Nigerian-American journalists and public commentators join issues with a challenged writer
Why did Ann Coulter choose to attack Nigerian-Americans? That is the question that must trouble anyone who read her recent article.Entitled “To speak to a Nigerian prince about health care, press ‘1’,” the attention-seeking political opportunist simply could not exercise a little bit of self-control!It would have been unnecessary responding to such an unserious work by a careless writer. But the article relished in a number of factual errors that simply questioned her commitment to truth as a known voice in the public place.For instance no one reading this curious piece would be able to reasonably accept her claim that every level of the Nigerian society is criminal or that you can major in credit card fraud in the University of Lagos!These are incredible, ridiculous and outlandish claims. They are not based on facts, but merely wild allegations that can never be substantiated and should really make Ms. Coulter ashamed of herself, short of her overriding lust to embrace publicity of any kind!Of all the names that she recounted from Justice Department press releases of people convicted of criminal activities, only one name sounds Nigerian, out of the long list. That list represents a broad outlook of differing ethnicities and nationalities present in America and beyond. But Ms. Coulter chose to only malign Nigeria, exposing her crass appetite for the spotlight.We are not unaware that Coulter was following in the footsteps of Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas, who had earlier spoken rather carelessly about Nigerians in his bid to crack a joke over the Obamacare rollout controversy.Well, unknown to Coulter; the writer, Senator Cruz; the politician has written to Nigerians in Houston, Texas regretting his statements and trying to build a rapport with Nigerian-Americans in that State.Knowing the level of self-indulged ignorance that the ilk of Coulter normally clutches to, no one should expect her to retract her clumsy claims, or even provide proofs.But we should be obliged to, at least, educate her as to the facts which should cure her from her self-inflicted illiteracy on the place of Nigerian-Americans in this great land of the free and the home of the brave.Only two months ago, a leading Nigerian-American group, the Christian Association of Nigerian-Americans, CANAN celebrated several Nigerian-Americans who are upstanding members, even outstanding achievers in their various callings in life here.For instance CANAN celebrated Prof Augustine Esogbue, the only African who served on NASA’s Advisory Board, Judge Bunmi Awoniyi, a Nigerian-American who is today a Superior Judge in California, Dr. Ola Akinboboye, the President of the Association of Black Cardiologists, here in the US, and Mr. Emmanuel Ohuabunwa, the first black man to become the valedictorian at John Hopkins University, among several others.Besides, maybe we should remind Coulter that a Nigerian-American by the name of Bayo Ogunlesi heads an investment firm Global Infrastructure Partners, GIP, a company that today manages a $15 billion joint venture whose initial investors included Credit Suisse and General Electric. GIP with US$8.25 billion in investor capital commitments, is the largest independent infrastructure fund in the world to date.Coulter had better pay attention to another fact, that Nigerian-Americans, based on US official census and analysis by American academics, are the most educated of any group in the US! A no-less influential newspaper in this country, Houston Chronicle has reported on this fact.These are the facts that expose Coulter’s chicanery and shenanigans.Therefore, the issue is not whether “Nigerian immigrants have German-style rectitude and are very honest about reporting all of their income to the government,” as Coulter wrote in arrant but empty, boastful attitude.The issue is that Nigerian-Americans have paid, and are paying their dues as worthy citizens in our new homes. But not only that, we are among the best in this blessed God’s own country. And we are proud of it, regardless of what naysayers and some few celebrated but incompetent writers like Coulter chooses to believe!Now your guess is as good as ours, why she chose to attack Nigerians-Americans!
A powerful commercial about child abuse.
“Children are a gift from the Lord,
a reward from a mother’s womb.
A young man’s sons
are like the arrows in a soldier’s hand.
The man who fills his quiver with sons
will be very blessed.
He will never be defeated
when he opposes his enemy at the city gates.”
A little Saturday morning funny for your weekend!
Obama is totally out of touch with what’s going on with his Obamcare and not in touch with the people at all. In fact a new CBS poll shows him at a 37% approval rate and 57% disapproval rate and things that are happening with the website are like something out of a Mad Magazine parody. Obama says he doesn’t know what’s going on and reads everything from the papers. I guess that’s what happens when you go on too many vacations all the time. Just when the Obamacare experience appears to be able to go no lower – the website malfunctions, millions of policies are canceled outright, only thousands are able to sign up via online offerings, prices for policies are skyrocketing, and more –
In Colorado a man went to sign up for Obamcare and his dog got signed up instead. Shane Smith, of Fort Collins, says his dog Baxter received a letter informing him that a health insurance account had been opened in his name through Connect for Health Colorado.
“I thought, ‘Wow, this is so awesome,’” Smith said with a laugh. “They have gone out of their way to insure my 14-year-old Yorkie.”
Smith had called Connect for Health Colorado to sign himself up for insurance because his old plan was cancelled due to Obamacare.
He’s not sure exactly how the confirmation letter went to his dog, but he says he thinks it’s because of a series of security questions a representative asked him over the phone.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went to a special media gathering to promote Obamcare and helped a woman sign up for Obamacare only to have the computer crash and a sign came up saying the site was down.
So far people connected with the site say 70% of the site isn’t finished yet. They have had three years to get this up and running and spent almost a trillion dollars on it and it still doesn’t work. Meanwhile kids all over are creating websites and selling things off of them and a group of college techies got a similar website up and running for nothing, yet this administration can’t get the website to work. Obamacare has since been compromised by hackers and people’s private information has leaked out. Friends, you can’t make this stuff up!!!
The latest HHS report says to expect a new wave of cancellations to the tune of 60-100 million more cancellations by the mid-term elections next year in addition to the five million already cancelled. The administration admitted they knew back in 2010 that there would be cancellations and now say they won’t be able to meet the deadline slated for the end of the month. Cancellations are expected to hit small businesses and some large businesses too.
The latest CBS poll shows only 7% say to keep the plan as is, 48% said it needs some changes and 43% said to repeal it all together.
People lost their plans, can’t get a new plan and are being fined for not getting the Obama plan. Meanwhile Obama is blaming republicans for Obamacare failures. That’s it. When all else fails blame Bush. No, folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
In poll after poll after poll, people are saying Obama is dishonest and not trustworthy, he’s not a strong leader and doesn’t understand the problems of the people. I said that at the beginning of his term back in 2008. A recent Rasmussen poll also showed if the election were held today, Romney would win, but it’s too late now. I guess chalk it up to buyer’s remorse.
ANALYSIS: 50 to 100 million insurance cancellations coming...
Small business owner tells Congress health law 'driving me to drink'...
CO man signs up — his dog gets covered instead… *
We’ve been inundated by recounts of the assassination of John F. Kennedy 50 years ago this week. There is nothing productive or of consequence that can come from continued musings over conspiracy theories, or retelling of the mythical Camelot that did not exist during the tragically truncated tenure of the 35th President. The most valuable thing that we can take from his incumbency is his political wisdom, which was copious.
Unlike many of his fellow alumni from Harvard, especially our current president, JFK understood economics. Shortly after he was sworn in, the President said, “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.” He was the first supply-side president, and understood that the key to economic growth is to free up capital for private investment that creates jobs, makes and sells things, and increases the standard of living for the entire country. After all, he had history on his side, and it had worked for nearly 200 years.
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort — thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate,” he said.
And on another occasion, “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now… And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus.”
JFKs tax cuts were passed posthumously in February, 1964. The result of those significant tax cuts, which still didn’t go as far as he wanted them to go, had dramatic effects on the economy. Real GDP grew at 5.8% in 1964, 6.5% in 1965, and 6.6% in 1966, while the unemployment rate declined from 5.2% in 1964 to 3.8% in 1966, falling all the way to 3.5% in 1969. And, as predicted by our first supply-side president, tax revenues increased dramatically, from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968.
He not only understood real-world economics, but he understood the proper role of government in a free society, as America was founded to be. He said to the New York Economic Club in December, the year before he died, “The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.”
In other words, foster a climate that is conducive to economic growth, rather than creating government programs – expenditures, as he referred to them – which siphon the lifeblood out of a free economy. JFK was a Reaganite, economically speaking, before Reaganites even existed.
There are far too few Republicans that believe that today, and I would venture to say, there are no Democrats who believe that today. Too many of today’s politicians are statists, convinced that the government’s role is, rather than foster an environment that is conducive to economic growth, function as parasites or leaches, sucking as much capital and monetary velocity out of the economy as possible to pay for our alphabet soup acronyms of government programs and agencies.
Our nation would be so different today if presidents 36-44 all believed like JFK and Reagan did. We wouldn’t be struggling under an insurmountable $18 trillion in debt, more than half of which came in the last five years. We wouldn’t be witnessing the meltdown of our health insurance and health care delivery, with as many as 93 million Americans (the administration’s own estimate), losing their health care.
We wouldn’t have an omnipresent government that gathers our financial information, health care information, monitors our phone calls, and even spies on our social media activity. We wouldn’t have a government that tries to tax the very gas that we exhale, with the distorted and fabricated justification that it will “save the earth,” as well as regulation on anything and everything that works, moves, or produces anything.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the last Democrat president that properly understood the role of government, and the quality of life assured to all from a free market economy that wasn’t taxed and regulated to death. As a matter of fact, our 35th President was committed to a balanced budget, loved the Constitution, loved his country, was against “big government,” was an NRA member, anti-communist, pro-life, and in spite of his challenged morality, was a deeply religious man. By today’s politico-ideological spectrum standards, JFK would be a Tea Party patriot.
This is manifest even more clearly by one of his Independence Day speeches, where he said, “Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free.”
And contrary to the Washington Post’s bizarre claim this week, JFKs assassin was a communist, not someone who would sympathize with the Tea Party of today.
Based on his own words and convictions, I think it’s safe to say that JFK would be appalled by how much our nation has degenerated from what it was intended to be, and his vision of what it should be.
Associated Press 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 degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].
That’s exactly what LibertyNEWS’ Norvell Rose does – guess – what could soon make MSNBC’s lineup even more horrendous, outrageous and disgusting.
You gotta love the Daily Kos, where all the liberal fruitcakes find a welcome environment. Recently they ran a post entitled “You might be a racist if…..” and compiled a list of indicators that proves how white people dislike non-whites. The sad thing is, they’re serious. As a heart attack.
Some examples from the post–my own parenthetic snark has been added for comedic relief:
You are oblivious to “white privilege”. (Because all whites are born rich and get everything handed to them. I’m proof.)
You have to build your own compound in North Idaho because the rest of North Idaho is not “White” enough for you. (A true racist would live in South Idaho.)
You still insist president Obama is from Kenya. (This has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It says so on the Internet.)
You still refer to Mexicans as beaners. (I prefer wetbacks, actually.)
You think racism is a thing of the past OR that any brown person who objects to your lovely unkind generalization about brown people is themselves racist against white people — because unfortunately you are not sure what racism is. (Wow. That’s a lot of words in one sentence. You must have gone to college.)
You indicate “some of my best friends are . . .” (Retarded? Indian? Republican? This means nothing.)
You continually say, “I hate rap and hip hop. It’s not music.” (Oh, so if dislike something mainly performed by black people, that means I hate black people? This argument makes no sense.)
And now let’s add one more item to the list. If you enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you might be a racist.
Some wetback school principal in Oregon–ooops, I’m sorry, a Mexican-American school principal in Oregon–came up with this one.
I’ll tell ya….I cannot put into my own words what Verenice Gutierrez, the principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, says, so I’m just going to quote a chunk of the article. To wit:
“Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.
Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year. ‘What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?’ says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood. ‘Another way would be to say: “Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?” Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.’
Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of ‘Courageous Conversations,’ the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years. Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.”
In other words, what you eat, whether you realize it or not, makes you a racist, and makes children cry.
(Also, in a continuing example of our crumbling education system, teachers have to learn how they themselves are awful for being white in order to properly teach the non-white. The future is in good hands!)
Now you know, you racist, peanut-butter eating cracker. Shame on you for being alive. I bet you use white bread, too. Typical. You should only use wheat bread to prove your racial sensitivity; either that or use torta. Or pita.
I’m not sure how much racism still exists in our country. The left keeps racism alive by telling us how racist we are depending on how we think or act, and there’s something wrong with that. Is it part of a thought-control effort, do they hate America, or are they just trying to get stuff?
So remember this list as you prepare for your day, and for God’s sake pack your peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a racially non-specific carrying container. Do not use a brown paper bag.
DEMOPRISY: the hypocrisy of the Democrat ideology’s reality. It’s real and it happens ALL the time!
Case-in-point: Bill De Blasio, who was elected recently as New York’s new mayor with 73 percent of the vote has stated his first order of business is to shut down all the non-Planned Parenthood crisis pregnancy centers. Why? Because they don’t perform abortions. You see a crisis pregnancy center gives its patients all the information needed to make a real decision before ending the life of a baby in the womb. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t make millions of dollars like Planned Parenthood does so they can’t buy as many politicians.
The hypocrisy comes in when Democrats use terms like “equality.” Equality means “the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Let’s focus on equal opportunities, because that’s what everyone tells me Republicans are not into.
This new Democratic Mayor wants to give free space to Planned Parenthood on city-owned property and he wants to shut down crisis pregnancy centers. Does this sound like “equal opportunity”?
What are you afraid of Mr. De Blasio? Give women all the information. Allow them to understand what that “blob of cells” they are carrying really is. Let them see the sonogram pictures of the “blob of cells.” Let them read all the reports, the ones from the left that say the baby feels no pain, as well as the reports from doctors on the right that show that the babies feel the pain at as soon as 8 weeks.
He calls the pro-life pregnancy centers a “sham” because they don’t provide enough abortions to keep up with demand. Does he mean the demand of those irresponsible couples who refuse to take the proper precautions if they really don’t want to do what nature and God intended?
And, to top it off, he expects the government to pay for it all. Isn’t that nice? Just so New Yorkers don’t have to be careful at all. Free sex, free drugs, and free abortion.
Remember, we were promised that ObamaCare wouldn’t pay for abortions but states can add in that provision and that’s what he is going to do. I predict New York City will be a cesspool within 4 years, back to the days before Rudy Giuliani, mark my words.
This Socialist law breaker who just became mayor has no shame and no integrity. He is a self-proclaimed, card-carrying Democrat-Socialist. He traveled to the Soviet Union as a student and honeymooned with his wife, in violation of the travel ban, in Cuba. It was against the law!
According to a recent article in LifeSiteNews, the mayor-elect spent many of his early adult years traveling “to Nicaragua, where he supplied the Communist Sandinistas – whom he called “really inspirational” – and their allies with funds and food while working with the Quixote Center, a Maryland-based leftist Catholic group that once referred to American opposition to Communist leadership in Nicaragua as “spreading terrorism.”” Just amazing!
Do you really think this person is who our founding fathers had in mind to govern us?
Mr. De Blasio has been elected to one of the largest American cities. He was elected because of the freedom and liberty afforded him by real Americans who fought and died for liberty and democracy. He supports and endorses oppressive communist countries, believes in socialism, and can’t find the truth with both hands and a manual.
People like Mr. De Blasio are why this country is in the trouble it is. They want to wipe out the very freedoms that allowed Mr. De Blasio to win one of the most powerful seats in the country. They are so sure they know what needs to be done to the country that they are willing to ruin it to prove their points.
America… WAKE UP! Please! PAY ATTENTION! And make sure the people you vote for can, and will, do the job the REAL way… the American way!
The Manning Report- November 20, 2013
From Pastor James David Manning in Harlem, New York
As thousands of consumers receive health insurance cancellation notices, President Obama is continuing to fine tune his promise that Americans who like their health plans would be able to keep them under his signature health care law.
The president told about 200 of his campaign supporters and health care activists Monday that the administration had promised Americans they could keep their current coverage — as long as their plans hadn’t changed since ObamaCare was signed into law.
The latest batch of October statistics from the Obama White House credits me with buying a Mercedes, BMW and an Audi. And the best part is it didn’t cost me a dime! All I did was take three test drives and here I am: A GDP–generating fool.
This flexible interpretation of window–shopping and tire–kicking has great potential for the future. I’m thinking about taking credit for job creation when I get a haircut or have my car washed. With just a bit more attention to my personal appearance I could find states competing to offer me subsidies and tax breaks like Terry McAuliffe got from Mississippi.
And wouldn’t you know it, this conceptual breakthrough started with Obamacare and the HealthCare.dud website.
Some of my conservative colleagues complained when Obama minions began counting people who only visited the HealthCare.dud website and selected a plan, but didn’t pay for it as Official Obamacare Enrollees. These stalwarts contend that until the victim has actually paid for the plan there is no sale and consequently no enrollment, regardless of how much they need the insurance or how many hours they wasted on the website.
What’s more, if we let Obama get away with this, soon people who only thought about health insurance would be counted as part of the system.
The private sector equivalent of this new White House statistical interpretation would be Amazon.com counting items still on shopper’s ‘wish lists’ as being revenue generating sales; and then releasing the information to Wall Street so as to drive up the stock price.
Since he’s not president, the result would be Jeff Bezos facing charges, while Obama merely faces a hostile — make that mildly annoyed — press corps that is having trouble coming up with new excuses for the president’s failures.
The conservative objection, while true, misses the larger point. Based on the Phantom Obamacare Enrollee Precedent, when I buy my 2013 copy of TurboTax and fill out the form, I should be counted as having paid my taxes without sending the IRS a check!
I call it my own private sequester. And when you consider how the number of people who take more from the government than they pay in taxes is increasing, it finally puts me on the right side of history.
The Obamacare rollout — or ground out, if you prefer — does have implications for Obama’s future after the White House. If he’s as smart as the MSM assures us, Obama will steer clear of the private sector. That’s because if he tried the same marketing tactics outside of government, he would be subject to fines and possibly jail time.
As Orson Swindle, a Federal Trade Commission member from 1997 to 2005, pointed out in the National Review the HealthCare.dud website is deceptive, misleading and illegal. Jay Carney’s “wild west” indeed.
You may recall a recent furor over airline websites that were allegedly hiding baggage and other add–on fees until just before the consumer purchased the ticket. “Consumer advocates” and other busybodies complained that by waiting until the end of the purchase process to give the consumer a total price, airlines were trying to pull a fast one.
Airlines responded that where else would you give a total price unless it was at the end of the purchase process?
And besides the Carnac the Magnificent software was not ready for launch. Protests fell on deaf government ears and the FTC required the websites to be reprogrammed to sound a klaxon and flash red lights every time a consumer made a choice that would add more than a nickel to the ticket price.
Soon shopping for a big–ticket airfare came to resemble crash–diving in a submarine.
Yet the HealthCare.dud site is programmed to hide any cost information until after the consumer has created an account and been forced to divulge detailed financial information. And even then the information is purposely inaccurate.
As Swindle says, quoting CBS News, “HealthCare.gov contains a pricing feature that tends to “dramatically underestimate” the cost of insurance. The website’s “shop and browse” feature divides users into two broad age categories: “49 or under” and “50 or older.” Price estimates for the first age group are based on what a 27-year-old could expect to pay, whereas as the latter group’s price estimates are based on what a 50-year-old would pay, a practice that inevitably produces wildly misleading results for individuals significantly older than the base age. In some cases, actual premiums are nearly double the projected amount.”
Swindle concludes, “The bottom line is that no private entity would be allowed to get away with what the Obama administration is trying to get away with.”
And we haven’t even mentioned the “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” shuffle.
The bad news is we have conservative busybodies, too. Rep. Fred Upton (R–MI) — descendant of Civil War hero Gen. Emory Upton — passed a bill in the House to allow insurers to continue to sell policies that the feds have canceled. What’s more, Upton persuaded 39 Democrats to join him in supporting this “bi–partisan” legislation. (Unfortunately for comity in the House, the bill must have passed on the weekend, because I don’t remember any praise for Upton from the MSM for reaching across the aisle to garner Democrat support.)
Too bad this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
If we are to rid ourselves of this Obamacare monstrosity, it will only come after the pressure on Democrats is so great they beg for political mercy. And that will only happen after all those who didn’t take time to read the law, feel the impact of the law.
Interim fix–its to reduce the pain undermine what should be conservative’s long term goal, which is end it, not mend it.
On November 14th, the NY Slimes newspaper published a litany of blatant lies about the US nuclear arsenal,written by Cato’s Benjamin Friedman and Christopher Preble, two anti-defense hacks employed by CATO. In it, Friedman and Preble falsely claim that:
- The US nuclear arsenal is “bloated” and amounts to overkill;
- Nuclear weapons and the nuclear triad are relics of the Cold War and have been irrelevant in America’s recent wars;
- The US doesn’t need a nuclear triad; a monad, specifically a submarine fleet, would be enough;
- The number of targets for US nuclear weapons is growing scarcer; Russia allegedly can no longer afford nuclear parity, China has only a few long-range missiles, and NK struggles to deploy even as much (they completely omitted Iran);
- A nuclear triad was created and retained solely for bureaucratic reasons to keep both the USAF and the USN happy; and
- America retains conventional superiority which, together with missile defense, can substitute for nuclear weapons.
All of these claims are blatant lies. Not even one of them is true. Not even one. Here’s why.
Ad. 1. and 4. The US nuclear arsenal is not bloated nor an overkill at all; in fact, it is barely adequate. Why? Because America’s principal nuclear adversaries – Russia and China – both have large nuclear arsenals and would gladly use them in a first strike if they could get away with it. Surviving a possible Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike and thus providing a credible deterrent requires a LARGE nuclear arsenal; a small one will not suffice. Nuclear deterrence is above all a numbers game – and who has the most nuclear weapons wins. A small nuclear arsenal could be very easily destroyed by both Moscow and Beijing.
Russia currently has:
- around 415-430 ICBMs collectively capable of delivering at least 1,684 nuclear warheads to the CONUS;
- 251 strategic bombers, each capable of delivering 6-12 nuclear warheads (typically, 6 cruise missile warheads and one freefall bomb), i.e. 1,700 warheads between them;
- 13 ballistic missile submarines collectively capable of delivering between 1,400 and 2,000 warheads to the US;
- at least 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons and a wide variety of means to deliver them (short-range ballistic missiles, theater aircraft, artillery pieces, surface ships, submarines, submarine-launched cruise missiles, etc.).
Russia is now building up and rapidly modernizing its entire nuclear arsenal, including its strategic nuclear triad. It is developing, or already deploying:
- a new strategic intercontinental bomber, the PAK DA, to replace the Tu-95 strategic bomber;
- a new ballistic missile submarine class (the Borei class) with two new ballistic missile types (the R-29RMU2 Liner and the RSM-56 Bulava);
- several new ICBM types (the RS-24 Yars, the “Avangard”, the “Rubezh”, a rail-mobile ICBM, and the “Son of Satan” missile to replace the SS-18 heavy ICBM that can carry 10 warheads and 38 penetration aids);
- 400 new ICBMs in total, which will be complemented by keeping in service and modernizing some of Russia’s older ICBMs to keep the ICBM fleet above 400 missiles;
- new warheads; and
- a full panoply of new tactical delivery systems, including new nuclear-capable cruise and short-range ballistic missiles and theater nuclear strike aircraft (e.g. the Su-34 Fullback).
By 2016, 80%, and by 2021, all of Russia’s ICBMs will be new, post-Cold-War, 5th generation modern ICBMs – the Topol-M (deployed in 1997), the Yars (first deployed in 2010), and even newer missiles. Altogether, by the 2020s, Russia’s nuclear arsenal, especially its nuclear triad, will be even larger and much more lethal and survivable than they are today.
The claim that Russia can no longer retain nuclear parity is also utterly false. Russia is, as demonstrated above, fully modernizing its entire nuclear arsenal, replacing old missiles, submarines, and aircraft with new ones, and is expanding it. And according to CATO’s own Nikolas Gvosdef (backed up by United Press International), Russia will, by 2016, DOUBLE its spending on nuclear weapons from today’s levels.
Russia can easily afford to do so, thanks to high oil and gas prices (oil prices have been very high for years, are currently above $100/barrel and will stay there for a good period of time). Thanks to huge oil and gas revenues and its near-monopoly on gas deliveries to Europe, Russia has a virtually endless stream of revenue for its huge nuclear modernization and expansion program.
Not only that, but Russia is willing to use nuclear weapons first if Moscow thinks it get can away with it. In the last 6 years alone, Moscow has threatened to aim or even launch its nuclear weapons at the US or its allies at least 15 times. This year, it has twice conducted large-scale nuclear exercises simulating a Russian nuclear first strike. Not only that, but Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first in its war doctrine and considers its nuclear arsenal “sacred.”
Also, Russia has, within the last 18 months, simulated a nuclear bomber strike on the US or its close ally Japan several times, including in May 2012 and July 2012 (the Fourth of July, to be precise). When asked in June 2012 by the world media about what they were doing simulating an attack on Alaska, the Russians said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.”
So the Russians consider America their enemy – and have simulated attacking it several times. And they have a huge nuclear arsenal to do so if they ever want to try. America’s nuclear deterrent is the ONLY thing that is preventing them from doing so.
China also has a large nuclear arsenal, though not as large as Russia’s. Nonetheless, it is large, contrary to the false claims of American arms reduction advocates. Former Russian Strategic Missile Force Chief of Staff Gen. Viktor Yesin estimates it at 1,600-1,800 warheads, while Georgetown University Professor Philip Karber (the DOD’s former chief nuclear strategist) puts the figure at up to 3,000 warheads. This analyst, for his part, did his own study on the subject last year and estimated that China has at the very least 1,274 warheads, not including the warheads for the 500 nuclear-armed ground-launched cruise missiles that the DOD warns about.
Specifically, China has:
- ICBMs: 36 DF-5 heavy ICBMs capable of carrying up to 10 warheads each, over 30 DF-31/31A ICBMs (4 warheads each), at least one DF-41 missile (10 warheads each), 20 DF-4 missiles (3 warheads each), for a total of 550 warheads for ICBMs – all deliverable to the US, though DF-4s can only reach Alaska;
- 120 medium range ballistic missiles: 100 DF-21s and 20 DF-3s (1 warhead each), for a total of 120 MRBM-attributed warheads;
- 500 warheads for short-range ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles;
- 440 nuclear bombs for the PLAAF’s delivery-capable aircraft (440 H-6s, JH-7s, and Q-5s);
- an unknown number of warheads for the PLAAF’s cruise missiles carried on H-6K bombers;
- six ballistic missile submarines: one Xia class boat carrying 12 single-warhead missiles and five Jin class boats each carrying 12 JL-2 missiles with 4 warheads each; note that future JL-2 missile variants will be capable of carrying 12 warheads each, over a distance of 14,000 kms.
The CATO anti-nuclear hacks’ claim that China has only a few long-range missiles is a blatant lie (like the rest of what they write); in fact, China has at least 87 (and probably many more, due to continuing DF-31A production) ICBMs and 72 SLBMs. And that number will only grow in the future.
In total, China, by this writer’s calculations based on Chinese ballistic missile, aircraft, and SSBN inventories and on DOD’s data on Chinese SRBMs and cruise missiles, has at least 1,862 warheads, including 802 deliverable to the US (though not all of them to the CONUS). Here’s a map of Chinese ICBM ranges.
Note that China’s nuclear arsenal, like Russia’s, is not at a standstill and will only get larger, more survivable, and more lethal in the future. China is increasing its inventory of ballistic missile subs, ICBMs, MRBMs, SRBMs, cruise missiles, and is developing:
- a rail-mobile ICBM;
- a stealthy intercontinental bomber that will be capable of striking the CONUS with nuclear weapons;
- new variants of the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile that will be capable of carrying 12 warheads over a distance of 14,000 kms (i.e. striking the CONUS from Chinese ports and territorial waters); and
- a new ballistic missile submarine class, the Tang class.
And remember: the US needs to deter not only the nuclear-armed adversaries of today, but also those of tomorrow. And tomorrow, America’s adversaries will have more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than today.
On top of that, the US must provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but to over 30 allies who depend on it for their security and their very existence. If it fails to do so – if it continues to cut its nuclear arsenal – they will develop their own atomic weapons, and thus, the nucler proliferation problem will become that much worse. This is not a theoretical concern: already 66.5% of South Koreans want their country to “go nuclear”, and Japan has recently opened a facility allowing it to produce enough material for 3,600 nuclear warheads in a matter of months if need be. Saudi Arabia has reportedly ordered nuclear weapons from Pakistan (to counter Iran), according to the BBC.
Thus, the US nuclear arsenal is by far the most valuable counter-proliferation tool the US has at its disposal. And a large, diverse, survivable nuclear umbrella is absolutely necessary to reassure those allies – and to protect America itself.
And the number of targets for US nuclear weapons is not becoming any scarcer; on the contrary, it is growing in number and striking difficulty.
Russia and China not only have all of the missiles, submarines, and bombers that I’ve listed, but also missile, submarine, and aircraft bases; nuclear warhead, material, and missile production facilities; all tactical nuclear warheads, facilities, and delivery systems (to prevent US allies and troops abroad from being nuked); and, in China’s case, numerous ports and caverns along its coast to hide submarines and 3,000 miles of tunnels to hide land-based missiles.
And as Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals grow, the number of targets for American nukes to destroy will grow even further.
All of these Russian and Chinese military assets would need to be destroyed if credible deterrence is to be provided; just destroying enemy missiles is not enough. Not even close.
Why? Because to provide credible deterrence, you have to be able to first survive the enemy’s first strike, then, in your retaliatory strike, destroy the vast majority (if not all) of his military, economic, and strategic assets, so that he can never repeat a strike against you and the consequences of attacking you will be way, way too devastating for him to contemplate such a preemptive strike on you in the first place. THAT is the definition of credible deterrence – and it can be provided for ONLY with a large nuclear arsenal; a small one will never suffice, for it will neither be survivable (too small to survive) nor will it have enough warheads to inflict sufficient punishment on the aggressor.
And if the US cuts its nuclear deterrent significantly further, it will become too small to survive a Russian or Chinese first strike, let alone to deliver a sufficiently painful retaliation against Russia or China, especially given the large number of targets to be hit. And as Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals and military establishments grow, the list of targets the US will need to wipe out will only grow over time.
So no, America’s nuclear arsenal is not bloated nor an overkill at all. On the contrary, it is barely adequate today.
Ad. 2. While US nuclear weapons have not been used in any wars since WW2, including America’s most recent wars, that doesn’t mean they’re useless or militarily irrelevant – far from it. They perform THE most important mission of the US military – deterring and thus preventing a catastrophic (nuclear, chemical, or biological) attack on the US and its allies. And they’ve performed that mission flawlessly, without failure, ever since 1945. That is by far the military’s most important mission – and contribution to national security.
The ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu, the author of the Art of War, famously wrote that “to win one hundred battles is not the acme of skill; to subdue the enemy without fighting is.” The corrollary to Master Sun’s saying is that a weapon that deters and subdues the enemy without fighting is worth a hundred times more than a weapon that is actually used in war.
Nuclear weapons deter America’s adversaries without firing a shot. And have successfully done so continously since 1945. No other weapon in America’s inventory has a record that even comes close.
And regarding the wars which America has recently fought: what have these wars done to increase America’s national security or advance its national interests? Absolutely nothing – and they have cost a lot of money (over $100 bn per year) and over 6,000 US troops’ lives – all for no gain whatsoever.
By contrast, nuclear weapons have protected America against the gravest threats to its security, including Russia, China, and North Korea, throughout all that time and still do today, at a cost of just $31 bn per year (5% of the military budget and a fraction of the total federal budget). Far better would it be to continue investing in them than in useless wars.
The implication by Friedman and Preble that nuclear weapons are Cold War relics is also utterly false. The need for nuclear deterrence – and indeed, for a LARGE US nuclear arsenal, is only growing, not shrinking. The US now has to deter three hostile nuclear powers (Russia, China, North Korea, the first two wielding atomic arsenals), soon to be joined by Iran, and to reassure over 30 allies who depend on the American atomic umbrella for their survival. The need for, and the importance of, a large US nuclear arsenal is only growing, not shrinking.
Ad. 3 and 5. The claim that ballistic missile submarines alone would be enough, and that a nuclear triad of subs, ICBMs, and bombers is unneeded, is completely false. A nuclear triad is by far the most survivable deterrence arrangement and is based on rational thinking: never put all your eggs into one basked. No sane person does this; every sane person (not just savvy investors) diversifies their portfolios of assets.
Cutting down to a monad would leave America’s adversaries with only one, simple, one-dimensional problem: how to detect America’s SSBNs?
Should the US ever simplify this issue so much for its enemies, they’ll solve the problem – they’ll invest sufficient resources in solving it. According to recent news, China’s and Russia’s ASW capabilities are woefully underappreciated in the West, Admiral Greenert’s boasting that “we totally own the undersea domain” notwithstanding. And US intel has been taken completely by surprise by America’s enemies’ capabilities and actions so many times that it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t know China and/or Russia had potent ASW capabilities. US intel is ignorant of many things it should know.
In fact, as Canadian Professor Roger Thompson revealed in his article several years ago, during the Cold War Soviet submarines detected American SSBNs on numerous occassions. For example, in 1985, the Soviet submarine K-324 snuck up to and detected American ballistic missile subs on three different occassions! Meanwhile, another Soviet sub tailed another American SSBN for FIVE DAYS! And in the late 1980s, an obsolete, noisy USN attack submarine was able to sneek up to and hunt down yet another American SSBN; a Canadian submarine repeated that feat in 1992.
So much for Preble’s and Friedman’s myth that America’s ballistic missile subs are undetectable and no enemy could ever detect them. What a human hand has built, a human hand can built the equipment to detect and sink. One more time to remember NEVER to put all your eggs into one basket.
As Robert D. Kaplan rightly says, “never give your opponent too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.” You can be sure as hell Moscow and Beijing would quickly solve the singular problem of how to hunt down American SSBNs if the question of attacking America were reduced just to that problem.
Friedman’s and Preble’s claim that the nuclear triad arose from bureaucratic politics (keeping both the USAF and the USN happy by giving both a nuclear role) is also a blatant lie, like the rest of what they write. If it were true, why hasn’t Washington also given the Army and the Marines a nuclear role? Answer: because Friedman’s and Preble’s claim is a lie.
In reality, Washington created a nuclear triad of ICBMs, bombers, and submarines because that is by far the most survivable arrangement – far more than relying on any one leg. It greatly complicates the enemy’s planning, for he would have to target not just the subs but also the bombers (and shoot down any that would be airborne) and all US ICBMs.
And for that reason – NOT because of interservice rivalry – every administration since the 1950s has reaffirmed the nuclear triad as the most survivable form of deterrence.
If a nuclear triad is an obsolete Cold War arrangement, why do the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis all retain, modernize, and expand their nuclear triads?
Answer: because they know it’s by far the most survivable deterrence arrangement.
Finally, Ad. 6.: the claim that alleged US conventional superiority and missile defense improvements can replace nuclear weapons.
In fact, US conventional superiority is history, thanks to successive administrations’ neglect of defense issues and especially conventional forces and weapons, due first to post-Cold-War defense cuts (1989-2001) and then to an opinion spurred by 9/11 that conventional forces and weapons were irrelevant. As a result, the US has already lost its conventional edge; to speak of any US conventional warfare advantage is utter idiocy.
For example, while the US has foolishly killed F-22 fighter production at just 187 aircraft, Russia’s and China’s 5th generation stealthy fighters are proceeding smoothly, and both countries will eventually field hundreds of such aircraft. China’s newest Type 052 destroyers are superior to all USN surface combatants except the USS Zumwalt. The US Navy’s anti-submarine warfare skills have atrophied so badly that in numerous exercises with foreign navies involving their diesel-electric subs it never succeeded in detecting these subs.
Had those exercises been real combat, ALL carriers of the US Navy would’ve been at the bottom of the ocean. So much for America’s much-vaunted carriers.
As for missile defense, it is still in its infancy, and questions abound about such systems’ ability to intercept targets and to discriminate real warheads from decoys. Moreover, missile defense can be easily overwhelmed by any enemy with sheer numbers of offensive missiles – which cost much less than the interceptors intended to shoot them down.
No, conventional weapons and missile defense can NEVER substitute for nuclear weapons – as Gen. Kevin Chilton warned in 2011 when he was commander of the Strategic Command.
In sum, all of Friedman’s and Preble’s claims are blatant lies. No, the US nuclear arsenal is not oversized, bloated, nor an “overkill.” A large nuclear deterrent is STILL needed, and will be for the foreseeable future – to deter Russia, China, and North Korea, and to reassure over 30 US allies to depend on it. A small nuclear arsenal will not suffice – it would be way too easy to destroy in a first strike.
And in nuclear deterrence, what matters is how many weapons you’d have AFTER an enemy first strike – not before.
Endnote: A nuclear triad is a Cold War relic? Oops, someone forgot to tell that to the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis!
UPDATE: Friedman and Preble will hold a pro-unilateral disarmament propaganda event on Capitol Hill on Monday, Nov. 25th.
My two cents (if it is worth that much in an Obama economy) for victory over the Republican party opposition is as follows. I’ll preface my comments by saying I do not purport to be another Lee Atwater, Mike Murphy, Karl Rove or James Carville when it comes to political strategy. I, however, like many who are actively engaged in the political process, have strong opinions on what I believe works and what doesn’t work as far as successfully promoting Republican and conservative candidates into elected office.
I’ll begin by saying that in America today there is no longer a Democratic party. That party has been expunged for well over two decades. There are no longer any Harry Truman’s, Adlai Stevenson’s, JFKs, RFKs, Eugene McCarthy’s, Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s governing or legislating within the Republican’s opposing party. They are long gone. The six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist party Norman Thomas is quoted as saying in 1944,
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
Mr. Thomas was prescient. The party that Republican’s oppose today, and for some time now is the Socialist party. That is clear, plain and simple. JFK’s party of fiscal conservatism, union crime-busting and identifying and opposing enemies to America has been removed and replaced with a political party that has no interest whatsoever in those concerns nor in fact with America’s system of government. The socialist’s have no respect for the tenets of our Declaration or regard for the canons of our Constitution. They eschew any reference to natural law or natural rights that are identified within our Declaration and view America’s cause of order, justice and freedom only from a moral relativistic perspective. The Socialist party determines what America’s “cause” is based on what side of the bed they awake in the morning in order to consolidate their power.
Along with the above characteristics of the Socialist party there is a fundamental common denominator that can be ascribed to virtually every one of them, and that is they are predominantly agnostics or atheists. I challenge anyone to conduct an informal survey on a group of socialist’s (or progressives as they like to spin) and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of them will either admit to being atheists or agnostics, or at best will hedge on any adherence to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Without this characteristic the socialist cannot have the guiltless freedom to employ their brand of moral relativism across all socio and economic fronts. And of course America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is not an opinion my friends, but an irrefutable fact. Ergo by renouncing those principles they grant themselves the freedom to employ their moral relativism as a tool to advance their amoral social agendas and to turn on it’s head one of America’s core principles, that being government is limited and it’s sole purpose is to protect our natural rights, not manufactured rights. Atheism, agnosticism or, at a minimum, severely compromised Judeo-Christian principles are absolutely necessary in order to animate the socialist ideology. Everything “comes and goes” from it.
Of course none of what I just mentioned is new to any of us. In fact Orestes Brownson was warning about how socialism is infecting America in his book The American Republic, which was published in 1865. Brownson wrote in his text the following, “The tendency of the last century was to individualism; that of the present is to socialism”. Brownson crafted that language 150 years ago. The socialists have been creeping around the baseboards of America like so many roaches for quite some time, and their policies have been seeping into America’s socio, political and economic fabric causing destruction and waste at every turn. It is now that they are front and center, have selected their leader and are bold, brazen and on the attack to turn America out.
Proof for the above is self-evident in the policies, rhetoric and history of the current President and the public policies brought forth by his Socialist party. When the leader of the Socialist party says, “America is not just a Christian nation…” his implication is that one of the underpinnings of America’s founding, a Judeo-Christian ethos, is not necessarily relevant any longer. A preconceived comment such as that is simply one of many evidences that the Socialist party has an anti-American mindset and will take any steps necessary to undermine America’s cause.
Along with many other comments and his actions, the following comment in 2001 by Barack Obama clearly capsulizes how the Socialist party finds our Constitution to be nothing more than a grand annoyance.
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
The Socialist leadership was careful to select someone like Obama as his or her flag bearer. Why? Because Obama has no affection, regard, respect or admiration for America and it’s proud heritage. Obama’s caretakers indoctrinated him as a child to have disdain and derision for everything America represents. Also, he doesn’t understand America. That is key. Without an understanding or appreciation for America Obama is an empty vessel. He is free of any guilt in his quest to “transform” America into his neo-communist, collectivist world vision wherein America is simply a bundle of resources to be redistributed around the world, with a central world government to dictate the division of said resources. Not unlike the socialist atheistic/agnostic who must free him or her from any principles or standards of virtue in order to practice their moral relativism, they must also free themselves of any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of America and it’s rich heritage in order to undertake their mission to dismantle America and redistribute it’s resources across the world based on their “omnipotence”.
There are reasons the socialists prefer to refer to themselves as “progressives” and not socialists. They certainly are clever with their wordsmithing to hide the results of their hideous and failed ideology. Take for example the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” after the global warming fraudulent science was uncovered. One reason they prefer the word “progressive” is because the word “socialist” still smacks of oppression; the other is that “progressive” implies progress to a man-made secularist utopia that THEY will divine, which historically always leads to a terrestrial hell on earth. And, of course, by referring to themselves as “progressives” requires a refutation of history; a history that documents how socialism, communism, or any form of collectivism is an utter economic failure and was an ideology employed by tyrants in a totalitarian society. Additionally Obama’s Socialist party’s political slogan “Forward” was a slogan utilized by both Stalin and Hitler. From this point on any Socialist party presidential or lower level candidate will be cut from the same cloth as Obama. It is a requirement in order to further their agenda for America and the world.
This is the goal of central planning socialism. A microcosm of its effects is most evident by the ObamaCare debacle. Caught with their socialist pants down ObamaCare is the poster child for a central planning disaster. While the socialist party has scrambled to regroup what are their talking points to cover up their centrally planned disaster? That THEY know what health care plan is best for YOU. Ah hah, socialism’s tyranny uncovered. They had nowhere else to go but show their true colors. The “unwashed” will be cleansed by the “washed” socialist central planners all-knowing hands
Why? Why do the Socialist’s do what they do? In a word-POWER. Their overarching goal is to consolidate power over the populous’ lives. Why? Because they are godless; they truly believe that they know what is best for humankind and there is no God. There is no transcendent higher power higher than them that should direct our lives. And the socialist will work tirelessly to eliminate every intermediary relationship to maintain and achieve their power, whether it be eradicate the family unit, local community associations, Church affiliations or any other associations, guilds or relationships that are barriers between the individual and their central planning socialist regime.
For sure the socialist will attempt to mask their insidious agenda by pulling on the heart strings of the populace by how they care about the “poor”, the “disadvantaged”, “woman’s rights”, “blacks”, “Hispanics or minorities in general”, “self-serving versions of social justice”, “health-care for all”, the “environment” or any other so-called causes to manipulate the electorate. They will attempt to couch themselves as the party that “cares” about gun violence and income inequality. They will constantly market themselves as the party of “nice”, while branding Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party folk as the party of “mean”. But in reality the Socialist party doesn’t give a damn about any of these people, issues or causes. They will use them simply as tools to divide society, gain and consolidate power and then wield their power as they see fit without any consideration for the useful idiots they used to advance their march to power.
So what does the conservative movement do with all of this? How do we convince the “uninformed”, “indoctrinated”, or “low information voter” to see the truth behind the Socialist party’s nefarious agenda and the truth about conservatism? How do we get them to go behind the “curtain of Oz” and see the reality? Simple. We do to the socialist’s what they have done to us. I humbly submit my four-part strategic plan for victory and truth to save America.
First: conservatives must brand the opposition for what they are. They are to no longer be referred to as democrats; they are to be referred to as socialists at all times. There are some brilliant conservative commentators who I greatly admire that disagree with me on this point, namely Charles Krauthammer and Michael Medved. They feel it is ill advised to classify the democrats as socialists because it can cause confusion and unnecessary debate. But that is the point. The point to put the socialist’s on the defensive to defend this unseemly moniker. A moniker that does strike fear into the heart of the independent or low information voter who loves America and believes in its Judeo-Christian foundations. It is also a label that happens to be true, is easy to apply, and also ties them up in a knot and wraps them around an axel with having to fend off this label of tyranny.
Second: A thorough understanding of the Socialist’s bible, which is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s book is a step-by-step, paint-by-the-numbers tactical schematic for messaging and organizing by applying methods of chaos, diversion, lies, branding and polarization. Obama actually taught these tactics in Chicago. It is one of the few actual jobs he ever had, and is ashamed to admit along with most of his past. This book is required reading and it’s tactics should be used by the Republican party and conservatives of all brands to use against the socialists. My advice on this point is best summed up by the following quote,
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Third: Be proactive and constantly put the socialists on the defensive. Keep them preoccupied with defending and explaining their insidious agendas. We’ve seen this work with ObamaCare, but that was simply a by-product of the horrid legislation, and that is all well and good. But to those who say, “See, they will eventually implode”, I respond by saying “but while we’re waiting for them to implode they are inhabiting office doing their damage. By that point it is too late to undo their harm”. We must be proactive in putting them on the defensive using their hateful, dangerous, anti-American polices against them. They twist the truth about conservatives and use it against us to great success. I simply suggest using the actual truth about the socialist’s to even greater success.
Fourth: Outreach, outreach and more outreach. Republicans and conservatives have for far too long lived in a little cocoon of frightened superiority. To a greater or lesser degree our attitude has always been “if you’re not smart, sophisticated, enlightened, educated, patriotic and moral enough to get us and come join us, then we’re not going to try and enlist you into our fold”. We have also permitted the socialists to make us uncomfortable with ourselves because of their proactive branding against us based on lies. Because of that we have crawled into a veritable fetal position sucking our conservative thumbs fearful of talking to anyone outside of our little comfort zones. That must end. It must end for the sake of the future of the conservative philosophy that built America, and for the sake of America itself. We must reach out to each and every person, group, association or demographic that we feel is solidly against us and embrace them. We must invite them to our meetings, ask to be invited to their meetings, and share with them the truth about what we stand for and what the socialists stand for. Again, branding the opposition and ourselves, and in the process expanding our base. This strategy was the key to Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 gubernatorial re-election in one of the bluest of states, New Jersey.
How do we win? By taking the offensive. By growing our base. By thinking differently. By taking ownership of and defining our message. By branding the opposition before they can even think about branding us. By being bold and proud and confident and courageous in our fight to save America from the grips of socialism.
We must be tough as nails. Why? Because they are. The Socialist party’s thug tactics win elections and elections have consequences. And in the case of their victories that consequence is, as Churchill said about socialism, is a collective misery. You don’t fight a person using Marquess of Queensberry rules when they are bringing knives, axes and baseball bats to the fight.
We must never apologize for who we are nor give the socialists any quarter whatsoever. This is a battle for America’s salvation. We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, they are us.
How can anyone forget Obama’s famous apology tour in 2009 as he went through Europe apologizing for America? There is no doubt that Obama does not hold America up as the shining light on a hill as Reagan did. Mr. Obama was asked in Europe if he believes in American exceptionalism. He said he did in the same way that “the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.” That’s another way of saying, “No.”
Mr. Obama told the French that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”
Obama, is the complete opposite of what an American President should be, he believes that by lowering America, more people around the world will embrace us, that could not be farther from the truth. The only thing Obama has done is make us less respected around the world and with making us less respected, he has also made us less safe. His desire for popularity has led Mr. Obama to embrace bad policies, blaming America for the world financial crisis.
His apology tour was unprecedented because no other President had been so critical of his country on foreign soil. It was a strange way for President Obama to begin his term as he upset millions of Americans who see this nation not as arrogant, but as a beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed around the world.
But his apology tour still continues, it has been reported that U.S. and Afghan officials have reached a tentative agreement on a critical security pact which would include President Obama writing a letter to the Afghan people acknowledging mistakes during the “war on terror.” According to Reuters, an Afghan spokesman said Tuesday that Obama agreed to write the letter, to be presented with the draft security pact at a meeting of tribal elders later this week.
Not only does President Karzai get an apology, he also won a key security agreement from the United States that promised joint action, political, economic, or military against anyone attacking Afghanistan or giving safe haven to Afghan insurgents seeking to unseat the government.
He has also apologized for bombing Japan to end World War II and for U.S. actions in the Middle East and Africa. This President apologizes for everything, that is almost everything. How about apologizing for all his failed policies that have kept America in a stalled economy, people are making less income now than when he became President.
All his policies have been a disaster for our country, from cash for clunkers to Obama-Care, why doesn’t he apologize for them? This President has done more to hurt the American people than any other President in my life time, that’s right, even Jimmy Carter.
What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available Here.
P.S. For all you Baby Boomers my new book “Are The Golden Years Really Golden” Available Here
This is one man’s opinion.
This is from Obama’s Press Conference of November 15. Folks, he’s not happy that the “good news” is not being reported… because- “it should be!” All those Medicaid signups are a good thing! Those people are Americans too!