-supported) PDA, POGO, and TCS are from the far left.

CATO was founded by anarcho-libertarian Murray Rothbard, who opposed any form of government whatsoever (i.e. favored anarchy), opposed having any military whatsoever, considered the US military to be a tool of internal oppression, blamed the Cold War solely on the US (while claiming Moscow was merely the aggrieved side), supported Islamofascists over Israel, and hailed Nikita Khrushchev during his visit to the US.

Today, CATO’s VP for “foreign and defense studies” is Chris Preble, a guy who thinks America’s military power is a problem to be eliminated and a thing that makes America less safe – i.e. he accepts the discredited liberal thesis that military strength is dangerous and provocative. (He has written a book titled The Power Problem: How America’s Military Power Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free).

CATO and POGO are co-funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

POGO was founded in 1981 to oppose and to stop Ronald Reagan’s attempt to rebuild the US military after 12 years of massive, disastrous defense cuts. They have opposed every crucial weapon system the US has developed or fielded since 1981, most of which have performed brilliantly – such as the M1 Abrams tank, the M2 Bradley IFV, Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (put in Europe in 1983 to deter the USSR), the F-15, the B-2 bomber, the V-22, the F-22, and so forth.

The Massachusetts-based “Project on Defense Alternatives” is supported by the House’s most strident liberals, such as Barney Frank, and like POGO, TCS, and CATO, sits on the far left fringe of the US political spectrum.

Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that in the past, lower defense spending levels have provided “more than adequately” for national defense. This is false and, in any case, irrelevant. False, because deep defense cuts have, in the past, always led to severe weakening of the military. This is what happened after the Civil, World, Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars: the US proceeded to reap a “peace dividend” which turned out to be illusory, short-lived, economically useless, and deeply damaging to the military, whose force structure, training hours, maintenance funding, and equipment orders were dramatically cut, and as a result, the US military was significantly weakened each time.  And after each of these drawdowns, the US military had to be rebuilt later – at a much greater fiscal cost. So in the long term, these drawdowns and “peace dividends” saved nothing.

The only periods of the Cold War when defense was adequately provided for were the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Reagan years. During the Reagan years, the base defense budget was significantly LARGER in inflation-adjusted dollars than that of today: $590 bn in FY1987 compared to $525 bn this year.

Yet, in the next breath, Mulvaney and Ellison admonish their readers that past military spending levels are irrelevant to today and that defense spending levels should be determined by military needs and threat assessment, not by past spending levels or percentage of GDP. Thus, they’re contradicting themselves. So which is it, Congressmen? If past defense spending levels are irrelevant, why did you bring them up? By your own admission, they’re irrelevant.

You can’t have it both ways.

Also, what Mulvaney and Ellison fail (or refuse) to acknowledge is that America’s current defense needs are large and require large and sustained investment in the military. They cannot be met on the cheap.

Defense on the cheap is not possible.

Here is an objective, impartial assessment of Russia’s and China’s military capabilities, as well as a short assessment of the North Korean and Iranian threats. To deeply cut America’s defense budget – and to eliminate the platforms, people, weapon programs, and units targeted by CATO, PDA et al., would be worse than pure folly: it would be downright suicidal. Any notion that the US can afford such cuts in the muscle of its military or that potential enemies are many years behind the US is false: Russia and China have already closed most of the gaps with the US military (while creating their own, nontraditional advantages), and are working hard on closing the remaining few gaps.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has testified that the current threat environment is the most dangerous he has seen in his entire military career spanning over 38 years.

In short, Mulvaney’s and Ellison’s claims are all blatant lies or, in a few cases, straw man arguments. Their advocacy of the disastrous defense cuts proposals made by leftist “think tanks” like CATO, PDA, POGO, and TCS is an absolute disqualifier. Not one of their claims are true, and if they don’t know that, they’re mentally deficient.

Shame on them for supporting the defense gutting proposals made by these leftist organizations. Both of them must be voted out of office.

Homeland Security: In an Emergency; Grab Your Scissors

Continuing the idea that only the government can protect you the Department of Homeland Security has released this video of options if you are in a dangerous situation. Key in the DHS plan is to take cover and hide.  But…

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator, as the video shows an office worker grabbing a pair of scissors out of her drawer.

One has to wonder if teaching actual self defense tactics might be a better plan. Or maybe an offer to put a baseball bat at every cubicle.

The Law of the Morning

‘Forty is the old age of youth and fifty is the youth of old age.’

I can’t believe we’re having this conversation. I can’t believe people think it’s okay to have this conversation. It is apparently so, ‘this conversation’ having advanced rapidly since 2009. Of old age Longfellow appropriately wrote:

“Age is opportunity no less,
Than youth itself, though in another dress,
And as the evening twilight fades away,
The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.”

Most of us know about the $700-billion taken from Medicare seniors to fund one-third of Obamacare; and of its 15-member, unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) bureaucracy coined “Death Panel,” to determine who receives what medical services. Harrowing first-hand accounts of declined senior care have surfaced. The lives and unnecessary, politically determined deaths of America’s elderly are now in play.

On the heels of these cutbacks and under guise of saving an already government-robbed-into-bankruptcy Social Security and Medicare system is the ever-increasing and often misleading conversation about seniors being too costly to the rest of America. That conversation has since expounded into the proposed bullying of those overweight for similar reasons, which I personally find just as indecently unconscionable. For some reason Americans are okay with this?

We’ve been nudged into having these ‘conversations’ casually now, over a cup of coffee, at the water cooler, among friends … even publicly, on television. As if the those affected are not here to see and hear us. As if they are so insignificant we don’t care whether they do. As if by not saying “my grandmother costs too much to keep alive” or “my grandfather does” we’re somehow escaping personal responsibility for what’s really at play. The conversation is inevitably preempted by faux courtesy to make it feel better, like “Well, it is time to have this conversation.”

Uh, no, it isn’t.

“Once a society begins to legislate death, human life becomes less valuable. It is like arithmetic. It just happens. It is inevitable. The German government’s embrace of euthanasia before the Holocaust was no accident.” [Dr. Keith Ablow]

That’s the convenient thing about indoctrinating young minds. They still think their old-years are too far away for concern or they won’t be ailing when they get old or they won’t want to live after they do get old. Surprise. That isn’t true either. And just who gets to say when “old” is? Can it be so simply defined as the moment some stranger determines another stranger’s usefulness has ceased?

Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist in Michigan, commonly known as “Dr. Death” for his assisted suicides. That was back when taking someone’s life – even when they wanted their life taken – was deemed murder. You know, way back in 2009 and in Michigan, one of our most Liberal states. Kevorkian claimed 130-assisted suicides beginning in 1990. Five times he defended himself in courts of law against very public murder charges, by a government just as determined then to tell us what was “right” as they are now in nudging us toward the very opposite. In 1999 Kevorkian was sentenced and imprisoned, released in ill health in 2009 on a promise he wouldn’t assist in any more murders. That was four years ago. Four years. He didn’t die until 2011 at age 83, all the while fighting for his last natural breath regardless of prolonged illness and his own “burden” on society.

“Who does not wish to be beautiful, and clever, and rich, and to have back, in old age, the time spent trying to be any of them.” [Robert Brault]

If I were a Michigan taxpayer I’d be suing for refund of prosecuting those five, very lengthy and costly court cases, as well as what was spent jailing, feeding and medicating Dr. Death for eight-years.

So let me make sure I have this right: Somewhere between this president taking office and now it’s become okay to have this conversation. All of the sudden this is The Conversation to have. And you don’t think you’ve been indoctrinated? (That’s just another word for brainwashed.) What a mockery of fools we make of ourselves. Or is that your definition of rampant “progress?” If so, sadder yet, serving only as glaring evidence of souls waxed cold.

Let us at least understand today’s conversation. This conversation is okay now because now it’s poised as some easy fix for your social security? After eons of honoring our elderly, in 2013 it’s just too expensive to do that any more because a bunch of politicians have run out of tax money to spend? And let’s be serious here, that is the real issue.

How much better to sell it as our vulnerable elderly living too long, costing too much and being too inconvenient because they do live so damned long. They’ve served their usefulness in paying for all they’ve handed down to us, not the least of which was being human guinea pigs for the medical technologies we do so enjoy. It’s time to get rid of them. Feed the tax monster so we don’t have to pay so much for ourselves. Fat chance. That monster isn’t going anywhere if you don’t vote it out.

Americans are allowing self-endowed intellectuals to convince us that we’ve ‘progressed’ so much it’s time to equate value of life to money. That kind of progress will be the end of you and you won’t be wise enough to see it coming because you will have killed-off all of the wisdoms left among you.

Obama Czar Cass Sunstein argues, “people are subject to all sorts of biases and quirks. [He] also argues that this human quality, which some would call irrationality, can be predicted and — this is the controversial part — that if the social environment can be changed, people might be nudged into more rational behavior.“ New York Times, 2010.

Only three-years ago even the Liberal New York Times hesitated, calling this conversation “controversial.” But today they’ve so widely nudged this conversation ‘forward’ even Conservatives are indulging it – out in the open. What’s wrong with us? Are we all kool-aid drinkers?

Let’s assume for a moment that money is a worthy argument. Do you really believe You are going to reap the rewards of any money saved? Do you think for one moment that whatever could be saved would actually run down to your pocketbook or social security account?

Are insurance companies going to do something they’ve never done and lower premiums and copays or will medical providers lower theirs or, even if both did, is government not going to eat up any excess? Do you really think those who’ve paid all of the prices you’re reaping benefit of now are expendable because they don’t keep paying beyond their own paying years – when it’s Your turn? And just what legacy do you plan leaving your children, then? Someone has to leave one if your children are to have any. Common sense alone tells us this sort of short-sighted vanity, in and of itself, spells social disaster.

In a few short years this country has gone from doggedly prosecuting and reprosecuting, convicting and imprisoning those who take lives of the willing to die, to a people of “having the conversation” about taking innocent lives of those who are not willing to die. We already take the lives of newborns. What are we, barbarians? These atrocities are invariably couched so you don’t need to feel any personal responsibility, you’re not really making the decision, right? You’re just ‘having the conversations’ that nudge the consequences ‘forward.’ Uh-huh.

Carl Jung is renowned for his collective thinking, an un-American principle to which I do not adhere. But given the masses who’re rushing to embrace extinction of their elderly on some fraudulent “collective” basis it’s worth reflecting on Jung for just a moment. Carl Jung is said to have spoken of a “Boon Quest,” one’s journey into the realm of unknowns, the boon being fulfilled when we return to share its lessons with others. Chances are he wasn’t referring to 25-year olds. Life is a journey. All the years of life are, not just the first 33, 44 or 55.

“A human being would certainly not grow to be seventy or eighty years old if this longevity had no meaning for the species. The afternoon of human life must also have a significance of its own and cannot be merely a pitiful appendage to life’s morning … .”

“Whoever carries over into the afternoon the law of the morning, or the natural aim, must pay for it with damage to his soul, just as surely as a growing youth who tries to carry over his childish egoism into adult life must pay for this mistake with social failure.“ [Carl Jung]

The value of our elders is not found in money. Nor is it found in some misnomer of “entitlements” for which they’ve paid handsomely and only now stand to benefit – or in what they do or don’t produce during their later years – any more than boon wisdoms can be found in twenty-five year olds. Our elderly years are those of introspection that youth has not had the time, experience or patience to afford and which season a more peaceful and compassionate view of the world than youth are wired to see.

Our families’ elders are the foundations and groundings of our own personal selves. They are our connections to who we have been, who we will be, and what works and what does not in living who we are. Elders tether us among families, to our pasts, in our futures, and among our ethnicities, the losses of which cannot be measured or replaced; and an imbalance of which leads to the worst kind of species extinction. Who among us is qualified to say who becomes extinct, least of all a government propagandizing to sustain and enhance its own wealth? We revere the extinction of animal species more highly than this. What IS wrong with us?

When you no longer have the wise among you, as a society you are doomed to be more vulnerable. The strongest links in your life chain are removed. That’s where an all-consuming government wants you, as should be crystal clear by the mere nudging of these conversations. A government that has, in a few very short years, indoctrinated the belief that everything will be better for you if only you will agree to kill-off your elderly.

You will be the next links of chain taken, whatever that justification may be, make no mistake about it. And it’ll be okay. After all, it’s just a conversation about betterment of the collective good.

From The Gift of Wise Counsel: Wise counsel will come from individuals who know the difference between …

  • what is ultimately good and what is just currently popular,
  • what is really valuable and what is just cheap,
  • a smart investment and just a quick profit,
  • what is earned and what is only borrowed,
  • what is achieved by hard work and what is just lucky,
  • being happy and just having fun,
  • what is beautiful and what just looks attractive,
  • what is ultimately right and what may just be legal,
  • what is really a generous gift and what is a selfish token,
  • a sincere apology and a weak excuse,
  • what is true and what is just a matter of opinion,
  • what is to be hard sought and what is to be tolerated,
  • when help is appropriate and when it should be withheld to encourage one to struggle,
  • love and lust,
  • what is really dangerous and what may just be somewhat risky,
  • what is worth fighting against and what one should run from,
  • what is a legitimate source of hope and what is a technique of mass marketing,
  • a real miracle and a magic trick,
  • what is wise and what is foolish,
  • what is a divine blessing and what is a demonic temptation,
  • what can last forever and what is only temporary,
  • humble worship that glorifies God and pride-filled religious rituals that offend God,
  • what is from God and what is from the world.

Posted @ QUOTEZ.CO

Immigration Reform? Secure the Border First.

President Obarizona borderama, talking about his illegal immigrant solution, told Univision this week that the US-Mexico border is more secure than ever.

Not surprisingly, we’re arguing semantics. More secure? Maybe. Secure? Not. As an Arizona resident, I hope those working on immigration reform press to secure the border first.  If you live on the East Coast traveling quickly from state to state it might be unimaginable the size of challenges of our Southern Border.  It’s nearly 350 miles East to West across the state. Almost 400 miles of border with Mexico.

But take a look at this CNN report with an Arizona border rancher. Does this look secure to you? How hard is it for Coyotes and drug smugglers to figure out where the fence ends? Traveling like armed ghosts in the night (and sometimes by light), the rugged terrain may slow down sightseers but those wishing to cross do so easily, continuing to endanger the lives of US residents.

The administration brags that there are fewer illegals coming into the country than before. But many would argue this reduction is due to a continued stagnant economy allowing for fewer undocumented workers to find jobs.

No one argues that fences will stop everyone from crossing. But most everyone does agree that they do significantly slow the numbers. Like plugging a leaky boat with a rag, water may still seep in but at a more manageable rate and you are no longer in danger of sinking.



ATF’s Epic Fail In Milwaukee

Screen Shot 2013-01-31 at 11.29.54 AMAs Harry Reid bolts from Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed push to ban so-called assault weapons, other senators, including Pat Leahy and Al Franken, may politick their way into killing the bill in committee.  As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air posted yesterday,

No one thought Reid would be excited to support a new assault-weapons ban.  He didn’t support the last one, and he’s been non-committal over the last several weeks even while his fellow Democrats have publicly demanded a new ban.  Leahy’s reluctance should probably not be surprising, either; Vermont has a lot of gun owners, and voters there support nearly unrestricted gun rights.

However, Leahy chairs the Judiciary Committee, which is where Feinstein’s bill will have to find approval to reach a floor vote — or more likely, a filibuster.  That committee also includes Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken from Minnesota.  Klobuchar easily won re-election and might vote to pass a ban out of committee, but Franken has to face Minnesota voters next year — voters who are also gun-rights supporters.  Franken has said little about Feinstein’s proposal except that he supports a renewal of the assault-weapons ban “in principle.”  If Leahy is not on board, Franken might protect himself with a no vote (or perhaps an abstention).  Assuming the Republicans on the committee oppose it, Feinstein’s bill may never get out of committee at all.

Morrissey concluded that we may have dodged a bullet (sorry for the pun) with the failure of this new anti-gun push since the constitutionally questionable ATF would’ve enforced it.  Let’s see what their latest efforts into gun control yielded in the streets of Milwaukee.

…the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, they [ATF] seem to have enough trouble handling the laws they enforce now:

A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee’s Riverwest neighborhood, offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug paraphernalia.

Those working behind the counter, however, weren’t interested in selling anything.

They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.

But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.

When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.

And the agency remains locked in a battle with the building’s owner, who says he is owed about $15,000 because of utility bills, holes in the walls, broken doors and damage from an overflowing toilet.

So, this is an epic fail. It’s no wonder people have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and internet memes that say Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

ATF has a hazy history.  Besides Ruby Ridge, Waco, and its controversial gunwalking operations into Mexico, ATF’s operations have been criticized as excessive and unconstitutional.  Before the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, 75% of the bureau’s prosecutions were “constitutionally improper,” according to an official Congressional investigation. As David Kopel, who recently testified for the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence this week, wrote for National Review back in 2009, as a response to The American Prospect’s blog about his use of the 75% statistic:

The 75-percent figure comes from a unanimous 1982 report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. After detailing a litany of statistics and case studies showing extreme and extensive abuse by BATF, the subcommittee’s reportturned to BATF’s counterarguments:

The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau’s priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before BATF’s Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau’s acting director had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover, BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed that “crime guns” were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in the months following the announcement of their new “priorities”, the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All this indicates that the Bureau’s vague claims, both of focus upon gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.

Yeah, I don’t think nominating a director to head this bureau is a national priority.

(H/T Ed Morrissey)

What the DOD should do in case of sequestration

Unless the Congress repeals or reprioritizes sequestration, a mechanism set up by the Budget Control Act of 2011, that mechanism will cut roughly $50 bn out of the defense budget in FY2013 alone and another $55 bn in each FY through FY2022. Also, Congress may fail this year to pass a proper Defense Appropriations Act or an Omnibus Approps  bill and pass a Continuing Resolution with funding at FY2012 levels (without regard for the DOD’s new Defense Strategic Guidance) for all programs and a ban on new program starts. If that happens, the DOD will face a severe funding shortage due to automatic, arbitrary, across-the-board cuts (excepting only military personnel).

The disastrous consequences of such cuts cannot be avoided unless the cuts themselves are cancelled and the Congress passes a proper Approps bill instead of a Continuing Resolution. There are only a few things that the DOD can do to mitigate (not avoid – merely mitigate) the damage and preserve priority programs, such as:

  • Fully implementing all reforms proposed in the Defense Reform Proposals Package (the DRPP). Even without a comprehensive logistics reform and reforms to the DOD’s healthcare programs, this would still save at least $50 bn per year, starting immediately. The DOD should then use these savings to pay for priority programs and the general maintenance and readiness of the military by asking Congress to reprogram these savings.
  • Reducing its civilian workforce significantly and reducing its salaries instead of a mere temporary hiring and pay freeze.
  • Cancelling the LCS and ploughing the resulting savings into the construction of truly survivable and capable ships, such as the Arleigh Burke and Virginia classes.
  • Cancelling the F-35A and C variants, zero-timing current aircraft, strengthening them structurally, hastening the development of the F/A-XX (NGAD) unmanned fighter for the Navy, and procuring F-15SEs for the Air Force.
  • Delaying the GCV program.
  • Ignoring Congressional refusal to authorize the retirement of obsolete and niche aircraft and retiring such aircraft anyway.
  • Urgently requesting authorization for any reforms requiring Congressional authorization, such as TRICARE premium increases, the reform of the military retirement system, and BRAC.
  • Reconsidering whether funding expensive kinetic interceptors is really the best way to provide for Israel’s security or whether there is a better and much cheaper way.
  • Speeding up the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
  • Ending the acquisition of EA-18G Growler aircraft and zero-timing EA-6B Prowlers instead.
  • Retiring EC-130 aircraft.
  • Ending all nonessential travel.
  • Ending all flyovers except for training purposes.
  • Ending all conferences and symposia.
  • Turning over the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the Arlington National Cemetary to the DVA.

None of these steps can prevent the US military from being gutted by sequestration, let alone a combination of sequestration and a Continuing Resolution. They can, however, allow the DOD to make savings which could then be used to “reprogram” the money to be directed to needed programs.

Rebuttal of John T. Bennett’s and DefenseNews’ blatant lies and biased “reporting”

The leftist DefenseNews website has recently published an irredeemably biased, lying piece of “reporting” by its biased, extremely leftist anti-defense hack John T. Bennett. Titled “For Defense Sector, Americans’ Support for Military Cuts Is an Inconvenient Truth”, it falsely claims that “For Pentagon officials, defense-sector CEOs and congressional hawks, it is perhaps the most inconvenient of all truths: Most Americans want Washington to spend less on the military”, based on a Reason magazine commissioned poll which, however, does not indicate such results at all.

In other words, Bennett is making false claims based on a poll which does not back his claims up at all.

So his claim is not “a truth”, let alone “the most inconvenient of all truths”. It’s a blatant lie – i.e. Bennett’s trademark product.

Bennett continued with his lies, claiming that

“More Americans pointed to the Defense Department and wars than to any other issue when asked for their opinion about areas where Washington spends too much, according to a new poll released Jan. 30.

Twenty-one percent pointed to Pentagon and war spending, with 17 percent identifying federal-employee salaries and campaigns, states the Reason-Rupe poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Thirteen percent pointed to welfare and social programs, with the same percentage citing foreign aid.

But such data often is excluded from the kinds of breathless warnings uttered for the last 18 months by Pentagon leaders, industry executives and hawkish lawmakers about pending defense budget shrinkage.”

Yet, the poll’s actual data do not indicate anything that Bennett claims.

Firstly, 21% is not even close to being the majority, Mr Bennett. Not even close. That’s barely one-fifth of the public. Furthermore, the truth – which Bennett claims to be propagating – is not determined by popular vote. It’s determined by the facts – namely, by empirical evidence.

And the empirical evidence is that ENTITLEMENTS, not the military, are the programs Washington overspends on. According to the Heritage Foundation (see its graphs below), entitlements alone consume 62% of the total federal budget (and are on track to consume 100% by 2050), and the broader category of social/welfare spending consumes 70% of the entire federal budget.



So according to empirical evidence, only 17% of Americans have identified the TRUE category of federal spending on which Washington overspends most – while 83% of Americans have failed to identify it. And it isn’t the military. (This isn’t the first time, BTW, that the majority of Americans have failed to identify the true source of America’s fiscal woes, and WaPo “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler has given the American public four Pinnochios – the worst rating you can get from him – for that failure.)

The reason is quite simple. A significant majority of Americans lives off the federal dole, i.e. most Americans draw money from at least one federal program and can’t imagine a life without a government program. So, rather than make tough personal choices and start providing for themselves and their own families, they pretend to point fingers to small budgetary items that have had little impact on the nation’s budget deficit: defense, foreign aid, etc. The vast majority of the public – as polls have consistently shown – still refuses to accept the reality that entitlements are the real drivers of America’s debt and will have to be severely curtailed if America is to have a balanced budget ever again.

Moreover, when asked specifically about defense spending – whether it should be cut or not – the poll itself says that only 49% of Americans – NOT a majority – said it should be, while 45% said it shouldn’t be, 6% are undecided, and the poll’s margin of error was 3.8 pp, as Bennett himself admits later in his screed.

49% is not a majority. Moreover, given that the poll’s own MoE is 3.8 pp, it could just as well be that 48.8% of Americans OPPOSE any defense spending cuts while only 45.2% support such measure.

Why should it be automatically assumed that the MoE favors defense cuts supporters and thus that the majority of the public supports such measures when the poll’s own MoE is so big that the opposite result could be drawn just as reasonably? Such automatic assumptions only reveal Bennett’s and DefenseNews’ bias, not any “inconvenient truth.”

Furthermore, the poll’s own results indicate that even when pressed to specify defense budget cuts, 18% of respondents still say “I don’t know how deep they should be”, 15% still say there should be no cuts at all, and 21% say these cuts should be less than 9% deep. Only 47% support cuts to the tune of 10% or more.

So by that poll’s own numbers – and by Bennett’s own admission – 53% of Americans – even when pressed to specifically name some defense budget cuts – say either “no cuts”, “I don’t know how much to cut”, or “less than 10%.”

This is consistent with National Journal polls which say that most Americans either oppose defense budget cuts or are prepared to see only modest cuts. Only a small minority, about 20% of Americans, supports deep cuts according to the National Journal.

Then there is the fact that America’s defense budget is not bloated, that deep defense budget would severely weaken the US military (all those troops, weapons, maintenance, training hours, etc. have to be paid for, remember?), that there are numerous and serious military threats to US security, and the fact that even cutting the defense budget deeply – or even eliminating it altogether – would do nothing to address the budget deficit.


But that is another inconvenient truth that Bennett has deliberately left out.

Last but not least – and this is yet another inconvenient truth ignored by Bennett – America is not, and was never supposed to be, a democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic. The people are not to make policy – they are supposed to elect their Representatives and Senators who will make policy on their behalf.

The reason why such system (with election of Senators by state legislatures, BTW, not by the people) was set up by the Founding Fathers is obvious: most people are way too ignorant and too self-centered to make good policy (as the cited Reason-Rupe-Princeton Poll and numerous other polls show, the vast majority of Americans refuse to recognize that entitlements are the real drivers of America’s debt and will have to be severely curtailed). Under the original Constitution, the people were supposed to elect ONLY the House. The Senate was elected by state legislatures, and the President is chosen by electors, who were originally appointed by state legislatures, NOT elected by the people.

So, to sum up, what John T. Bennett claims is an “inconvenient truth” is not a truth at all. It’s actually a blatant propaganda lie invented by Bennett himself, who is a stridently leftist anti-defense hack and who apparently wishes to mislead the electorate into accepting deep defense cuts. In any case, he’s far from impartial (which is what a journalist should be).

In the best case scenario for Bennett, the Reason-Rupe-Princeton poll MIGHT be saying that a plurality – but by no means a majority – of Americans support some sort of defense cuts, with a deep division among those who support such measure on how much to cut, and only a minority supporting cuts to the tune of 10% or more.

But the poll has such a large MoE – 3.8 pp – that it could just as well indicate that 48.8% of Americans OPPOSE defense spending cuts and only 45.2% support such course of action.

Bennett’s piece is an utterly biased piece of “reporting.” DefenseNews should be ashamed of itself for publishing such ridiculous propaganda screed and take it down.

« Older Entries