Monthly Archives: November 2013

Emperor Obama’s New Clothes

A new Fairy Tale for America, adapted from Hans Christian Andersen’s classic, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

The cast of characters:
Emperor = President Obama
The Emperor’s new clothes = Obamacare (aka Affordable Care Act)
The Minister = Vice President Biden
Chancellor = Eric Holder
The Swindlers = Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid
Little Boy = John Boehner

H/T White House Dossier

Rebuttal of political admiral’s false claims about Chinese submarines

Hainan-full

On Saturday, during the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Reagan Presidential Library, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, a political admiral whom President Obama appointed Chief of Naval Operations in 2011, dismissed China’s entire ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet as not being credible. He furthermore said:

“For a submarine-launched ballistic missile to be effective it has to be accurate, and you have to be stealthy, and survivable and I’ll leave it at that.”

This wasn’t the first time that a senior DOD official dismissed the military threat posed by China, nor will it be the last, I suspect. But throughout all human history, underestimating and dismissing the enemy has ALWAYS cost dearly those who did so – including the US. China is, militarily, far stronger than any US official and most think-tankers and journalists are prepared to admit – it is, in fact, already almost as strong as the US. Dismissing the Chinese threat will lull the American people into a false sense of security and cause America to be unprepared for this threat.

And specifically, dismissing the JL-2 missile and the Jin class of SSBNs is a particularly foolish and disqualifying error.

As far as accuracy goes, the JL-2 is pretty accurate – with a circular error probable (CEP) of just 300 meters, similar to modern Western missiles. CEP is the measure used by virtually all military men and defense analysts to measure ballistic missile accuracy.

As far as stealthiness and survivability goes, this is also no problem for the Chinese navy. While some have claimed that Jin class submarines are noisy, so are the US Navy’s Ohio class ballistic missile submarines – probably even more so  because they are obsolete 1970s’ technology, while the Jin class is a 21st century class of submarines.

Moreover, the basic JL-2 variant (the one currently in service) has a range of 8,000 kms, which means it can strike any target on the West Coast while being just east of Japan, at 150E. If it sails a little further to the east, towards 160E, it can strike any target in the CONUS with nuclear weapons. Indeed, as recently as 2008 the DOD itself admitted that the JL-2 had an 8,000 km range and the ability to hit most of the CONUS. See the map below, from the 2008 DOD report on China’s military power.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range

(GlobalSecurity.org says the basic JL-2 variant may even have a range of 9,000 kms.)

While many Sinophile Chinese threat understaters, including DOD bureaucrats, have falsely claimed that the JL-2’s range is just 7,000-7,400 kms, the truth is that the missile’s range is actually 8,000 kms, putting the entire West Coast within its range if launched from just east of Japan, at 150E.

And survivability? That of the Jin class is good, no matter where it deploys. If it operates within the First Island Chain – the waters between China and Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia – it will be able to evade detection quite easily, because these waters are congested and noisy. If the Jin class deploys outside the First Island Chain, in the open ocean, it is also highly likely to survive due to the vast swathes of that ocean.

The facts remain the facts. No matter what China’s friends and Obama’s political appointees, including Admiral Greenert, say to dismiss the Chinese threat, the fact remains that this threat is huge and growing every day. No amount of lies by political appointees like Admiral Greenert will change that fact.

The “we don’t need so many warheads” lie

nukeexplosion

Among the many lies being repeated by the Left in defense of Obama’s plan to further deeply cut America’s nuclear deterrent is the blatant lie that America can safely afford to continue cutting its deterrent indefinitely and could maintain deterrence even with a significantly reduced arsenal. Obama made that blatant lie himself during his infamous June 19th speech in Berlin, and the White House trots out that lie in its pseudo-“fact sheet” about Obama’s plan.

But they’re blatantly lying. America’s nuclear deterrent is already barely adequate (as well as old and in need of modernization). It cannot be cut indefinitely. In fact, it cannot be safely cut any further.

Here’s why.

To provide credible nuclear deterrence, you need to:

1) Be able to threaten the vast majority of all of your adversaries’ military, economic, and other strategic assets with destruction (threatening only some, or half, or 55%, of them is woefully inadequate because the other half or 45% will survive), and to threaten all the assets of Russia or China you need THOUSANDS of warheads; and

2) A small nuclear arsenal would not be survivable – it would be easy for an enemy to destroy in a first strike. The smaller it is, the less survivable and easier to destroy in a first strike it is. A few submarines and a few bomber bases would be far easier to destroy in a surprising first strike than 14 submarines, several bomber bases, and 450 ICBMs in hardened siloes.

These two interrelated factors are extremely important because what determines your deterring ability – or the lack thereof – is how many warheads and delivery systems you have left after a possible enemy first strike. If you have a large number of these left to unleash a devastating second strike on your enemy, he won’t attack in the first place. But it has to be a large number – huge enough to devastate his entire country, economy, and military. This is a numbers game. Here, numbers reign supreme.

—————–

What are the nuclear capabilities of America’s potential adversaries? Who are the adversaries America must deter?

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be.

Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 1,700 warheads to the middle of America.

Russia’s strategic nuclear triad consists of:

  • 251 intercontinental bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, 171 Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and one free-fall nuclear bomb;
  • 75 SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs (up to 10 warheads and 38 penetration aids each);
  • 136 SS-19 Stilletto ICBMs (up to 6 warheads each);
  • 171 SS-25 Sickle single-warhead ICBMs;
  • 75 SS-27 Stalin single-warhead ICBMs;
  • 18 RS-24 Yars ICBMs (4 warheads each);
  • 13 ballistic missile subs capable of carrying 16 SLBMs and one (the Dmitry Donskoi) capable of carrying 20 SLBMs; each sub-launched ballistic missile, in turn, can carry 4, 10, or 12 warheads depending on the type (R-29RMU Sinyeva, RSM-56 Bulava, or R-29RMU2 Liner, respectively). Russia has ordered hundreds of these SLBMs.

In total, Russia’s ICBM fleet alone – to say nothing of its submarine or bomber fleet – can deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s bomber fleet could deliver over 1,700.

In recent years, while the US has been steadily cutting its arsenal unilaterally under New START, Russia has been growing its own, as it is allowed to do under the treaty. Also, the document contains no restrictions whatsoever on road- and rail-mobile ICBMs, treats every bomber as if it were carrying a single nuclear warhead, and doesn’t limit Russian ICBMs’ carriage capacity or throw-weight – which are huge loopholes that Russia is only too eager to exploit.

Russia is now developing a rail-mobile ICBM as well as replacements for Russia’s older ICBMs: a heavy ICBM called “Son of Satan” (designed to replace the SS-18 Satan) and a mid-weight ICBM called the Rubezh to replace the SS-19 and SS-25, while continuing RS-24 Yars production. Meanwhile, the US has no plans to develop a road- or rail-mobile ICBM (although the USAF is considering the rail-mobile version), and development of the next-generation ICBM – the replacement for America’s aging Minuteman ICBMs – has been delayed by many years for political reasons.

Moscow is also developing and testing an IRBM, the Yars-M (AKA Rubezh), in violation of the INF treaty – showing that arms control treaties signed with Russia are worthless pieces of paper.

On top of that, Russia has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – much larger than America’s. Estimates of its size vary, but various sources say it numbers up to 4,000 warheads (all deliverable) – much more than America’s ca. 500. These 4,000 warheads can be delivered by a wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles, to theater strike aircraft, to bombers, to torpedoes and surface ships, to cruise missiles, to artillery pieces, because they come in various forms: nuclear bombs, torpedo warheads, depth charges, artillery shells, cruise missile warheads, etc.

China, like Russia, has a large nuclear arsenal – far larger than the 240 warheads American arms control advocates claim. In fact, China has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, most of them hidden in the 3,000 miles of tunnels it has built for its arsenal. The two estimates come from Gen. Viktor Yesin (Russian ICBM force CoS, ret.), and Professor Philip Karber, the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist during the Cold War. The existence and length of these tunnels is a confirmed fact.

To deliver its warheads, China has:

  • 36 DF-5 heavy ICBMs (up to 10 warheads each);
  • at least 30, and likely far more, DF-31 ICBMs (3-4 warheads each);
  • at least one DF-41 heavy ICBM (10 warheads);
  • 20 DF-4 IRBMs (3 warheads each);
  • 20 DF-3 single-warhead MRBMs;
  • 100 DF-21 MRBMs;
  • 500 DH-10, CJ-10, and Hongniao cruise missiles;
  • 440 nuclear-capable aircraft (Q-5, JH-7, H-6) each with at least one warhead attributed to them (the H-6K bomber variant can carry several nuclear- or conventional-tipped cruise missiles as well);
  • 1 Xia class SSBN with 12 single-warhead JL-1 missiles; and
  • 5 Jin class SSBNs with 12-24 4-warhead JL-2 missiles, with a sixth under construction to replace the Xia class boat.

On top of that, China has between 1,100 and 1,600, and possibly more, short-range ballistic missiles, though it isn’t known how many of these are armed with nuclear warheads.

 

China, of course, stubbornly refuses to reveal anything about its nuclear arsenal, while falsely claiming it pursues a “minimum nuclear deterrent” policy, even though it is evident to everyone except the willfully blind it has thousands, not mere hundreds, of warheads.

Over a year ago, this writer, based on very conservative estimates of China’s missile stocks and their warhead carriage capacity, estimated China had 1,274 nuclear warheads. This was calculated as follows:

I started with the 440 aircraft-deliverable nuclear bombs owned by the PLAAF and attributed to its H-6, Q-5, and JH-7 aircraft. Then, I added 10 warheads for each of China’s 36 DF-5 ICBMs, then, one DF-41 ICBM with 10 warheads, then, 40 DF-3 and DF-4 MRBMs, then 100 DF-21 MRBMs, then 90 warheads for China’s 30 DF-31 ICBMs, and finally, 12 warheads for China’s 12 JL-1 SLBMs and 240 warheads for its (at least) 60 JL-2 SLBMs (12 missiles per boat, 4 warheads per missile).

Keep in mind that the 4-warhead JL-2 is just the basic variant of the missile. China is already developing (if it hasn’t already deployed) two new variants of the JL-2:  Jia, capable of carrying 8 warheads over 12,000 kms, and Yi, capable of carrying 12 warheads over a distance of 14,000 kilometers. China is also building a sixth Jin class submarine to replace the sole Xia class boat.

So in the future, China will have even more ballistic missile subs, more SLBMs, and more nuclear warheads than it already has – which means the number of nukes required to deter China will only grow.

And I was so conservative in my estimates that I didn’t count a single Chinese SRBM or cruise missile as being nuclear-armed. If any such missile is armed – and the DOD says 500 such land-based missiles are – China’s nuclear arsenal – and the US arsenal required to deter Beijing – are even greater.

Besides Russia and China – two huge nuclear threats to US and allied security – the US also has to deter North Korea (which already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US) and Iran (which, within a month, may have enough HEU to build a nuclear warhead).

So the US currently has to deter three, soon to be four, hostile nuclear powers, two of whom have large, diverse, and very capable and survivable nuclear arsenals.

On top of that, the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies, many of whom will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons if the US continues to cut its umbrella. 66.5% of South Koreans already want to do this, and Japan has facilities enabling it to produce enough fissile material for 3,600 nuclear warheads if it chose to.

You see, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US is a protector of itself and 30 allies.

In addition, Russia is blatantly violating the INF Treaty by developing and testing an IRBM, and also violating the CFE Treaty! How can we trust Russia to comply with New START and reciprocate the newest cuts proposed Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

Yet, the advocates of cutting America’s nuclear arsenal want the US not only to slavishly adhere to such treaties (while Russia doesn’t), but even cut its arsenal further deeply and unilaterally.

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has recently announced it will grow its nuclear arsenal) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday. Only nuclear weapons can protect America against these threats. So they are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far since WW2.

But if the nuclear arsenal is cut further, and America’s already deficient conventional capabilities continue to atrophy under sequestration, a large-scale conventional attack is inevitable.

The military and geopolitical reality is simple. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal further deeply and unilaterally, a nuclear first strike by Russia or even China is virtually guaranteed – as is the acqusition of nuclear weapons by America’s allies in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific, none of whom can afford to bet their security, and their very existence, on the “less nukes will make us safer” and “a world without nukes” fantasies of Barack Obama and his pacifist friends in Western pro-disarmament organizations.

Mr.Fix-it,Un-Fix it

I was reading section of the Obamcare survival guide and it stated that there are 90,000   doctors in the country and 30,000 would be layed off due to Obamacare. Well now it’s happening as United Health has stated they plan to lay off thousands of doctors in 10 states.

The House voted on a bill that would allow insurance plans  to sell to people that would allow them to keep their doctors.

The U.S. House Friday passed a bill that would allow health insurance companies to keep selling policies that don’t comply with Affordable Care Act standards.

The 261-157 vote on the Keep Your Health Plan Act sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., included 39 Democrats.

The plan would allow companies to sell non-compliant policies to current and new customers, and wouldn’t require the providers to alert consumers about the required ACA benefits that are not included.

This plan was supported by 39 democrats who defected and went with the republicans. It is a fair act but opponents like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid  say it under minds Obamcare and Obama himself said he would veto any bill like that that comes to his desk. He is ruling like a king and not a president of the people. He rules by executive orders more than any president ever has and does just what the wants. I’ve said it before, Obamacare is not about health care, but about power as the government takes over one sixth of the U.S. economy from the private sector. Besides, most people have healthcare. If you go to any emergency room there are signs saying no patient can be denied. If a person doesn’t have insurance there are many ways to overcome that thru either charity care, or passing it onto the state or referring them to hospitals that take charity cases.

Obama said he heard the American people after 5 million lost their health insurance and said they can have it extended for a year. This makes matters worse. He’s only doing it for the mid- term elections coming up next year. He met with the CEO’s of insurance companies and they told them they couldn’t do that once people are dropped because it would mean a lot of extra expense in paperwork and employee time. In other words Obama is saying we’ll give you your insurance back for one year then take it away from you again.

(Reuters) – UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company’s other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.

The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing “significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment.” According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.

Looks like it was the Democrats and Obama all along that was lying to the American people. And Harry Reid of the senate that was not allowing the GOP bills to come to the floor for a vote because Obama and Valerie Jarrett told him not to allow it for any reason. And it was Valerie Jarrett that told the President not to compromise or even talk to the GOP about the the Shut down of Government. Obama and Reid and Jarrett were the ones who planed that mess from the WH.

Based on new poll data the President’s approval rating hovers between 37-41%. This negative rating is the worst of his presidency and is due to the nightmarish launch of Obamacare, his signature program. In his news conference the other day, the President even admitted that he “fumbled” the rollout of Obamacare. It was due to his administration’s utter incompetence, and the waste, fraud and abuse that characterize Obamacare and every government program.

MY advice is for us ALL, regardless of Party, do what is legal and effective to DEFEND our economy, create more jobs, and embrace our REPUBLIC! Check out  the links I have provided below:

Thousands of Medicare Doctors Dropped by Insurer After Obamacare Funding Cuts

 VIDEO: Students at historically black college complain Obamacare left them uninsured...

Healthcare.gov would face gov’t prosecution if private entity…

Ben Carson: ‘Ideologue’ Obama Should Have Consulted Insurance Experts

The Attack on Americanism!

It seems lately there is no end to the stories highlighting what appears to be an all-out attack on Americanism.

A school district in Sioux Falls, SD has decided that the Pledge of Allegiance is more of a bother than its worth. The school board voted 5-0 to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in high school because they can’t find the 15 seconds to do it. One of the board members told the news source that in high school there is very little time in the mornings or afternoon to pull it off. Can you say LIAR?!

These people need to be recalled. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, it takes 2 minutes start to finish, from the kids getting on their feet, to saying it, and then sitting back down. Two minutes. Do 2 minutes less of morning news. Cut the lunch period by 2 minutes. Cut sex education by 2 minutes. How about we just shut down the school all together, then we have all day to do it?

Do these administrators and educators understand that what the pledge stands for and what the flag stands for is what gives them the right to be idiots? The freedoms these things represent include people dying for them in other countries!

Then these yo-hos go on to say that the pledge will have more meaning if we only do it once in a while. Really? How does that work? You mean I’ll understand something and learn it better if I’m not as exposed to it and don’t do it as often?

Don’t educators believe in learning through repetition? Repetition works. It helps imprint it in your memory. How about you use it as a teaching moment to explain how and why the pledge came about instead of some other “elective”?

Even when a group of vets approached the board and pleaded with them not to nix the pledge, they were turned down, quickly and coldly. These people who gave up years of their lives, families who gave up loved ones, and some of these men and women who gave up limbs (and still carry other injuries) just so that a cold-hearted, short-sighted school board could have the freedom to discard the Pledge of Allegiance as insignificant and not worthy of the 15 seconds (or 2 minutes) it takes to recite it. In exercising their freedom to omit the pledge, this board is not only disrespecting this great country and those who secured our freedoms, they are also teaching the next generation to do the same.

This board needs to be fired, recalled, and dropped into some Communist, third-world nation for “immersion study abroad.” Let’s see how long they last.

Sadly, they don’t have the market cornered on “stupid” by any stretch …

A school district in North Carolina has decided not to allow an American Legion Post to put up banners with our national motto on them. OUR NATIONAL MOTTO?! When did that become illegal, immoral, or just plain wrong?

Our national motto, approved by our Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court is “In God we Trust.” Yes, believe it or not, it has been approved by the highest court in the land. Apparently, the board members in the North Carolina school district didn’t take that class. They had the men from the American Legion remove them because… wait for it… It’s a violation of “separation of church and state” (that non-existent Constitutional clause).

The American Legion produced 16×20 inch framed posters for classrooms with the words “In God We Trust,” and an American flag in the background. At the bottom it reads: “The national motto of the United States, adopted by Congress, July 30, 1956.”

A spokesman for the school district told the local Watauga Democrat newspaper that “In God We Trust” was banned on the advice of their legal counsel that it may be “unconstitutional.” Their fear was that someone would misconstrue it as promoting a religion.

Seriously?! First, fire the attorneys; they obviously have no clue about this. Any attorney worth their salt would have known within minutes of researching this issue that’s it’s already been tried and decided.

Second, please tell me what religion has “In God we trust” as part of their scriptures or writings? None!

The majority of our founding fathers were Christian, period. Deal with it. They wanted people to be able to worship as they pleased (or not pleased). “Freedom OF religion” is completely different than “freedom FROM religion.”

Teaching our nation’s history, national motto, Pledge of Allegiance, and patriotism in general, is not endorsing or promoting any religion.

As I keep saying… Americans wake up, rise up, and do the right thing or you will lose the country you love.

Obamacare’s Strays

The stories from Gop.gov/yourstory continue to roll in at an alarming rate. As we have all seen, millions of Americans continue to receive notices informing them that their current insurance plans will no longer be offered under Obamacare. The House Republican Conference has compiled a short video, embargoed until 9:00 a.m. EST,  highlighting some of these Americans.  Please take a minute to watch and share with your readers.

EPA to trim ethanol requirements after realizing threat to fuel supply

For the first time in history, the EPA has backed off its requirement to pump as much corn into the fuel supply as possible.

Corn growers and ethanol refiners are balking at the rule as they will certainly see reduced demand for their products, but fuel refiners are cheering the decision stating that if the mix requirement had been left as Congress demanded, fuel supplies would have been unstable and many vehicles would have been exposed to expensive repairs and intolerable fuel economy.

This year, fuel producers would have been required to blend 15.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol into gasoline – a ratio that would have endangered the entire fuel supply.

Instead, 13.2 billion gallons of food-based fuel additives will be burned in vehicles.

Corn ethanol also pushes food prices to ridiculous levels. People eat corn, pigs (pork) eats corn – lots of other things eat corn. Burning corn in gas tanks to appease a smattering of global warming zealots makes no sense.

When Americans realize that the food on their table is more important than a fantastical theory that somehow man can overpower the planet, normalcy may be restored.

Putin Wants New Monitoring Posts in United States; Obama Administration May Allow

Russia wants to place electronic posts on United States soil and the Obama Administration’s State Department officials don’t see it as a threat.

Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, has been requesting permission to place a number of fence-protected dome-topped, antenna-bristling buildings across the United States. What could go wrong?

The CIA and other national defense agencies have been urging the Obama administration to prevent these facilities from being built, but according to reporting in the New York Times there’s nothing to worry about.

The facilities are being proposed as a way for Russia to combat America’s lead in global positioning technology. The United States has a significant advantage over other countries due to the satellite technology that America has invested in and chosen to deploy. Now Russia and other nations are hoping to equal the playing field with much less of an investment. All they need is our President’s permission.

The buildings are part of Vladimir Putin’s Glonass initiative which, on its face, appears to be a ground based location alternative to Global Positioning Satellite technology offered by the United States.

The concern is that giving Russian national agencies property within the borders of the country will allow them to deploy espionage technologies without much effort.

A key question is what advantage is there for the United States to allow a foreign government to deploy these stations? Why would Americans want to help a foreign power compete with a technology that United States citizens tax money was spent to develop?

Of further concern, although the New York Times fails to mention it, is that Glanoss is a space-based technology. Why would Putin need electronically-laden stations across our country for a satellite technology? The United States didn’t require stations across Russia and China to deploy its location technology.

The Russians are seeking to place a half dozen or more of these “monitoring stations” on American soil. Why would we allow it?

According to the New York Times, a White House State Department official said that “It doesn’t see them as a threat.”

America’s newly weak position on the world stage has consequences. Bring on the Jimmy Carter analogies.

 

Batkid Did More than Save Gotham

Nobody at the office got any work done yesterday. We were all watching the live video of Batkid saving San Francisco–I mean, Gotham City. Of course, I should amend that statement: I work for a major radio station in SF, so watching Batkid was my job. We had to make sure people knew where the action was, and keep them up-to-date on the latest developments. It’s not every day that the Riddler robs a bank or the Penguin kidnaps the mascot of the local baseball team (to remain nameless, because I’m an A’s fan). When we switched over to business news at one point, somebody called and said, “We don’t care about the stock market, put Batkid back on.”

All work days should be so tough.article-2507890-196FB24500000578-710_634x495

At first I thought this would be a great local story. Make-A-Wish and San Francisco teaming up to give a 5-year-old cancer survivor the chance of a lifetime, to be a genuine superhero, because what 5-year-old boy doesn’t dream of that? When we first heard of it, many eyes rolled. How silly it sounded. Nobody expected the city to grind to a halt for one of the best reasons imaginable. Crowds turned out all over town to watch Batkid; the local paper printed up a special edition (with articles written by such legends as Clark Kent, who isn’t cheap); we had a chopper tracking the motorcade, but the Batmobile was so fast our pilot couldn’t keep up! Our reporters on the ground, believe it or not, got stuck in traffic. Events moved so fast that we almost missed the Riddler’s capture.

But this story didn’t stay local. It went, as the saying today goes, viral. The national media was there, too. Twitter exploded with activity. Even President Obama got involved, because he can’t let anything happen without him, but this time I don’t particularly mind. Obama is news; what he says is news; when he said, “Way to go, Batkid,” that clinched the deal. Batkid became a thing.

It’s not hard to see why. This is the only feel good story we’ve had in the last decade, a decade filled with political strife, terrorism, economic collapse, doom and gloom, and that goddamn Miley Cyrus. Batkid is the only story–the only story–to make everybody stop focusing on themselves and the rest of the world’s garbage and pay attention to a boy who survived cancer and wanted to run around and be silly. We all got to be silly with him, and for one day, our problems went away. You can’t buy a day like that.

It’s unfortunate that, in our 24-hour non-stop news cycles, this story will fade by Sunday. It may make a “week in review” segment on the Sunday morning talk shows, but by Monday morning, Miles Scott and his adventure will be gone. San Francisco will have returned to normal, if by “normal” you mean one of the worst examples of liberal government in the world, where the streets have an awful stench, traffic is a nightmare, Subway can’t sell a foot long sandwich for $5 and you can’t get a good burger for under $10 because of local taxes, some of which go to fund healthcare for the city’s ten million homeless derelicts who crap in the street.

But yesterday, that didn’t matter. I actually liked being in San Francisco yesterday. And the irony is, Miles Scott is from Oregon. Portland, apparently, was too busy to bother with him. Suck it, Portland.

 

BRIAN DRAKE is a 20-year broadcast veteran in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Are You A Republicrat?

Are You A Republicrat?

I am not a liberal. I am a conservative. When I say conservative, I do not mean the rank and file CINO, or Conservative In Name Only. I mean that I am a genuine, common sense, down to earth person who will vote for a candidate based on moral constitutional principles of integrity regardless of party. Now before you turn me off labeling me as some fringe wacko libertarian kind of nut, just hear me out.

I am conservative! I am conservative in my suits, ties, manners, religion, music, politics . . . etc. I am a church attending Christian, pro-life anti-abortion, heterosexual husband and father, gun owning, Bible totin’, evangelistic man. I agree with your right to disagree with me and will help you defend that right, but will not stand by passively while you shove your opposing views down my throat. Your opinion is not more important than mine and warrants no special treatment above mine. I believe prayer in Jesus’ name in public or private is constitutional and believe the state should keep its nose out of the free exercise of religion, as stated plainly in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am not for legalizing drugs, and am opposed to big brother government, and think government should be shrunk by at least 95 % since government has boldly gone where our founding fathers never intended. I support the average American little guy of any color or ethnic background, who breaks his back supporting this country and its socialist agenda of spending. I know how to spend what little I make better than out of touch politicians who are more concerned about padding their pockets, pleasing fringe groups and influencing their constituents, rather than representing their constituents.

May I continue in honesty? Thank you. The Democrats started giving away the store under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then mainstreamed it with Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society,” Barack Hussein Obama has now taken this country to new heights (by the trillions) making Roosevelt, Johnson and others look like amateurs. Though the Republican Party at one time in the past, vigorously opposed this type of liberalism and socialism repeatedly, there is not a dime’s worth of difference today between the elite leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans. The GOP has not stood where it should have stood concerning such things as NAFTA and TARP and stimulus spending, and raising the debt ceiling, and has sold us all down the river on Obamacare.

I am not a party man. I swear allegiance to principle, not party, and that principle is reflected in any candidate I may support. The issue today is no longer between the donkey and the elephant. America does not have a two party system: there is only one party with two branches, Democrat and Republican or what I call the Republicrats. The battle is between the America hating, Marxist/socialists from both parties as they try to run rough shod over We The People, the ones who elect these charlatans. It is time to wake up smell the coffee, re-elect NO ONE and throw every politician out of office, replacing each and every one with statesmen and patriots who will serve the people who elected them, then go back home to their jobs and let the next round of elected officials serve their term, then go home, etc. etc.

I will not vote for another Republican in conservative clothing. Will the real America wake up, unite and prepare for battle? This can be our finest hour.

Joseph Harris is a pastor and former Bible college instructor and has been writing columns since 2000. [email protected]

Illegal Actions of our Autocratic President

Our country was founded as a constitutional republic; a federation of autonomous states tied together by a Constitution that stated explicitly what the powers of the federal government were. We have now been unofficially, yet fundamentally transformed into an autocratic “ineptocracy.” And we needn’t look any further for evidence than this week’s presidential attempts to “fix” the increasingly unaffordable Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Having been caught in his perpetual lie, “if you like your insurance you can keep it,” the president this week promised to “fix” it, by allowing people to keep their insurance plans for another year, if they wanted. Not only is that genie out of the bottle and operationally impossible to put back in, but more significantly, it represented another evidence that this president feels his power is not constrained or limited by the Constitution, or by the rule of law.

bg111513dAPR20131115084526Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution commands the president to faithfully execute the law. The president, and even more broadly, the executive branch, does not make law. That’s the role of the legislative branch, or congress. Once laws are on the books, the president cannot change them; they are to be executed, enacted, and implemented by the president and the executive branch.

Yet, just as he did in July when he delayed the ACA employer mandate by a year, this week he, without authority, said he would “allow” people to keep their policies for another year if they liked them. The president has no such authority! Those are laws passed legally – although regrettably – by congress and signed into law. The president has no authority to arbitrarily choose what laws to enforce, which to not, or change laws arbitrarily and illegally by his own discretion. His oath is to faithfully execute them!

It makes no difference that the law he whimsically changed this week has his name on it, as even he refers to it as Obamacare. He still doesn’t have the power or authority to autocratically change aspects or dates of implementation of the law.

He also acted illegally when he declared he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as his fiat that he would implement elements of the so-called Dream Act for immigration reform, on his own, with no congressional action.

An autocrat is one who has absolute power. And that is how our president is acting. The Constitution was written brilliantly with inherent checks and balances on the power of any one of the branches of government. But apparently, when you’re Barack Obama, there’s no perceived limit to your power; you can do as you please, when you please, and when you mess up, claim you never knew about it until you “read it in the press,” like the rest of us. Outside of the fantasy world of the Washington Beltway, such an egocentric and narcissistic attitude would be considered delusional. But that’s what we got when we elected, and then reelected, someone with a messiah complex.

holb_c11359420131115120100I have long maintained that our republic can only survive if people elected to office honor their oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” Every time Obama spuriously and capriciously changes a law, chooses which he will execute and not execute, he is definitionally acting outside of the law, and he breaks his oath of office anew.

I mentioned that we have an autocratic ineptocracy, and explained the autocratic component. We have been fundamentally transformed into an ineptocracy which is a “political system of government where the incompetent are elected by the unproductive in return for goods and services redistributed from the competent and productive, until the former so outnumber the latter that the system collapses.”

Several years ago Ayn Rand said, “We are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion: the stage where government is free to do as it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.” It seems obvious that we’ve now achieved that state of ultimate inversion of our founding principles. And the inversion is exacerbated by the fact that it’s the arbitrary actions of an autocrat at the helm of the nation that declares that government can do as it pleases, while we paean citizens have our liberty eroded further with every stroke of his pen, and utterance from his lips.

There’s nothing we can do to rein in the autocratic hubris at the head of the country. We can only hope that in three years we may choose someone who respects the law, follows it, and will fervently keep the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And we can pray that our fundamental transformation is not irreversible. In the meantime, we can attempt to follow Thomas Jefferson’s counsel to “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

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].

The Liberals War On The Dictionary

A while back, I wrote an article about same sex marriage, in it I talked about Marriage as being defined  between a man and a woman for over two-thousand years and how Liberals wanted to change that definition. I also said that Liberals might one day take it upon themselves to just go through the dictionary and start changing the definitions of words they believe need to be changed. Well it seems my vision has come true.

In a recent news story, a 15-year-old student formally requested Apple remove a definition of the word ‘gay’ from the dictionary feature on its devices after she looked up the word on her MacBook for a history essay on gay rights, and it looks like the company has complied.

gay

/geɪ/ Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA

adjective, gay·er, gay·est.

1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex; homosexual: a gay couple.

2. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.

3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.

4. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid, intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber, lackluster; conservative.

5. Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is really gay.

Which one do you think she was upset with? Well, if you said number 5 you were correct.

Suggesting that particular definition applies to the slang usage of the word, which, like it or not, is part of the culture today. One has to wonder if honoring one such request opens a Pandora’s box for anyone and everyone who disagrees with the way a word is defined to demand the dictionary be modified. Where do you draw the line? Glenn Beck said on his radio show.

I agree with Glenn, where does it end, where do you draw the line? Political correctness has gone way too far, does anyone remember the First Amendment? It started with banning words, we now have to say N word or C word or L word, even though people know what the word is, they can’t say it.

Now they are banning definitions, next they will be banning the words themselves, eradicating them from the dictionary all together. Well, you know what comes after that, don’t you? That’s right, banning books that they think are inappropriate. Well, you can laugh and say that will never happen, but ten years ago, would you have thought that they would ever start banning definitions from the dictionary?

Liberal Progressives are a danger to this country, their views and policies are the only ones that matter to them. Most people are afraid to stand-up to them in fear they will be called haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes or anything else that will shut you up.

Traditional America is eroding away little by little and soon it will be only a memory. Margret Mitchell said it best; Traditional America will soon be “Gone With The Wind”

“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

 

Kylee

This is my Grandaughter Kylee, born November 5th, 2013. I truly have fears about the America she will grow-up in.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

 

 

Jabberwonky the not-so-good, the bad, and the ugly about Obamacare – November 15th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Friday, November 15th, 11pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: Liz discusses the latest round of epic failures happening when it comes to Obamacare, with Ali (@LibertyBelle38). Yes, there’s quite a lot in the headlines, and the mainstream media seems to be waking up at least a little. But, are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg on this? Is all the nonsense on the Hill just more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic? Listen in to hear about how this is hitting the real world – Main Street America.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Pro-Life Campaign Site Hacked, E-Mail Redirected to Pro-Abortion Group

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Nov. 14, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — The campaign website for a pro-life group supporting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance in Albuquerque, New Mexico has been hacked and e-mail meant to go to the pro-life PAC ABQ Voters For Late Term Abortion Ban has instead been redirected to the abortion-supporting group Respect ABQ Women, which is opposing the Ordinance.

The Pain Capable ordinance, which goes to a vote on November 19, is the first of its kind to be proposed at the municipal level and would ban abortions after 20 weeks within the Albuquerque city limits, where the largest late-term abortion clinic in the nation currently operates. The campaign has received national attention.

At first glance, there is nothing unusual about the e-mail address on the contact page at the pro-life websiteLateTermAbortionban.com. However, once the link is clicked, e-mail does not go to “[email protected]” as one would expect. Instead, e-mail is directed to “[email protected],” the e-mail address for an opposing group, Respect ABQ Women, which supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and has connections to Pres. Barack Obama’s radical leftist political activism group Organizing for Action.

Tara Shaver, chairperson for the pro-life ABQ Voters For Late Term Abortion Ban PAC whose website was hacked, was shocked to learn that official campaign e-mail was landing in the inbox of the opposition and was concerned citizens who tried to contact them might be confused into voting the wrong way.

“It’s not just our e-mail that was hijacked. This act was meant to hijack the election and thwart the will of the people. We have reported this criminal behavior to the FBI as a cyber-crime,” said Shaver. “All we want is a fair up or down vote on an ordinance that has received overwhelming support from the community and will save thousands of lives. The people should be the ones to decide if they want to protect babies that are half way through pregnancy and older. It shouldn’t be up to some cowardly hackers who are trying to subvert the process.”

Operation Rescue published a video on Youtube.com documenting how the e-mail was redirected.

“Campaign dirty tricks like this are despicable. I hope the people of Albuquerque do not let these bullies and criminals win in their effort to derail a fair campaign. We urge voters to respond by resolving to turn out and vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance on November 19,” said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue. Sullenger will be in Albuquerque later in the week to lend support for the campaign.

Shaver also told Operation Rescue that she has heard anecdotal reports that students at the University of New Mexico have been approached by people opposing the ordinance who have illegally offered to pay students to vote against it. Shaver also reported this potential voter fraud to the FBI.