Monthly Archives: February 2013

Rebuttal of the CATO Institute’s blatant lies

The George-Soros-funded CATO Institute has recently put out a 3-minute video titled “The Truth About Sequestration” which, however, is a litany of blatant lies about sequestration and defense issues. They claim, inter alia, that sequestration would be only a “one-year cut” in defense spending; that by the end of the sequestration decade, defense spending would be $100 bn higher than this FY; that America can afford to “spend considerably less on defense at no cost in national security”; that defense spending has increased by over 90% since FY1998; that military spending constitutes only one quarter of the total federal budget; and that America’s military spending actually makes America less secure.

Traitor Rand Paul has picked up that liberal propaganda video and shamelessly propagates it on his Facebook page, claiming that sequestration will not cut defense spending at all and will only be “a reduction in the rate of growth” of defense spending.

The only problem is that the claims made in this video and by Sen. Paul on his page are blatant lies, at least as far as defense spending is concerned. No, sequestration would NOT be a mere reduction in the rate of increase, nor would it be a one-year cut – it would be a real, deep, immediate, and permanent reduction in the defense budget. It would cut the base defense budget from $525 bn today to $469 bn on March 1st, and even a decade from now, in FY2022, it would be at a mere $493 bn – $32 bn below today’s level.

All the while OCO (war) spending is shrinking steadily and is set to disappear in FY2016. DOE, DHS, and State Department spending is ALSO subject to sequestration.No, sequestration is not a mere “reduction in the rate of increase” nor a mere “one-year cut” – it’s a real, deep, immediate, and permanent cut in defense spending. Here’s the proof in graphic version.


The claim that sequestration would set defense spending back “only” to “2006 or 2007 levels” (as if that weren’t a deep cut) is also a blatant lie – sequestration, by cutting it to $469 bn on March 1st, would cut it down to FY2003 levels (in FY2004, the base defense budget was $472 bn – MORE than what would be allowed under sequestration in March). The defense budget would actually not return to FY2007 levels until FY2022! And the claim that defense spending levels in FY2006 or FY2007 were “excessive” is also a lie – they were not excessive then, and they would be woefully inadequate now, considering how much the Chinese and Russian military buildups, and the nuclear and ballistic missile programs of North Korea and Iran, have progressed since then.

Listen to the Joint Chiefs testifying just a week ago, folks. Listen to them talking about how severely deep defense cuts would weaken America’s defense:

If the defense budget were to be “considerably” reduced, jettisoning missions like commitments to allies would NOT be enough, because a large military of a size no smaller than that of today would STILL be needed to protect the US itself. So “considerably less defense spending” would have to mean considerably fewer troops, weapons, munitions, and weapon programs to defend America itself, as well as far fewer training hours/days and far fewer installations at which to disperse the force (thus making it much less survivable because of a lack of dispersal).

Defense cannot be provided for on the cheap.

The claim that military spending has grown by over 90% since FY1998 is also a blatant lie – the correct figure is around 70% – and it’s irrelevant in any case, because FY1998 was the post-WW2 nadir of defense spending – the nadir of the Clinton-era massive defense cuts which gutted the military that the Bush Administration later tried to rebuild.

The claim that the US will be spending $100 bn more on defense in FY2022/FY2023 than now is a blatant lie, as demonstrated above (it will actually be $32 bn LOWER than it is today).

The claim that America’s military spending somehow undermines US national security is a blatant lie; it does not undermine US national security in any way whatsoever. It actually SAFEGUARDS America’s nat-sec by funding the troops, training, equipment, installations, and missions needed to protect America and its national interests abroad.

The claim that the US could deeply cut its defense budget and still be the world’s top military power and still be secure is also a blatant lie. The Chinese and Russian militaries have already closed most of the gaps between them and the US military and are working hard to close the remaining few gaps. They are far more capable than most people give them credit for. I have done tons of detailed analysis of them, available on my website (

The claim that “security threats have declined since the end of the Cold War” is only partially true – they did decline after 1991, but the calm, relatively peaceful decade of the 1990s is long over. Today, the world is more dangerous, and the US faces more security threats of greater magnitude and complexity, than at any point during the Cold War, except maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis, as confirmed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The idea that the US can afford to dramatically cut its defense budget, capabilities, and size of its military is so false and so ridiculous that only ideological libertarians like Rand Paul and the CATO Institute crowd could believe them.

As for NATO, the US has withdrawn the vast majority of its troops in Europe after 1991.

I would like to add one more thing, regarding past defense cuts: every past round of deep defense cuts – the one that followed the end of WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the end of the Cold War – resulted in the gutting of the military, in terms of size, training, equipment, material readiness, etc. EVERYTIME that America conducted such a round of deep defense cuts, these cuts later had to be reversed at a much higher cost than what it would’ve cost to simply keep the military strong at all times. And each time, these defense cuts cuts have caused America to be unprepared for the threats of the future and the next war, into which the US was usually drawn unwillingly, Vietnam being the sole exception. As former SECDEF Robert Gates, in the past, five times American policymakers and citizens concluded that the world had changed for the better and decided to dramatically cut the military. The result was always the same – a new, unexpected war that America was drawn into and unprepared for, emboldened enemies attacking others with impunity, and the necessity to rebuild the military at a high fiscal cost. It is IMPERATIVE not to repeat that mistake again.

Shame on the Soros-funded CATO Institute and on you, Senator, for lying so blatantly.

Obama’s Weekly Address: Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester

This is the transcript of President Obama’s Weekly Address for Saturday, February 23, 2013, released by the White House.



WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama used this week’s address to urge Congress to stop the harmful automatic cuts that threaten thousands of jobs and affect our national security—called the sequester—from taking effect on March 1st. The President and Congressional Democrats have already put forward solutions to avoid these cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, and now it’s time for Congressional Republicans to compromise by closing some loopholes that protect the wealthiest Americans so that we can reduce the deficit in a balanced way and create jobs for the middle class.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at at 6:00 a.m. ET, Saturday, February 23, 2013.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
The White House
February 23, 2013

Hi, everybody. Our top priority as a country right now should be doing everything we can to grow our economy and create good, middle class jobs.

And yet, less than one week from now, Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will do the exact opposite. They will slow our economy. They will eliminate good jobs. They will leave many families who are already stretched to the limit scrambling to figure out what to do.

But here’s the thing: these cuts don’t have to happen. Congress can turn them off anytime with just a little compromise. They can pass a balanced plan for deficit reduction. They can cut spending in a smart way, and close wasteful tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected.

Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising – instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans – they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class.

Here’s what that choice means. Once these cuts take effect, thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off, and tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, causing delays across the country. Even President Bush’s director of the National Institutes of Health says these cuts will set back medical science for a generation.

Already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf – affecting our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world. And just this week, the Pentagon announced that if these cuts go through, almost 800,000 defense employees – the equivalent of every person in Miami and Cleveland combined – will be forced to take unpaid leave.

That’s what this choice means. Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies? Are they seriously prepared to inflict more pain on the middle class because they refuse to ask anything more of those at the very top?

These are the questions Republicans in Congress need to ask themselves. And I’m hopeful they’ll change their minds. Because the American people have worked too hard for too long to see everything they’ve built undone by partisan recklessness in Washington.

I believe we should work together to build on the more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we’ve already achieved. But I believe we should do it in a balanced way – with smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax reform. That’s my plan. It’s got tough cuts, tough reforms, and asks more of the wealthiest Americans. It’s on the White House website for everyone to see. And it requires Democrats and Republicans to meet half way to resolve the problem. That’s what the American people expect. And that’s what you deserve.

We just need Republicans in Washington to come around. Because we need their help to finish the job of reducing our deficit in a smart way that doesn’t hurt our economy or our people. After all, as we learned in the 1990s, nothing shrinks the deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs. That has to be our driving focus. That has to be our North Star. Making America a magnet for good jobs. Equipping our people with the skills required to fill those jobs. Making sure your hard work leads to a decent living. That’s what this city should be focused on like a laser. And I’m going to keep pushing folks here to remember that.


Acorn-Affiliated Blueprint NC Puts A Hit On State’s Republican Leadership

The war of ideas is alive and well. In North Carolina, it’s taken a vicious turn,with progressives targeting the state’s Republican leadership and Governor Pat McCrory, who was elected in 2012.  Spearheading this effort is a 501 (c)(3) group known as Blueprint NC, which, according to their website:

is a partnership of public policy, advocacy, and grassroots organizing nonprofits dedicated to achieving a better, fairer, healthier North Carolina through the development of an integrated communications and civic engagement strategy.  Ultimately, Blueprint aims to influence state policy in NC so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.

It’s liberalism on steroids – which is bad for economic health.  Mark Binker of, which covers the news in Raleigh, Durham, and Fayetteville, wrote yesterday that Blueprint NC drafted a memo, which aims to put “crippling” pressure on conservatives in the state.

According to documents included with the memo and interviews, the strategy outline was produced by Myers Research and Strategic Services for Project New America. It was originally provided to Progress North Carolina, a liberal nonprofit that has aggressively attacked McCrory during the 2012 campaign and his early term in office. Progress North Carolina shared the memo with Blueprint NC, a nonprofit that coordinates the activities of liberal-leaning nonprofits. In turn, Blueprint NC distributed it to its member organizations.

An electronic version of the memo appears to contain at least three separate documents. One is an email from outgoing Blueprint NC Communications Director Stephanie Bass describing the material and emphasizing that it is “CONFIDENTIAL to Blueprint, so please be careful – share with your boards and appropriate staff, but not the whole world.”

Sean Kosofsky, Blueprint NC’s director, said his group did not pay for or commission the research. “We were just forwarding it on,” he said.

The second document is a “talking points memo” that outlines strategies for progressive groups. Policy wins for the political left, the memo said, would likely be defined as “mitigating” legislation, rather than pushing their own agenda items.

The most effective way to mitigate the worst legislation is to weaken our opponents’ ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc…)” the memo reads, referring to the governor, House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.

The memo goes on to describe a “potential two-year vision” during which the groups would “eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.” The bulk of the document is a poll memo that talks about how to frame opposition to conservative tax and education policies. The survey was conducted between Jan. 29 and Feb. 2.

Given how progressives handled Americans for Prosperity rallying in support of Michigan’s Right-to-Work legislation last December, I think we can all imagine what “crippling their leaders” means for this cadre of left-wingers. Conservative nonprofit groups also draft memos outlining political strategy, but seldom does it contain explicit orders to go after someone personally. However, another interesting development, with the leaking of this memo, centers on WRAL itself.

The Civitas Institute, a conservative organization operating within North Carolina, posted on their blog yesterday that Binker left out key facts in his piece about BluePrint, namely that the A.J. Fletcher Foundation, another civic engagement nonprofit in the state, gave the progressive group $35,000.  Additionally, the Foundation gave:

$380,000 to the NC Justice Center which initially housed BlueprintNC when it was formed (the foundations 990 IRS reports are not current so there may be more) . The Goodmon family which owns WRAL has 4 family members on the board of the Fletcher Foundation including Barbara the President and Jim the chairman of the board. The Executive Director was formerly the head of the NC center for Voter Education, one of the original members of BlueprintNC. In addition Chris Fitzsimon, former WRAL reporter,  is head of the liberal NC Policy Watch, the original lead attack group in the Blueprint coalition. Fitzsimon is also provided free airtime on Goodmon owned WRAL-FM from which he launches daily attacks on political opponents. The Fletcher Foundation has been a long time funder of Policy Watch is now housed in the Justice Center.

WRAL is also actually doing one of the items in the strategy memo. The memo on page 3 calls for tracking McCrory “Campaign Promises” and “slam him when he contradicts his promise.” WRAL appears to have taken that for action by launching their “Promise Tracker“, complete with cute little ”Skull & Crossbones” symbols.

Then again, how could this group operate surreptitiously – and methodically – in planning to bring North Carolina’s Republican leadership to its knees?  As LaborUnionReport wrote about Blueprint on RedState, the organization likes to keep a low profile.

Blueprint has been created as a strategic initiative – focused on creating collaborative change and not focused on a public identity beyond our partners. Blueprint does not seek recognition for itself, but prefers that its partners be recognized for the good work that they do. [Emphasis added.]

Also, Blueprint’s allies seem to be the depraved spawn of ACORN.

Report added:

In 2010, Blueprint NC’s “partners” were  identified by the Civitas Institute which revealed a conglomeration of national and state “progressive” organizations—including the AFL-CIO’s A. Philip Randolph Institute, as well as the anti-life group NARAL.


In fact, Blueprint NC’s Director, Sean Kosofsky, is a NARAL alum, according to this bio:

Sean Kosofsky is currently the Director of Blueprint North Carolina. He is the former Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice NC, and has been an active visible LGBT leader since 1994. He was the Director of Poliyc for 12 years for Michigan’s leading LGBT rights organization, Triangle Foundation.

Blueprint NC also appears to be very well funded. The Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, which was established in 1936 as a memorial to the youngest son of the founder of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, gave Blueprint NC $850,000 for “general operating support” in 2010.

The [Z. Smith Reynolds] Foundation is apparently still giving Blueprint NC money—to the sum of $400,000, according to a report in Friday’s [Charlotte] Observer. However, due to the light being shined on Blueprint NC’s strategy (and, consequently, the[ Z. Smith Reynolds] Foundation), that support may now be in jeopardy.

Nevertheless, the strategy detailed in this memo could easily be executed in other states by affiliates of BluePrint – which is probably their plan.  The ‘Obamafication’ of the Democratic Party, and the liberal movement in general, has led to a progressive crusade to forcefully drag our nation to the far left.  Conservatives, at present, seem to be incognizant of the ramifications of this highly-coordinated campaign, and don’t seem to be in rapid response mode in countering this liberal grassroots operation.

The progressive left has all the advantages in digital strategy, voter targeting, and youth outreach.  Republicans are dreadfully behind the curve in this technological front that is critical in turning the tide against the liberal leviathan that has been unleashed against us. In the meantime, Civitas is holding their leadership conference on March 1, and I hope the various panels discuss BluePrint and this memo in order to fight back.

Excerpts of the memo are below.  Full memo at the bottom of the page.


Blueprint NC Secret Memo by



Bullying the Boy Scouts

It may not be surprising to some that groups and organizations across the country that are so openly opposed to “bullying” are so adept at it. Politically correct groups advancing the same-sex agenda are pervasive in their denunciation of bullying against those who are “different” yet seem to have mastered the practice against those who don’t share their beliefs. The recently announced review of the Boy Scouts of America policies, which reject avowed homosexuals from membership, provides a case study in collective bullying and intimidation of a quality organization dedicated to instilling character in its members.

Bullying, broadly defined, is the “use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others. It can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. If done by a group, it’s referred to as mobbing.”

Bullying has occurred, and does still occur for various reasons, and should be proscribed as socially unacceptable behavior universally, at all levels. If universally applied, denunciation of the groups engaged in bullying of pro-family organizations should be as vociferous as against individuals who engage in bullying against those who are “different.” But in the hypocritical and duplicitous world of political correctness, bullying is not only condoned, but encouraged against groups that advance traditional values.

To some, bullying is clearly acceptable, as long as it’s politically correct. Significant corporate and non-profit sponsors and supporters of Scouting have withdrawn their support, including financial, in order to bully the BSA into complying with the radical pro-gay agenda. AT&T, Ernst and Young, Intel, Merck & Company, United Way, and others have curtailed or discontinued their support to the tune of millions of dollars. The financial component takes bullying to a whole new level.

It seems an interesting dichotomy that an organization that itself is so committed to anti-bullying within its ranks, would become the target of bullying by those who profess to support the same commitment. All the more inscrutable when we realize that less than 3% of the total U.S. population is homosexual. “Tyranny of the minority” is no longer theoretical. It is a political and social reality as verified by the bullying actions against the Boy Scouts.

A decision on the organization’s ban on gay members was delayed by the 75 member executive board. The delay until May will allow the 1,400-member National Council to decide whether to continue the ban or give in to the bullying tactics, allowing local units to decide for themselves. Chief Scout Executive Wayne Brock said, “the proposal to end the ban came about as outside forces put pressure on the Scouts to address its policy on gays.” Even the possibility of reversal of national policy diminishes the perception of the safety and well-being of Scouts as a top priority to the organization.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the BSA, that the constitutional right of association allows a group to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” Clearly the agenda of the politically correct crowd is antithetical to Scouting’s core values.

Just last July, the executive board of the BSA had announced their determination to keep the ban in place by saying it was “absolutely the best policy.” But two members of the executive board, James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young, and Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, have been engaging in their own bullying of other board members to weaken the resolve to maintain the ban.

What’s at stake is the emotional and physical welfare of over 2.7 million young men in the Scouting program. Currently, even with some infractions of leader/Scout contact policy, over 98% of Scouts feel “safe” within the Scouting organization, according to a Harris poll a few years ago. Statistically, that’s probably much higher than how many young people feel safe in their own homes.

Rescission of the ban clearly places those young men at risk. In a peer-reviewed research piece printed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers Marie E. Tomeo, Donald I. Templer, Susan Anderson, and Debra Kotler, made some striking conclusions. The abstract to their research, Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons, states, “In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.” The likelihood of significantly increased pederasty involving those 2.7 million young men is virtually assured if the BSA yields to the corporate and politically correct bullying that threatens their core values.

For 103 years, the Boy Scouts have perpetuated a tradition of building moral character and inculcating values that contribute to a conscientious, responsible and moral society. That rich and venerable history is now threatened by the bullying techniques so decried and denounced by the very groups now bullying the Scouts.

Rather than create their own programs based on their own “values,” morally relativistic organizations seek to destroy that which is good; based on solid, everlasting principles. Their success in forcing their conformist political correctness is unraveling the social mores of our cultural fabric, strand by strand.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

How to end tyranny!

“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”  — John Adams

There has been great concern about how Tyrant Barack Hussein Obama has been out there attempting to win the hearts and minds of our young through his twisted and un-American ideologies.

Synonyms for a tyrant are oppressor, dictator, bully, despot, persecutor.

How fitting.

After performing constitutional lyceums in 341 high schools across America, I have seen firsthand the indoctrination being imposed on the future generations of this great country – which, for the most part, they are rejecting.

I recently returned from a tea-party speaking tour in Florida, and the No. 1 concern these patriots brought up to me was how to reach the next generation.

Finally, they were asking the right questions to bring our country back in the right direction.

The answer is all too simple: Show them the price of freedom.

When performing my high school assemblies, I will ask the students in the assembly how many know their Constitution.

Many begin to laugh in sheer ignorance.

I tell them that if they do not know their rights, they don’t have any rights.

I then ask them how many have grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, dads and moms – maybe even brothers and sisters – who have fought, bled, or died to ratify and magnify the Constitution they do not even know.

About 85 percent of them do, and it hits home with the students.

All of a sudden it is no longer funny.

After seeing the price of freedom, the entire room is immediately captivated with a new love and respect for America and the laws of our constitutional republic.

They will also no longer tolerate anyone – especially tyrants – who would attempt to desecrate those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Republicans voting for cloture on Hagel MUST be voted out of office

By the time of this writing (Feb. 22nd), several RINO Senators – Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John McCain-Feingold of Arizona, Lindsey Gramnesty of South Carolina, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, intend to vote for cloture (i.e. breaking the filibuster) on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for SECDEF, thus allowing it to proceed to the floor, where it is sure to pass as the Democrats have 55 votes.

If these RINO traitors vote for cloture and thus vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel along party lines (which, BTW, would be a first for a SECDEF nominee), we must vote them out of office. All of them. No ifs, no buts.

We must primary all of them (including the pseudo-conservative Deb Fischer) and, if they somehow survive the primary, support their general election opponents.

No forgiveness, no ifs or buts, and no get-outta-jail-free-cards for McCain.

But first: why should Hagel’s nomination be filibustered?

As myself and many other conservative writers have chronicled in great detail over the past several weeks, Chuck Hagel is a strident leftist (despite being a nominal Republican) who is implacably hostile to Israel (and to Jews in general), friendly to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (which has endorsed him), supports the gutting of America’s defense and deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, and is totally unqualified to be SECDEF due to his lack of high-level executive experience, ignorance of defense issues, and inability to perform well even before the Senate (as his confirmation hearing proved).

And yet, despite all of these facts, and despite more Americans opposing than supporting Hagel, Senate Democrats, pressured by the Obama Administration, are marching in partisan lockstep with each other and with the White House and all intend to vote to confirm Hagel.

And they have 55 seats in the Senate – enough to confirm Hagel.

Make no mistake: if the filibuster is ended (i.e. if cloture is invoked) on Hagel’s nomination, the Dems will be able to confirm him along party lines with their 55 votes.

A vote to end the filibuster (i.e. invote cloture) on Hagel’s nomination is therefore a vote to confirm Hagel as SECDEF. There is no material difference between the two.

Those Republicans who intend to vote to end the filibuster thus essentially plan to vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel.

These Republican traitors must NOT be allowed to hide behind a meaningless final, nominal vote against Hagel’s confirmation, when it will be too late to stop his nomination as the Democrats have the votes to confirm him.

Make no mistake: a vote to invoke cloture on Hagel is a vote to confirm Hagel.

So what can we do?

Niceties won’t work with these worthless RINOs. Nor will reason and facts. They are immune to reason and facts.

The only thing they understand and fear is a credible threat of losing their seats – because the only thing Washington politicians – including newcomers – care about is getting reelected. And if a credible threat to vote them out of office is made, they usually DO really start voting against Democratic proposals.

So you MUST call or write to both of your Senators (especially if one of your Senators is one of the worthless RINOs listed above, i.e. if you live in Arizona, SC, Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Maine, or Mississippi) and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination, and that you will not be fooled by a meaningless final vote against Hagel’s confirmation when it will already be a done deal.

Tell them that if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel, you will wholeheartedly support primary challengers against them and if they somehow survive their primaries you will support their general election opponents.

And if these worthless RINOs nonetheless ignore this warning, we must follow it through and throw each one of them out of the Senate. No ifs, no buts.

Johanns is retiring in 2014, so we can’t hold him accountable, but we can hold the rest of these RINOs accountable.

Worthless RINO Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Bush-Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Cap-And-Trade-My-Good-Friend-Ted-Kennedy’s-Amnesty-John-McCain-Feingold must be voted out of office, no matter what the National Establishment Review says. We must support whoever his primary challenger will be, and if he somehow survives the primary, we must support his general election opponent. By 2016, Republicans should have a secure Senate majority, so if need be, we can afford to sacrifice this one seat.

The same must also apply to all other RINOs listed above. McCain and Murkowski are up for reelection in 2016. But Lindsey Gramnasty and Susan Collins are up for reelection next year. Not in 2016, not in 2018, but next year – in 2014!

We must make it unmistakably clear to them that BOTH of them (and the other RINOs listed above) will be voted out of office if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel.

Already, there is talk about primarying Gramnasty, and his endorsement of the McCain-Schumer amnesty proposal will certainly not endear him anyone. We must join hands with those who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (among whom I count myself) to oust Gramnasty and McCain out of office.

And remember: with the sole exception of Maine, all of the states which these RINOs represent are solidly-red, Republican states. It is totally unacceptable that these states are represented by RINOs. Whoever wins the Republican nomination there – unless it’s a Todd Akin clone – should be able to easily win the general election there as well. This is not Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Delaware that we’re talking about, this is the red-hot states of Arizona, South Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, Alaska, and Alabama.

Politicians must be held accountable for EVERY vote they cast. And the only way to hold them accountable is to vote them out of office. Which is what must happen to the worthless RINOs listed above.

Gov. Baby-Killer?

Over the weekend, Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-New York) announced that he plans to relax his state’s abortion law, and allow women to obtain late-term abortions if their health is at stake.  It provides more latitude against the current statute, which says the only legal justification for a late-term abortion – as defined by the Supreme Court  – is when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s health.  Not surprisingly, pro-life activists are nervous.

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post wrote on February 20 that:

…while abortion rights very much remain a 50-50 issue in American society, late-term abortion is particularly charged.

recent USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 80 percent of Americans oppose late-term abortion — generally defined (and defined in the poll) as occurring in the final three months of a pregnancy. That compares to 64 percent who think it should be illegal in the second trimester and just 31 percent who say it should be illegal in the first three months.

So why would Cuomo do such an unpopular thing? Well, in actuality, he’s not. When you add the health of the mother to the equation, opposition to late-term abortion drops dramatically.

2003 ABC News poll showed that while 62 percent thought late-term abortions should generally be illegal, 61 percent said they should be legal if there is a “serious threat to the woman’s health.”

A “serious threat” is a highly subjective phrase. There’s a multitude of things people can consider “serious,” while others might find less severe.  Furthermore, it gives abortionists room to argue that more restrictions protecting life should be whittle down.   Additionally, this 2003 poll was taken during the year when the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed. However, I think even the most ardent pro-lifer would agree that in an extraordinary circumstance, such as a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, a late-term abortion is regrettably necessary.

Nevertheless, this Cuomo’s bill is about lowering the bar to allow such grisly procedures to be conducted under the banner of American progressivism.  The New York Times, which first reported on this depraved development on February 16, stated:

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

Abortion rights advocates have welcomed Mr. Cuomo’s plan, which he outlined in general terms as part of a broader package of women’s rights initiatives in his State of the State address in January. But the Roman Catholic Church and anti-abortion groups are dismayed; opponents have labeled the legislation the Abortion Expansion Act.

The editorial board of the National Review opined that:

 where it [Cuomo’s abortion bill] regulates, it regulates the wrong parties in the wrong way. But it also deregulates with equal disregard: It would among other things allow persons other than physicians to perform abortions. That is an innovation borrowed from Jerry Brown’s California, where midwives and nurses are permitted to perform abortions. The State of New York will not permit a burly man to lift a box without a state permit to operate a moving company, but gynecological surgery apparently is to be considered a matter for immediate regulatory relief.

New York does not want for access to abortion. Two in five pregnancies end in abortion in New York City; the rate for black women is 60 percent. The statewide figures are lower, but they are high enough. There are about 250 abortion clinics in the state, and 93 percent of the state’s women live in a county that is home to an abortion facility, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Nationally, abortion kills the equivalent of the combined populations of Atlanta and Cleveland every year. All that with no help from Governor Cuomo.

Governor Cuomo’s bill is not about easing access to abortion — those bloody skids already are well-greased. The issue is political domination. The abortion party does not brook resistance, and it steadfastly seeks to ensure that everybody has a hand in its grisly business: taxpayers, employers, priests. All must be implicated. If a religious hospital declines to provide abortions, then it must be forced to do so. If a counseling center treats adoption as preferable to abortion, it will either change its mind or have its mind changed for it by the gentle persuasion of the State of New York.

As George Will said in the wake of Sandra Fluke – and Slutgate– this is what liberalism looks like after one hundred years of maturation.

This is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state.

It’s a frightening thought since Gov. Cuomo has presidential ambitions in 2016.  Should conservatives rename him Gov. Baby-Killer with this radical shift in policy that permits infanticide?  Given the horrors that will ensue, it would be apt for them to do so.


Harlem Shake – Iraqi Style

Everybody’s doing the Harlem Shake these days. It’s even caught on in the Middle East.

According to Al-Monitor’s Pulse, tracking trending media in the region, the above video is trending. Of course, a quick search on YouTube leads one to a “greatest hits” version out of Saudi Arabia:

Gotta give credit to the ones that didn’t opt to cover their heads or faces in those! Here’s hoping they duck any persecution or legal difficulties…

Teachers union endorses racist council candidate

A Los Angeles teachers with close ties to the openly racist African People’s Socialist Party received the recommendation of United Teachers Los Angeles in his pursuit of a city council seat.
Ron Gochez himself has been known to disparage both America and various races in his own personal commentary. For instance, he infamously called for a Mexican Revolution in the U.S. while speaking at a La Raza rally several years ago and penned a blatantly anti-semitic letter to the editor prior to that incident.
His association with the APSP, though, is even more telling.
The group is so far to the left of the mainstream, even progressive icons Barack Obama and Jessie Jackson are too conservative.
One political organization, California Political News, compiled a list of the reprehensible statements made by the group and its members.
While some of the comments are so vulgar any editing on my part would render them incomprehensible, I will list a few of the tamer examples to illustrate the larger point.
For a trip to North Carolina during which “he went and worked with those honkies down there,” one APSP source considers Jackson an “old Uncle Tom [expletive deleted].”
The greatest voice in the black community’s nonviolent pursuit of civil rights, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is derided for trying to lead his people “back onto the plantation” by another adherent to the group.
Additionally, complaints about the Holocaust are blown out of proportion because “those white people … need those dead Jews to hold up in the face of any Africans and other oppressed people around the world who say look what you did to me.”
Most of the group’s complaints are utterly nonsensical, but the vitriol and hate with which they are dispersed is all too real.
Of the 12 candidates seeking the L.A. council position, Gochez represents the type of person the city’s teachers union apparently believes most closely holds its views.
If that is not an indictment of our public school systems’  continuing leftward lurch, I cannot imagine what would qualify.
Click here
 to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Why deep defense cuts MUST be avoided at all costs

I could just as well title this article “why defense must always be fully funded” or “why America must always maintain a strong, second-to-none defense”, but all three titles effectively mean the same thing, so I have chosen the above one.

We are being told from all directions by various kinds of people – from liberals like Clinton Admin official Gordon Adams to libertarians like Justin Amash and Mick Mulvaney to supposed conservatives like Rush Limbaugh that America can afford deep cuts in the defense budget and still have a strong military; or, in the case of other libertarians, like the Students For Liberty/Ron Paul crowd, that America doesn’t need a strong military, that it would only be a tool of oppression, and that America can safely retrench and hide behind oceans and nothing will threaten it.

But all of those claims are garbage, and in this article, I’ll show you why. They might’ve made some sense during the 18th century, when any attack on America would’ve had to be a seaborne invasion or one from Mexico or Canada.

But in the 21st century, when America has vital interests around the world, when its economy is deeply interconnected to those of its allies and friends (such as Japan and South Korea), and in the era of nuclear weapons, ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental bombers, EMP weapons, and cyber attacks, such beliefs are utterly ridiculous. Those who indulge them live in a kum-ba-yah world.

Let us start with this timeless principle taught by Sun Tzu in his Art of War (ch. 8, v. 11):

“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”

We should not delude ourselves that we will never be attacked, or not for a long time, or that America is somehow invincible or unassailable, or that its military is overwhelmingly superior when this is clearly not the case.

Providing for the common defense is not only necessary, it is the Federal Government’s #1 Constitutional DUTY. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution clearly imposes this obligation on the government; the majority of enumerated powers granted to the Congress deal with military matters; and the Preamble to the Constitution – makes it clear that one of the reasons why the federal government was create in the first place is to “provide for the common defense”. Furthermore, the military is the ONLY significant expenditure authorized by the Constitution. Federal entitlement and welfare programs are utterly unconstitutional and thus illegal.

Furthermore, the claim – often made by proponents of deep defense cuts in order to lull Americans into a false sense of security – that the US military is still overwhelmingly superior to those of other countries – is completely false (although I wish it was true). The militaries of China and Russia, as documented in detailed analysis here, have already closed the vast majority of the gaps between their and the US military’s capabilities, and are now working hard on closing the remaining few gaps. Where those gaps still exist, as in aircraft carriers, for example, China and Russia have created asymmetric advantages of their own with anti-access/area-denial weapons such as aircraft carrier killing missiles.

For a detailed analysis of China’s and Russia’s military capabilities, see here.

Another oft-made false claim which is supposed to justify deep defense cuts is that they could supposedly be done safely if the military were just granted the flexibility to decide where to make the cuts and that if such reductions are made “strategically”, in a “targeted” manner, they can supposedly be done safely.

The “studies” produced by CATO, the “Project on Defense Alternatives”, the Center for American Progress, POGO-TCS,  the NTU, and Sen. Tom Coburn (RINO-OK) are often invoked as examples and as supposed “proof” that deep defense cuts can be done safely.

But I have read and analyzed virtually all of these “studies”, and ALL of them would, if implemented (God forbid), result in the utter gutting of the US military. Why? Because the vast majority of the cuts they call for would be directed at the muscle and bone of the US military – the force structure (i.e. the size of the military), its personnel, weapons, munitions, and forward deployments.

These “studies” call for deep personnel, weapon inventory, weapon program, and force size cuts across the board to all four Services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) and to the already barely-adequate nuclear deterrent. They call for killing dozens of crucial modernization programs, including the Long Range Strike Bomber, the ICBM replacement program, the V-22 Osprey, the F-35, the Virginia class, and many others.

If one were to plan on how to completely gut the US military, one could not come up with a better plan than those produced by the above-mentioned leftist think-tanks (most of which, including CATO, POGO, and the CAP, are co-funded by George Soros) and by Sen. Coburn. These plans seem to be deliberately designed to gut the US military.

And NONE of these proposals or “studies” are really “strategic”, because none of them are underpinned by any strategy, only by a desire to gut the US military. Strategy is about setting priorities, funding them fully, and cutting back only on non-priority programs/objectives/activities; failure to set priorities and to fund them adequately is essentially the same thing as sequestration.

But in those “studies”, there are no priorities – like sequestration, they all call for deep, across-the-board cuts to everything the US military has and does – mostly to the muscle and bone of the military.

The first and only “priority” of these studies’ authors is to gut the US military, plain and simple.

I have refuted these ridiculous “studies” here, here, here, and here among other articles.

For his part, HumanEvents columnist Robert Maginnis wrongly claims that the US can make these cuts safely if it simply scraps a number of current missions.

But that is wrong. To make cuts on the scale of sequestration, the US military would have to jettison dozens of missions – including many crucial, necessary missions connected to America’s own national security (not just that of its allies). For example, air, naval, and ground superiority, nuclear deterrence, and missile defense.

Those who call for jettisoning many military missions and cuts on the scale of sequestration need to be made to say what exact missions they think the military should scrap and be forced to admit that doing so would mean not meeting America’s security needs and thus imperiling national security.

As then-SECDEF Robert Gates said in 2011:

“These are the kinds of scenarios we need to consider, the kinds of discussions we need to have.  If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as for the variety of military operations we have around the world if lower priority missions are scaled back or eliminated.  (…)  To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences – and the hard decisions that must follow – I would regard as managerial cowardice.

In closing, while I have spent a good  deal of time on programmatic particulars, the tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people – accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades – want their country to play in the world.”

Then there are those like Rush Limbaugh and Rand Paul who falsely claim that sequestration would be a mere cut to the growth rate of defense spending. But that is a blatant lie.

As the CBO has proven, and as I have documented here, sequestration would cut the base defense budget from $525 bn today to $469 bn in March and keep it well below today’s level (and even below $500 bn) for the next decade at least. By FY2022, the last year of the “sequestration decade”, the base defense budget would be at $493 bn – still below $500 bn and well below today’s level of $525 bn.


Meanwhile, OCO (war) spending is shrinking annually from its FY2011 peak and is set to disappear in FY2016, once all US troops leave Afghanistan.

The DOE’s defense-related (nuclear) programs and the DOD’s unspent balances from previous years are also subject to sequestration, as are all other national-security-related agencies.

In other words, sequestration would be an IMMEDIATE, REAL, DEEP, and PERMANENT cut in defense spending. It would not be a mere cut in the rate of growth. In other words, Rush, Rand, and other sequestration pooh-poohers are blatantly lying. (And the people spreading that lie are children of the Father of Lies himself.)

President Ronald Reagan articulated the need for a strong military – and the case against defense cuts – well here and here.

Let Robert Gates – a man of whom I’ve been very critical – nonetheless have the last word here:

“Since I entered government 45 years ago, I’ve shifted my views and changed my mind on a good many things as circumstances, new information, or logic dictated.  But I have yet to see evidence that would dissuade me from this fundamental belief: that America does have a special position and set of responsibilities on this planet.  I share Winston Churchill’s belief that “the price of greatness is responsibility…[and] the people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility.”  This status provides enormous benefits – for allies, partners, and others abroad to be sure, but in the final analysis the greatest beneficiaries are the American people, in terms of our security, our prosperity, and our freedom.

I know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the continued strength and global reach of the American military will remain the greatest deterrent against aggression, and the most effective means of preserving peace in the 21st century, as it was in the 20th.”

The Only Good ‘Redskin’ Is a Deleted ‘Redskin’

Does this man know leftists consider him a bigot?

Does this man know leftists consider him a bigot?

The Thought Police at the Washington Post are on the warpath once again over the Washington Redskins nickname. In spite of the fact it would cost owner Daniel Snyder heap–big wampum to change the name, they say it is bad medicine and it has to go. They are also angry about calling people who sell their own tickets “scalpers,” but that’s for another time.

What fired up the grievance machine this time was a gripefest on sports nicknames at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. One of the panel participants gave a summary of the ‘anti–Redskins’ argument when he challenged the paleface Washington owner to visit the National Congress of American Indians’ next meeting and start calling the attendees “redskins” and see if they consider it an honor.

That would be equivalent to visiting the nearest university Women’s Studies department during a performance of the Vagina Monologues and making a case for the positive contributions of heterosexual men.

Just because one is surrounded by screaming fanatics does not mean you deserve to be burned at the stake. (Note to Jesuits in the reading audience, I mean no offense with this analogy.)

Frankly it sounds to me like the staff of both institutions have been sampling the firewater. The Red Man has already had his revenge. Indians introduced white eyes to tobacco and that golden leaf is adding to the death toll as I type. The largely imaginary “smallpox blankets” were not even a rounding error compared to Big Tobacco’s body count.

The WaPost cites Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Washington-based Morning Star Institute as a strong supporter of sporting censorship. (Rule of Thumb: beware of experts who use all their names.) She says there are some 900 troublesome nicknames and mascots across the country, down from a peak of more than 3,000.

Harjo is proud of the fact that among the first mascots flayed was ‘Little Red,’ who used to perform at University of Oklahoma games.

I remember ‘Little Red.’ We attended OU at the same time. He was a genuine Kiowa who volunteered to be part of the athletic program. People cheered him during games. Students appreciated the work he put into his authentic costume and his footwork. Plus he didn’t leave a mess in the end zone like the Sooner Schooner. All these accolades were too much for professional Native American outrage intensifiers so they worked to have him fired.

I’m surprised Harjo let the school off so easy, merely stopping with the banishment of ‘Little Red.’ ‘Sooners’ itself is a nickname rife with bigotry. It’s a negative reference to cheaters during the land rush that crossed the border early and is no doubt a slap in the face to illegal border–crossers everywhere.

While we’re at it, how about Notre Dame’s ‘Fighting Irish?’ Doesn’t that imply the Shannons might have a drinking problem? What’s more, nicknames are just the tip of the iceberg for those “who oppose the appropriation of Native American imagery in sports.” Are they casting their gimlet eye on tomahawks, feathers, loincloths, arrows, and buffalo? Where does it end? Must 7/11 stop selling jerky?

But fair is fair. Why do ‘First Americans’ get to hog (no offense to Jews & Moslems) all the outrage? What about all those pagans wearing crosses around their necks? Or Germans and Hispanics wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day? And don’t get me started on honkies that give soul shakes.

What’s more, the Redskins aren’t the only sports enterprise with a ‘hurtful’ name. What about the Cleveland Browns? Isn’t that offensive to Hispanics and people suffering from melanoma? How would you like someone to make fun of your freckles?

Among the worst of the commercial enterprises is the Jolly Green Giant: A continual poke in the eye to tall people and committed environmentalists.

The person I feel sorry for is ‘Skins general manager Bruce Allen. This slang term controversy is déjà vu all over again for the Allen family. First the WaPost goes and lights up his brother for saying “macca” in a campaign appearance, now they are after him and his team for a name that’s been around for decades. Allen no doubt thanks his lucky stars that he’s never used the word “niggardly” in conversation.

Even the ‘conservative’ Washington Times is clinging to this bandwagon. One of their sports columnists asks, “When was the last time you used “redskin” in non-sports discussion? If the word really, truly honored, we’d have a National Museum of the Redskin…” Whoops, Faulty Analogy Alert! Formal names don’t usually incorporate nicknames, this is why the Marine Heritage Museum is not called the Jarhead Heritage Museum.

Frankly, I feel sorry for the agitators. How pathetic does life have to be to support a belief that the nickname of a professional football team is damaging to one’s psyche?

Personally, I don’t harbor any particular affection for the Redskins as you can read here. But I do hope they stand firm in the face of hysteria.

Otherwise I’m afraid my team is in imminent danger, because it will only be a matter of time before vegans come after the ‘Packers.’

Paid Bloomberg Lobbyist Testifies in MN

David ChipmanDavid Chipman is a paid lobbyist for Mayors Against Illegal Guns which was founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino for the purpose of imposing stricter gun laws across America. The group has also received over $1 million in funding from George Soros’ pet project, the Joyce Foundation.

Chipman was given 10 minutes at the start of Minnesota’s State Senate Judiciary Committee to share his expertise on proposed gun control legislation. He was introduced as an FBI professional speaking to the committee as an expert on firearms safety. Senator Julianne Ortman (R) offered for the record that Chipman is a paid lobbyist and therefore has an opinion. Ortman said Chipman should be considered a testifier versus a presenter and therefore asked for and received additional time for opposition testimony. Chipman recited essentially the same talking points as he has given in multiple media appearances in recent months.

When on CCTV in early February, Chipman reiterated that current laws in the city of Minneapolis have reduced gun crime, though he continues his pursuit of stricter background checks.

Chipman also had an appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Apparently, Chipman has become a professional testifier of sorts. He appeared before the Colorado state legislature “testifying” (read: lobbying) for gun control legislation earlier this month.

It is unclear who invited Chipman to testify in Minnesota or who is covering the cost of his travel.
Follow me on Twitter!

Mexico Wants YOUR Gun Information

Mexico’s congress voted to ask the US Border States to share with them registry information of gun owners. It’s understandable that the Mexican government is concerned with guns crossing into their country in light of the Fast and Furious scandal of the Obama administration. Still one has to wonder if they should be more concerned with their own problems, including the drug cartels and corruption of officials. But in any case, maybe now is the opportune time to ask President Peña Nieto if maybe they’d like to do the neighborly thing and help build that fence between our countries?


« Older Entries Recent Entries »