Monthly Archives: July 2013

So you think cops are paid too much?

In the new world which is our reality, it’s often hard to remember that MOST Policemen ARE NOT the Police State!

Yes, there are those who let the power go to their head.

But there are MANY more who have taken an Oath to SERVE AND PROTECT! May God bless each of these men and women who put their lives in danger every day!

A Handshake Won’t Get It, Buddy!

I love the homecoming videos from our military heroes and their families! I can sit for hours and watch dogs jumping on their people, excited to see them once again! The surprises for husbands, wives, and children are heartwarming. All of these videos make me tear up, and get a lump in my throat.

This video is one of the best I’ve seen. This hero comes home from U.S. Army training to surprise his grandfather, a WWII vet who served in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Two heroes in one video!

America Our Way with Dustin Hoyt – July 31st

RadioLogo
When: Wednesday, July 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: America Our Way with Dustin Hoyt on Blog Talk Radio

What: Dustin Hoyt takes on the biggest issues of the day, advocating for smaller government, liberty, common sense, and honest politicians. His insight and witty commentary provide entertaining and provoking angles on everything from fiscal policy to the most sensational statements. With a twist of Libertarianism and Conservativism that blends well to all who support the tea party and true American values. This show taps into all the things patriotic Americans love and need to hear in the battle against the left and the expansive government we fight against.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

The Confederate Corner with George Neat July 30th – Government, Guns, and Crazy Democrats

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, July 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about government spending, Sheila Jackson Lee, 9/11 and guns in schools. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

Life begins… well, that depends on the feelings of the parents

Before my husband and I got married, we had a very long conversation about love. He asked me, “What is love to you?”

Being the typical woman, I became dreamy eyed, and began to describe that fluttering feeling in my heart. Before I could go any further, my extremely sarcastic, yet matter-of-fact husband-to-be interjected, “No, that’s heartburn. What is your definition of love?” I became a little bit frustrated, telling him he had interrupted my explanation.

With the patience of Job, this man that would soonbecome my husband explained to me that I had fallen into the trap that the entire world has fallen into. Love is not a feeling. Love is a verb- it is action!

The true definition of love is:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”  1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Just as with love, the world’s definition of life has become subjective, and is now relegated down to a feeling! It doesn’t matter what truth says. All that matters are feelings! Sadly, and ironically, feelings are fleeting. How many people who profess their undying love to each other, forever, end up divorcing, often the circumstances are very nasty, deceitful, selfish and vile- the exact opposite of love.

So never-mind that the very same ones who become so excited when a micro-organism is discovered in outer space is “life”, yet a baby, which can be seen with modern medical technology at a very early age, is not life unless the “parent” who this child is living inside of, “feels” like it is life.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

Here’s another with MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry at her…. well, as her usual!

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

 

Iconic 9/11 photo almost excluded from 9/11 museum

The famous picture of threee firemen raising the American flag fron the ashes of 9/11 was nearly excluded fromt he 9/11 museum because it was “too rah-rah American.” Michael Shulan,museum creative director and a few others on the committee considered the photo too “rah -rah and too kitschy.” “I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently,” Shulan said. Eventually, chief curator Jan Ramirez proposed a compromise. The Franklin shot was minimized in favor of three different photos via three different angles of the flag-raising scene.

This is political correctness run amok once again and bowing to pressure from outside groups. We have always been a country that people from other countries came to better themselves and assimilate to our culture.That’s not true anymore as we have bent over backwards to appease too many cultures in the name of diversity mostly muslims and mexicans and other third world ccountries coming here that people coming here now are finding we are the same as the country they left. This is insane. Nothing is too rah rah American for me. Millions of our brave men and women fought and died for our America and the 9/11 photo to me represents what America is all about. No matter what happens America will always rise fron the ashes.

 

Check out country singer Toby Keith with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan doing his “rah-rah American “song “Courtesy of the red,white  an blue (the angry American)” which I can”t get enough of :)   Courtesy Of The Red, White And Blue (The Angry American) – YouTube

Also check out the most  excellent slide show to Toby’s song illustrating it. Both these videos send chills of patriotism thru you. ;)

toby keith courtesy of the red white and blue – YouTube

SHOCK: Iconic Ground Zero photo was nearly excluded from museum for being too ‘rah-rah’ American…

Their Finest Hour with Allan Bourdius – July 29th

TFHRsquare - 300x300
When: Monday, July 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Their Finest Hour with Allan Bourdius

What: Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it – or to not repeat the parts that should be. We’re in a solemn hour in the cause of freedom, and yes, we’re only ever one generation away from losing it. Allan Bourdius of the Their Finest Hour blog (theirfinesthour.blogspot.com) brings his conservative/libertarian fusion (“conservatarian”) perspective to the events of the day and contextualizes them with facts and history to arm the forces of liberty to better our communities and our society, open eyes, and win converts – so that one day our children, still with freedom intact, can look back and say of us, their parents: “This was their finest hour.”

Tonight: It’s premiere night at CDN Radio! Join Allan for his first show!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Thwarting Upward Mobility, Exacerbating Racial Tensions



Il Duce Obama
Did you know that YOU are thwarting a chance at upward mobility, that you are causing Americans to lose a sense of security? That’s what Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said on July 24, 2013, in an interview at Knox College in Galesburg, IL. Obama said:

“And there was a sense of not upward mobility in the abstract; it was part and parcel of who we were as Americans. And that’s what’s been eroding over the last 20, 30 years, …[.]”

Did you know that if Obama doesn’t get his way economically, racial tensions will increase? In the same New York Times interview, Obama said:

“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise.”
“And racial tensions won’t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot.”

And, did you know that focusing on the deficit is bad?

“And if we’re doing that [focusing on the deficit], then ultimately I think that we won’t get everything done that I want to see done, but we will have shifted away from what I think has been a bad – a damaging framework in Washington, which is to constantly think about is there more we can do to cut the deficit without asking are we making the right cuts, the smart cuts that actually help people in their own lives and help us grow over the long term.”

So, the only way out of this economic and racial mess, according to Obama, is to “get everything done that he want to see done,” to make what HE defines as “the right cuts, the smart cuts that actually help people.” But nowhere, in this interview or elsewhere, can I find where he specifically defines what a right or smart cut is. Cuts, indeed. All we ever hear from him (reading on his Teleprompter) is that the “rich” should “pay a little bit more, their fair share.”

And, did you know that Obama is going to act on his own if Congress (those pesky Republicans) doesn’t give him his way?

“I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.”

So, rather than blame George W. Bush, he is now blaming the US citizens and Congress for his and the country’s problems. Of course, all of his policies, his economic decisions, his race relations speeches have been just perfect. Said very sarcastically, “Shame on us!”

For perspective, consider this. The last time Obama spoke in Galesburg, IL, in June 2005, the Illinois unemployment rate was 5.9 percent. The Illinois unemployment rate is now 9.2 percent.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Payback For The 1960’s

After the Zimmerman trial there has been a big uproar about how the black communities have collapsed over the years, well once again we have to look at all those bleeding heart Liberals for the cause of it all. Back in the 1960’s Liberals came up with all these laws, policies and programs that were supposed to help and elevate the black community, so what happened?

As usual, Liberal policies sound good in theory, but never work in the real world.  I cannot think of one time that a Liberal policy made any sense at all. Socialism, which is what the Liberals are truly after, has been a failure throughout history, once again, sounds good in theory but when it comes to reality it is nothing but a big disaster. The social engineering Liberal policies of the 1960’s were a big failure.

Liberals big push for social engineering has back fired on them big time, but will they admit it, of course not, they will just go on blaming everyone else for being racist, that is why the black community is falling apart. A program that pays unwed mothers for every child they have sounded like a compassionate thing to do, but did Liberals ever stop and think that women would just go on having babies just to collect more money? So they paid for housing for these mothers and paid them for every child that they had, did they ever stop and think that these children would grow-up in poverty and just continue the cycle of staying in poverty? Paying people to be poor, only keeps them poor.

The war on poverty is a war that America has lost.  During his first State of the Union speech in 1964,  President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message to America. His goal was clear: To eradicate poverty in America. Today, nearly 50 million Americans are living below the poverty income line, so what happened to the big Liberal policy that was supposed to eradicate poverty in this country, After 50 years of failed policies and over $15 trillion of taxpayer money spent, America’s war on poverty has been an absolute disaster. Once again I say to the Liberals of America, paying people to be poor, only keeps them poor.

Bill O’Reilly caused a big uproar when he talked about the black community crumbling because of the traditional family, with 76% of black babies being born out of wedlock. However, this is nothing new, back in 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a report that stated, “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family, it is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time. The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child.” This is from a Liberal Democrat, why didn’t anyone listen to him in 1965?

The more Liberals try to help minorities, the more they are held back. Instead of telling minorities to go out and build a future for themselves, they drum into them that they are victims of society and they need Government to take care of them. Let’s be truthful here, it is not only the black community that is crumbling, but society as a whole, if we do not stand up and fight against these Liberal policies we will eventually become a second rate nation. Liberals want to tear down every facet of traditional America, the more we get away from these traditions, the more our society crumbles. After all, these traditions have worked for thousands of years, and every nation has fallen when they turned away from them.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids.” Available Here.

Waltons

This is one man’s opinion.

The “if we disarm ourselves, others will be nice and follow suit” myth

ReaganPeaceQuote

In a previous article, I refuted the basic leftist myth at the heart of all arms control (=arms reduction=disarmament) policies: that cutting America’s weapon inventories, and eventually dismantling them completely (and leftists want to do so soon), will somehow make America and the world safer.

The reasons why it won’t are severalfold: disarming oneself only invites aggression; a world without nuclear weapons would be much more violent and warlike than without them (and was, before nuclear weapons were invented); and if America disarmed itself unilaterally, others would never follow suit – they’d only exploit America’s military weakness. We’ll explore this third reason in this article in more depth.

Already a few leftists have admitted that even if the US cut its nuclear arsenal dramatically, or disarmed itself completely, others wouldn’t follow suit. Global Zero chairman Bruce Blair has admitted in a Congressional hearing that if the US did so, “no one” would reciprocate. ACA leaders Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina say that Russia and others only “might be induced” to follow suit if the US made deep further cuts to its arsenal unilaterally, but don’t claim it would be sure to happen. (They advocate that the US make such unilateral cuts anyway).

But the brutal truth is that if the US cut its arsenal unilaterally, NOBODY would follow suit. On the contrary, other nuclear powers would only be too happy to exploit America’s weakness mercilessly. And you can take that to the bank.

How do we know? Because the US has already tried unilateral cuts multiple times and they’ve only emboldened America’s enemies and encouraged them to INCREASE their arsenals. Which they have done.

As even Jimmy Carter’s defense secretary, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

The US cut its nuclear arsenal unilaterally during the 1970s, strictly adhering to the two SALT treaties. The Soviet Union did not; it violated these treaties with abandon (the Reagan Administration withdrew the US from SALT II in 1986 over Soviet noncompliance). Russia’s behavior has been no better.

The elder President Bush cut America’s arsenal by over 50% since 1989, stopped warhead production and testing, killed the B-2 strategic bomber at just 21 aircraft, withdrew US nuclear weapons from US surface ships and South Korea, killed Peacekeeper production, killed the “Midgetman” small ICBM program, and stopped cruise missile production.

Russia, however, did not reciprocate. It made cuts to its arsenal only within the framework of the first START treaty, which expired in 2009. Nor did anyone else reciprocate: since 1989, Pakistan and North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons while China, India, and Israel have all significantly increased their arsenals. (China now has at least 1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear weapons.)

The US again cut its nuclear arsenal under the younger President Bush, to just 5,113 warheads. Again, Russia did not reciprocate. In fact, since President Putin came to power in 2000, Russia has been building its arsenal up.

The US again agreed to cut its arsenal unilaterally under the New START treaty signed by Barack Obama in April 2010. Under that abomination of a treaty, the US is obligated to cut its strategic arsenal by one-third; Russia is not obligated to cut anything and is actually allowed to add nuclear weapons – which it has already done. Moreover, the treaty contains so many huge loopholes that you could drive a track through them. Experts Peter Huessy and Mark Schneider report that:

“The New START Treaty has many loopholes the Russians will exploit. This includes, according to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, a “totally nuts” bomber weapons counting rule, and the complete exclusion from the Treaty limits of even nuclear-armed air-launched ballistic missiles, surface ship-launched ballistic missiles and rail mobile ICBMs. We do not hear a word out of the administration about fixing any of these problems in the next round of nuclear arms control talks.”

Also, Russia’s 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers, which have air-refueling equipment, are not counted by New START as strategic bombers, even though they are such.

Russia is not only rapidly increasing but also modernizing its nuclear arsenal. All legs of its nuclear triad, as well as many tactical delivery systems, will be replaced by new ones by the early 2020s. It is developing or deploying several ICBMs, including the RS-24 Yars (silo-based and mobile versions), the “Avangard”, the “Son of Satan” heavy ICBM (replacement for the SS-18 Satan), and a rail-mobile ICBM. The Russian Navy is receiving new Borei class SSBNs, with 16 SLBMs per boat, while the Air Force is receiving new Tu-160 bombers and developing a new, stealthy strategic bomber. Tactical nuclear units are receiving new Iskander SRBMs and Su-34 tactical bombers.

Meanwhile, the US is not modernizing. Development of new classes of SSBNs , cruise missiles, and bombers is lagging, there’s no SRBM and no plan to develop a new ICBM, and no new warheads or even warhead upgrades are being developed. Obama’s Assistant Secy. of State for Arms Control, Rose Gottemoeller, who negotiated New START, has even said it explicitly:

“We’re not modernizing. We’re not modernizing. That is one of the basic, basic, I would say, principles and rules that have really been part of our nuclear posture view and part of the policy.”

If you’re not modernizing your arsenal, you’re essentially disarming yourself unilaterally, because your arsenal will eventually wear out due to old age.

No modernization equals unilateral disarmament. And “no modernization” is the official, stated policy of the Obama Administration.

Nowadays, Russia absolutely refuses to enter into any talks about cutting its own nuclear arsenal; it only wants to discuss cutting America’s. The treasonous Obama Administration, composed of anti-American leftists like Obama himself and Goettemoeller, is only too happy to oblige.

Russia has stated explicitly that it will NOT cut its nuclear arsenal and that, as former Chief of the General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov has said, “The strategic nuclear forces for us are a sacred issue.” Russia is currently building up its nuclear arsenal, a fact repeatedly reported by reputed journalists such as Bill Gertz. Moreover, Russia has, in the last 6 years alone, made at least 15 public, overt threats to use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies, and has publicly reserved to itself the right to use nuclear weapons first, even against a non-nuclear adversary or in a purely conventional war. In April 2012, when Russian bombers practiced strikes against Alaska, Russian military spokesmen said they were “practing attacking the enemy.”

Since then, Russia has sent its strategic bombers to practice strikes against the US and Japan 4 more times – in the last 14 months alone. One of these practice strikes was on… the Fourth of July 2012.

This is not surprising: during the Cold War (which Vladimir Putin apparently wants to replay), the Soviet Union’s war plans and military doctrine also called for using nuclear weapons first, on a massive scale, despite Leonid Brezhnev’s public assurances of a no-first-strike policy.

To cut one’s own nuclear deterrent in the face of such an adversary who has a huge nuclear arsenal, is rapidly growing and modernizing it, frequently makes threats to use it preemptively, and has repeatedly practiced attacking the US and its allies with it, would be worse than an utter folly. It would be downright suicidal (or treasonous).

And it isn’t just Russia. Since 1989, China and India have significantly increased their nuclear arsenals, while two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and Iran has made tremendous progress towards nuclear weapon status. Moreover, since their first nuclear tests, Pakistan and North Korea have increased their arsenals of both warheads and ballistic missiles, and North Korea has announced its intention to grow it further.

Meanwhile, the US is cutting… and cutting… and cutting its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, even though NO ONE is following suit.

And I’m not the only analyst warning about this fact. Multiple other analysts, including CSBA Vice President Jim Thomas and Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney, have warned about this as well.

And it’s not just America’s enemies who are developing their nuclear capabilities; so are America’s allies. Japan, for example, has just opened a nuclear facility where it could produce enough fissile material for 3,000 warheads in a year if need be! South Korea also has the potential to “go nuclear” in less than a year, and according to a very recent poll, 66.5% of South Koreans already advocate doing so, in the face of the North Korean threat and America’s rapidly-shrinking and increasingly obsolete nuclear deterrent.

Likewise, CSBA experts Andrew Krepinevich, Eric S. Edelman, and Evan B. Montgomery warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, and if the US cuts its arsenal below New START levels, its nuclear umbrella will not be credible and Persian Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, will develop their own nuclear arsenals.

So the unilateral nuclear arsenal cuts that successive administrations have made (and which Obama plans to double on), and which pacifist organizations advocate, have not only emboldened America’s enemies but also made America’s allies very worried and forced them to prepare for “going nuclear” in a matter of months if need be.

So despite the myths that the Left has been spreading for decades, cutting the US nuclear arsenal has NOT encouraged ANYONE to follow suit; on the contrary, NOBODY is following America’s lead, and MANY are going in the opposite direction.

So the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States, and the entire arms control process, is an abysmal failure and has made America, the West, and the entire world dramatically LESS secure.

The problem is not just a poor execution of arms control agreements; the problem is arms control itself, period.

Arms control is just a codename for unilaterally disarming the West while Russia, China, North Korea, and others build up their nuclear and conventional arsenals.

Nor should it be a surprise to anyone. If you disarm yourself while an evil person does not, do you really think he’ll likewise disarm himself? No, he’ll attack you.

Likewise, if the US continues to cut and gut its nuclear deterrent, other countries, like Russia and China, will not say “Oh, America has set such a great moral example, let’s follow it’s lead and disarm ourselves, too!” They will only build up their arsenals further and become even more aggressive towards the US and its allies. A Russian nuclear first strike is a very real possibility, by the admissions of Russia’s own leaders.

As Harold Brown has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Obama vows to defeat all government spending cuts “for the people”

President Obama has, through the Whitehouse  press, promised to veto any spending cuts that come out of Congress.

The President relayed that he will not accept federal spending cuts just to soften the blow to defense spending.

Obama forgot to mention that the department of defense doesn’t fund itself – the American people do that. That means that if the President vetoes any spending cut, he is forcing Congress to raise taxes. Afterall, if what the feds must spend goes up, they will need more money from the middle-class – those that fund the government by a large margin.

While the Whitehouse tries to portray the veto as “keeping money from the troops” which also should cause outcry, but it won’t. the real victims are those of us tired of seeing that huge amount taken from our paycheck. The government didn’t make that sale, bring in that prospect, or otherwise deserve that much of our pay. Perhaps, if it were doing less,. it wouldn’t be so broke.

“I inhaled”… Apparently, He Never Stopped!

In 2006, Senator Obama declared that he had “inhaled, that was the point.” In a moment of total unadulterated truth the now-president admitted to doing something illegal. But none the less he told the truth and admitted to it. Something, it seems, he has not been able to do for at least 5 years now.

The president said this past week in several “campaign-like” speeches that Washington has taken its eye off the ball. They are obsessed with phony scandals! Did he really say that? Phony scandals?

Now look, we can have two sides of the aisle. We can have different viewpoints on what went down. But you can’t have different facts on the same issue. I have to believe my friends on the left haven’t chugged so much Kool-Aid or inhaled so much of the funny weed, that they won’t admit the truth.

Which “phony scandal” is he referring to? Benghazi? The one where several military brass have been moved or shifted around and witnesses to the event aren’t allowed to speak? Where they have had over a year to produce reports on what took place and have received basically nothing?

Or is it the “phony scandal” involving the IRS where two rogue agents out of Cincinnati decided, “on their own,” to push back on a “few” conservative groups? Then, as the situation heats up, the two rogue agents come forward refusing to be thrown under the bus and divulge that the direction actually came from Washington. Wasn’t there a memo encouraging agents to be on the lookout for groups with names using words like “tea party”, “patriot”, or “9/12” that criticize how the country is being run? If that’s not a scandal then it must be just standard operating procedure for you Mr. President.

Or is it the “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal, an ATF program intended to track weapons bought in the U.S. and “walked” into Mexico? Unfortunately, the ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, some of which were used to kill a U.S. Border agent and God knows how many Mexican citizens. And again, this “phony scandal” was back in the news on July 5th when the Los Angeles Times reported that “A high-powered rifle from Fast and Furious was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records.” To stop further investigation of the program, Obama issued an executive order! Why? If it’s a phony scandal then nothing would be found Mr. President.

Or is it Obamacare? Is it a scandal when the president says, “Nothing will change for you and it won’t cost you one dime more or add one dime to the deficit” but there’s no shred of truth in it? The GAO now says it will cost the average family almost $2000 a year more in health care costs. Additionally, most companies report they will be canceling their insurance carrier’s policies and replacing with government policies, moving us closer to that single payer system the Democrats want so badly! And if you think it won’t add one dime to the deficit… really?

Then there are the not-so-well-known “phony scandals”, like the green energy mess. This administration has made billions in green energy loans and grants, only to watch the money and jobs go overseas. For example: The manufacturer (owned by a Chinese company) that was given over $360 million to open a plant in the U.S. to make the battery for the Chevy Volt closed down without producing one battery for use. Why? Partly due to regulations and partly because it was simply cheaper to produce and import from overseas.

No one with an IQ above a single digit can say that there is not some semblance of truth in each of these “phony scandals”. This president and his staff have spit in the eye of our founding fathers, disregarding many of the truths that made this a great nation, all the while sweeping the truth under the rug and attempting to convince the American public that what they are doing is what’s best for all of us.

Mr. President, it’s time to exhale, allow the fog to lift, and get this country back on track to being the strongest nation in the world. Richard Nixon crimes were “penny larceny” compared to the theft you have perpetrated on this country.

Oh, and once, just once, I would love to hear you say that you love this country and are proud of its accomplishments around the globe.

From a very, very, very concerned citizen.

Should McCain’s Campaign Have Muzzled Palin on Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Racism?

Why did McCain Presidential Campaign Silence Palin discussion  on Rev. Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers

Why did McCain Presidential Campaign Silence Palin discussion on Rev. Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers

When truth is prevented from ever reaching the ears of the American public during a presidential campaign the consequences can often be tragic. Consider the case of the 2008 mainstream media cover up and strict avoidance of Obama’s long time connection to Black Nationalist minister Jeremiah Wright and his firebrand racist comments. The media shackled the truth and allowed then U.S. Senator Obama to skate all the way to his election as president.

What is even worse was former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s recent revelation that the John McCain presidential campaign actually banned her from talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright or anarchist Bill Ayers. Think about the repercussions of how an informed American public could have at least had the opportunity to discuss as well as evaluate this information with the fullness a vice presidential candidate’s focus would have offered.

Typically it is the vice presidential candidate who is given the task to reveal the underbelly of the opposition’s campaign and bring attention to issues that a presidential candidate seeks to avoid discussing.

But instead of engaging in a fully spirited public campaign discussion that would have given Sarah Palin the ability to point out these glaring inconsistencies she was silenced. She is right to be appalled. The nation needed to see a presidential campaign question how a former community organizer from Chicago’s south side managed to have his state senate campaign launched in the living room of the co-founder of the violent anti-war group Weather Underground.

The nation needed a Republican presidential campaign demand the details on how Obama embraced the racist-laden preaching of Rev. Wright. Instead, Palin was forced to stand on the sidelines and watch the McCain campaign throw the towel in without even a whisper.

What this did in effect is to undermine the ability as well as the intelligence of the American people to make a determination to evaluate the fitness of a presidential candidate who offered shadowy explanations for his past record of radical and socialist associations.

The mainstream media was given a pass by the John McCain campaign to not look deeper into Obama’s past associations because they wanted to write a narrative that was actually race-based. McCain campaign appeared to not want the truth about a known radicalized element in Obama’s past; because it would somehow upset the voters he was seeking to convert to support his election as president.

Well America knows how well that worked out for him.

But there is something even more insidious about McCain’s sterilization of Sarah Palin’s voice on these crucial issues. If Palin had been given the go ahead to share the campaign’s concern over Obama’s previous associations the truth could have been revealed. Remember, then U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton had attempted to bring out these issues concerning Obama in the spring of 2008, before she was knocked down by the Chicago-style sledge hammer of the Obama campaign tactics. The mainstream press danced over the corpse of Clinton’s presidential campaign accusations and refused to do little more than to push surface dirt around.

There was a media elitism that was practiced as well as embraced by Senator John McCain. He was not a conservative seeking the truth, and only seem to want Sarah Palin on the ticket because of her conservative background and potential appeal.

This should be a cautionary tale for future voters as well as conservatives who seek to follow a potential presidential candidate when that candidate’s only goal is to stifle the truth in order to gain election points at the polls. It did not work then and it will not work ever.

When the McCain campaign neutralized Sarah Palin’s voice his campaign gave the mainstream media the tacit go ahead to become the new arm of the socialist agenda and the piecemeal destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

The adage that “elections have consequences” is true. This time, America’s conservatives will be unwilling to witness or permit a moderate Republican poser from claiming the mantle of conservatism without portfolio.

The 2014 mid-term elections is the beginning of the process toward reclaiming America and Sarah Palin now and in the future will not be silenced nor restricted.

( Let me know what you think)

Sarah Palin: “I Was Not Allowed” To Tell The Truth About Obama In 2008