Category Archives: exposing Obama

The US Needs To Immediately Trash the INF and New START Treaties

Last year, Obama administration recently – and very belatedly – announced it had found Russia in violation of the INF treaty, which prohibits Moscow and Washington from developing, testing, deploying, or otherwise possessing ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which would seriously address those blatant Russian violations – something the Obama administration has refused to do.

Russia has been flagrantly violating the treaty since at least 2010, and we conservatives have been warning about this since 2011-2012, when credible reports of such violations first emerged. However, until now, the Obama administration and the pro-arms-control crowd have long been denying this fact – until this violation became too obvious and too easily provable to deny it.

Specifically, Russia has repeatedly flight-tested a new ground-launched cruise missile (R-500) of a range prohibited by the treaty (500 to 5,500 kms) and utilizing Iskander ballistic missile launchers; has flight-tested and deployed Iskander ballistic missiles also within that range envelope (exactly 500 kms, to be specific)[1]; and has flight-tested the Rubezh ICBM at a range of 2,000 kms – again, within the treaty’s envelope. (Some arms control advocates, such as Hans M. Kristensen, STILL deny that Russia has violated the INF Treaty, because, supposedly, the R-500 missile hasn’t been deployed, only tested. This is dead wrong, however.[2])

Now that Russia has effectively made the INF treaty a dead letter and a worthless piece of paper, the administration and its supporters in the pro-unilateral-disarmament community (including the Ploughshares Fund, the Arms Control Association, and other groups) are calling on the US to continue to unilaterally adhere to the treaty and to cut its own arsenal even further – even as Russia continues to build up its own and deploying missiles banned by the INF treaty. They denounce any proposals by strong-defense advocates in and out of Congress to develop America’s own intermediate-range ground-launched missiles.

This article will rebut their claims and thus make an irrefutable case as to why the US should immediately withdraw from the INF and New START treaties.

The Urgency Of The Threat

Firstly, they – spoken for by Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione and ACA’s Thomas Collina – falsely claim the Russian violation is not a grave or immediate threat to American and allied security.

This is dead wrong. Russia’s INF Treaty violation IS an immediate threat to the US AND its allies. These intermediate range missiles allow Russia to target its allies in Europe and Asia (and all US bases there) with very accurate missiles carrying very deadly payloads (nuclear and conventional). With ranges measured in hundreds (Iskander-M/K) and thousands (R-500, Yars-M) of kilometers, these missiles allow Russia to hold all US allies in Europe, and most in Asia, hostage to their nuclear weapons WITHOUT involving Russia’s strategic missile force. This is a very urgent threat.

Russia Will Never Comply With INF – It Faces A Grave Chinese Threat 

Secondly, the advocates of unilateral disarmament falsely claim that there is still time to “resolve this issue” through “patient diplomacy”, and that enough pressure can force Russia to scrap the forbidden missiles and come into compliance with INF. Says Cirincione:

“Concerns are raised privately in hope of resolving them. When that fails, they are made public. When that fails tougher diplomacy is tried. (…) This violation is more than a technical violation, but since it is not an immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies, there is time to use the established arms control mechanism to pressure Russia to halt the cruise missile program, verifiably dismantle any missiles tested in violation of the limits and agree to abide by the treaty’s terms. (…) Congress could back the administration’s efforts and add some clout by confirming into office the man in charge of verifying Russian compliance with arms control treaties. Frank Rose has been patiently waiting more than one year – 384 days – to be confirmed in his post as the assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance. (…) We have cajoled the Russians back into compliance before and – with the right staff in place and a united approach – we can do it again. In the process, we can prevent the Russians from rebuilding the weapons that Ronald Reagan so painstakingly destroyed.”

This is also utterly wrong. There is no way in hell that Russia will come into compliance with the INF treaty and dismantle its intermediate range missiles. Why? For two reasons.

Firstly, Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaty. On the contrary, it has violated EVERY arms reduction treaty it has ever signed, from the SALT I and II treaties, to the Limited and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to the Chemical Weapons Convention, to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaties.

Secondly, and even more importantly, abiding by the INF treaty is decidedly NOT in Russia’s national interest; on the contrary, it is in its security interest to violate the accord. The reason why is China’s deployment of over 1,200 short-range, and over 120 medium and intermediate range (DF-4, DF-21, DF-25, DF-26C), ballistic missiles, as well as hundreds of intermediate range (DH-10, CJ-10) ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM). China has literally hundreds of such weapons, and they can deliver nuclear or conventional warheads to anywhere in Russia – WITHOUT the need to involve China’s intercontinental missiles.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

(Source: Department of Defense, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, Washington DC, 2008.)

So Russia, like the US, is facing a huge threat from China’s ballistic and cruise missiles – and unlike the US, Russia is facing that missile threat right on its doorstep. Yet, Russia, like the US, is prohibited from fielding any intermediate-range ground-launched missiles to counter China, with which it shares a border and with whom it fought a short border war in 1969.

No wonder, then, that for years Russian leaders have called the treaty unjust and have been grousing about withdrawing from it. As they have said, the treaty prohibits only Russia and the US – but not China or anyone else – from fielding intermediate-range ground-launched missiles.

It is absolutely NOT in Russia’s NOR in America’s interest to continue to adhere to such an unequal treaty that only binds two countries in the world and no one else, while other nuclear powers continue to deploy intermediate range missiles and China continues to amass a large arsenal of these.

The difference between the US and Russia is that Russian leaders will do what is in their country’s interest, while America’s leaders will continue to insist on slavish, unilateral adherence to useless arms control treaties no one else observes.

North Korea Doesn’t Succumb to US Pressure – Neither Will Russia

Moreover, if anyone truly believes Russia can be “pressured” into compliance with the INF treaty, they should look at North Korea. That country has been a world pariah – subject to the world’s harshest international sanctions regime – for decades. It is shunned even by its sole formal ally, the PRC, which is now buddying with South Korea instead. It is the world’s most isolated and most heavily sanctioned country.

Yet, many decades of the world’s harshest sanctions regime have completely FAILED to force North Korea to stop, or even slow down, its nuclear weapons programme. Now North Korea has 20 miniaturized nuclear warheads (which it can mate with missiles) and enough highly-enriched uranium to build another 20 – plus missiles capable of reaching at least Alaska. In fact, North Korea’s regime is immensely proud of the fact that it has successfully defied the entire world’s pressure and developed that arsenal.

Does anyone really think Russia will succumb to American pressure and comply with arms control agreements, when the world’s greatest pariah, North Korea, has not?

So there is absolutely ZERO chance of Russia complying with the INF Treaty. It won’t, because it is not in its national security interest. Nor in America’s, for that matter.

It Is In America’s Vital Interest To Withdraw

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

Pulling out of a treaty that blocks the Russians from deploying weapons that we don’t have and don’t need would be foolish. (…) We have nothing to gain from pulling out of the INF treaty. We already have long-range nuclear weapons trained on hundreds of targets in Russia. We don’t need a few dozen more.”

This is also utterly wrong.

Russia now has more ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear warheads than the US, and plans on adding still more, so the US DOES need to build up its nuclear arsenal – and fast. Moreover, deploying IRBMs (nuclear- or conventional-armed ones) in Europe and Asia would enable the US to hold at least some Russian and Chinese targets at risk without involving America’s intercontinental missile or bomber force – thus freeing up those intercontinental missiles and bombers for being aimed at other targets. More broadly, it would allow the US to counter China’s large deployment of short-, medium-, and intermediate ballistic and cruise missiles in East Asia (including the DF-16, whose range is 1,000 kms, the DF-21, whose range is 1,770 kms, and the DF-26C, which boasts a 3,400 km range).

Withdrawal from the INF Treaty would also allow the US to expand its conventional precision strike options against any targets. Right now, the US relies singularly on conventional-armed, subsonic JASSM-ER and Tomahawk cruise missiles (whose range is just 1,000 and 1,700 kms, respectively) for attacking soft targets and on its tiny fleet of strategic bombers for attacking more distant and hardened targets. But those missiles and bombers are subsonic and thus not good at attacking fleeting or otherwise time-sensitive targets.

Contrary to Cirincione’s false claims, America has nothing to gain by remaining a party to the INF treaty, to which only America adheres, thus essentially disarming itself. But disarming the US unilaterally, so that it will be vulnerable to Russia, is precisely Ploughshares’ and ACA’s goal.

Moreover, the INF treaty is not blocking Russia from anything – even though it formally prohibits Moscow to deploy intermediate range missiles. But the Kremlin is simply not complying with it, and there is no Earthly force which can force it to. Treaties are worth something ONLY if all parties adhere to them; if one or more party violates them, they’re worthless. It’s time to recognize that the INF Treaty is a dead letter.

Fact: the useless INF and New START treaties are not barring Russia from anything.

Beyond INF, Moscow is also violating a host of other arms limitation agreements, including the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Open Skies Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime accord, the Budapest Memorandum, and the Vienna Memorandum, and has recently withdrawn from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

Trash New START, Too

Likewise, it is in America’s best interest to immediately withdraw from the Obama administration’s utterly failed New START treaty and to start building up, not cutting, its strategic nuclear arsenal. It is utterly foolish to adhere to treaties Russia violates; it is even more foolish and downright suicidal to abide by treaties which require only the US – not Russia – to cut its nuclear arsenal.

Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral-disarmament crowd opposes this idea. ACA’s Tom Collina falsely claims that:

“Releasing Russia from existing limits on strategic nuclear forces makes no sense, especially at this time of severe tensions between the West and the Kremlin. (…) If the United States were to stop reducing its nuclear forces under the 2010 New START treaty, Russia would likely do the same, and could even build up its forces. (…) Rubio and his colleagues* go too far with a March 25 resolution that would hold Russia accountable for “being in material breach of its obligations” under the treaty by calling for a halt to U.S. implementation of further strategic nuclear reductions, a move that would likely trigger a similar Russian response.”

Collina’s claims are patently false, just like everything else ACA and Ploughshares claim. Russia is NOT reducing ANYTHING – except reducing arms control treaties to dead letters.

Russia is ALREADY building up its nuclear arsenal, and has been for several years – with the Russian nuclear buildup ACCELERATING after New START was ratified. That’s because New START obligates only the US – but not Russia – to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal, and doesn’t even limit Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal at all.

It is RUSSIA that is building up its nuclear arsenal, while the US is disarming itself unilaterally.

Moscow is currently:

  • increasing its total number of deployed strategic warheads;
  • replacing single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles with 6-warhead Yars ICBMs;
  • replacing 4-warhead Skiff sub-launched missiles with Bulava and Liner missiles capable of carrying 10-12 warheads;
  • building a new class of guided missile submarines;
  • resuming the production of Tu-160 strategic bombers, capable of carrying 12 nuclear warheads each;
  • in sum, adding greater quantities of warheads and warhead carriers of all types.

As with the INF treaty, the US needs to reconsider whether or not to slavishly and unilaterally adhere to an arms control treaty that leaves it completely disadvantaged vis-a-vis Russia.

Cirincione And Co. Claim to Follow Reagan, Yet Bash His Policies

But Cirincione and Co. don’t just insist on America’s unilateral compliance with INF; they openly claim Ronald Reagan’s deployment of intermediate range missiles was a “failed policy” that should not be revisited:

“If we built new intermediate-range missiles, where would we deploy them? Europe? The last time we tried that, millions of citizens took to the streets of Europe in protest of U.S. and Russian weapons. There is no reason to revisit the failed policies of the past.”

Actually, the REALLY failed policies of the past (and the present) are the arms control policies Ploughshares, the ACA, and the Obama administration advocate: disarming the US unilaterally, and unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties. This is supposed to encourage others to be nice and disarm themselves. In practice, it has never worked. It has always failed spectacularly.

Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaties it has signed. It has flagrantly violated every one of them. That previous US presidents have allowed Moscow to get away with that is NO justification for letting Russia off the hook today. THAT is one of the failed policies of the past.

By contrast, Reagan’s deployment of US intermediate-range missiles in 1983 – which Cirincione falsely claims was a “failed policy” – actually reestablished nuclear balance between the US and the USSR in Europe, countered Russia’s 1,200 intermediate-range missiles there, and in 1987 forced the Kremlin to come back to the negotiating table and agree to dismantle all of these missiles. Gorbachev wanted to stop the arms race and reduce Soviet military spending to try save the stagnant Soviet economy. But he couldn’t do so unilaterally, so he had to agree to a treaty.

Because you can bring Russians into agreement ONLY when negotiating and acting from a position of STRENGTH, not weakness and appeasement. Unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else complies with leads to America’s weakness and dramatically REDUCES America’s security. This is precisely what the Obama administration has been doing, and precisely what the arms control crowd advocates.

Cirincione is advocating an alternate version of history where Ronald Reagan was an anti-nuclear peacenik. Urging conservatives not to attack the international arms control regime, he falsely claims:

Before letting loose the wrecking ball, they should check in with one of the principle architects of the regime and one of the toughest and most pro-arms control presidents in U.S. history: Ronald Reagan. (…) This was never President Reagan’s approach.”

Dead wrong again. While Reagan did (wrongly) indulge in arms control bargaining, he never allowed arms reduction policies and accords to cut America’s defenses to inadequate levels or to leave the US at an inferior military position vis-a-vis its adversaries. He never signed any agreements, nor implemented any arms reduction policies, that he feared would leave the US disadvantaged. He rejected calls for a nuclear freeze and for abandoning the SDI and his large-scale nuclear arsenal modernization programme. For Reagan, arms control talks were subordinate to the US military’s needs and to the need to win the Cold War against the USSR – not the other way around.

ReaganPeaceQuote

Most importantly, when Ronald Reagan caught the Soviet Union cheating, he did not hesitate to withdraw the US from useless arms control accords. Such was the case with the SALT-II accord: when Reagan found the USSR in violation of the treaty, in 1986, he withdrew the US from it.

As Reagan himself said: “No violations of a treaty can be considered to be a minor matter, nor can there be confidence in agreements if a country can pick and choose which provisions of an agreement it will comply with.”

Cirincione invokes Reagan’s failure to withdraw the US from the ABM treaty in the face of Soviet violation of it as supposed “proof” Reagan would support his position, rather than urge INF treaty withdrawal.

This is completely wrong. The only reason Reagan didn’t withdraw the US from the ABM treaty was because liberals in the federal government, especially in the State Department, fiercely resisted the idea, and continued to until George W. Bush finally withdraw the US from that useless treaty. A fight against the entrenched liberals in the federal bureaucracy over the ABM treaty was, alas, beyond Reagan’s strength, time, and patience.

Cirincione also falsely accuses the US of violating the INF treaty:

The Russians have their own complaints about us. We have actually built a brand-new intermediate-range missile. But we don’t call it a missile. We call it a target and use it to test our anti-ballistic missile interceptors in the Pacific. The Russians think it violates the treaty; we disagree.”

But this is utterly false. The mock missiles used to test American missile defenses do NOT violate the INF treaty, because that treaty allows for mock missiles to be used as targets. Article VI, paragraph 3, of the treaty clearly states:

3. If a GLBM is of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the earth, it shall not be considered to be a missile to which the limitations of this Treaty apply.

Paragraph 11 of the same article also clearly states:

11. A ballistic missile which is not a missile to be used in a ground-based mode shall not be considered to be a GLBM if it is test-launched at a test site from a fixed land-based launcher which is used solely for test purposes and which is distinguishable from GLBM launchers.

Cirincione also complains that reintroducing American intermediate range missiles in Europe or Asia could spark protests like those of 1983 against American Pershing and cruise missiles. But these protests were financed by the Soviet Union, and in any case, America’s military deployments should be determined solely by America’s and its allies’ security needs, NOT European popular opinion.

****

So, to close, the question before US policymakers is quite simple:

Russia is flagrantly violating the INF treaty (and a host of other arms limitation agreements) by testing and deploying missiles banned by that accord, and has been doing so for years. In so doing, Moscow is gravely threatening America’s and its allies’ security. Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by?

This writer says no. The Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and arms control advocacy groups, however, say “yes, the US should continue unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else abides by.”

*******************

Footnotes:

[1] The INF Treaty prohibits both the US and Russia from producing or deploying any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles which have a range equal to or exceeding 500 kms but not greater than 5,500 kms. The Iskander (SS-26 Stone) missile’s range is exactly 500 kms, putting it squarely within the INF Treaty’s jurisdiction and thus making it illegal.

[2] Kristensen is dead wrong, because the INF Treaty doesn’t merely prohibit the production, stockpiling, and deployment of ground-launched missiles of such range; it also prohibits maintaining any production, maintenance, storage, or test facilities for them (the treaty calls them “missile support facilities”):

9. The term “missile support facility,” as regards intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, means a missile production facility or a launcher production facility, a missile repair facility or a launcher repair facility, a training facility, a missile storage facility or a launcher storage facility, a test range, or an elimination facility as those terms are defined in the Memorandum of Understanding.

The Elimination Protocol attached to the treaty further stipulates that any test or training missiles and the associated equipment is ALSO subject to elimination:

3. For both Parties, all training missiles, training missile stages, training launch canisters and training launchers shall be subject to elimination.

 

4. For both Parties, all stages of intermediate-range and shorter-range GLBMs shall be subject to elimination.

Article IV of the treaty requires that not only the banned missiles themselves, but also their support facilities and support equipment be completely dismantled and never reconstituted:

Article IV

 

1. Each Party shall eliminate all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support structures and support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than three years after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers, support structures or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.

Yet, Russia has tested the prohibited R-500, SS-26, and RS-24 Rubezh missiles on some of its military proving grounds – which makes these test facilities a violation of the treaty – and has produced test examples as well as retained production facilities for intermediate range missiles – all of which is a violation of the above provisions of the treaty.

Rebuttal of Doug Bandow’s Blatant Lies About Ronald Reagan

ReaganPeaceQuoteTwo days ago, the leftist The National Interest magazine published a ridiculous screed by leftist libertarian Doug Bandow, titled “Betrayed: Why Reagan Would Be Ashamed of the Neocons.” Therein, Bandow completely falsifies the history of the Reagan years, falsely claiming that the Gipper was a peacenik who opposed peace through strength and standing up against aggressors, imperialists, and other potential threats to US and global security.

Bandow falsely claims that (emphasis mine):

“Alzheimer’s robbed Ronald Reagan of his memory. Now Republican neocons are trying to steal his foreign-policy legacy. A de facto peacenik who was horrified by the prospect of needless war, Reagan likely would have been appalled by the aggressive posturing of most of the Republicans currently seeking the White House. (…) Indeed, he routinely employed what neocons today deride as “appeasement.” (…)

Worse from the standpoint of today’s Republican war lobby was Reagan’s response to the Polish crisis. Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement were a global inspiration but the Polish military, fearing Soviet intervention, imposed martial law in 1981. Again, Reagan’s response was, well, appeasement. (..) Indeed, from Reagan came no military moves, no aggressive threats, no economic sanctions. Reagan did little other than wait for the Evil Empire to further deteriorate from within. Little other than talk, that is.

These are blatant lies.

President Reagan NEVER employed a policy of appeasement or anything even remotely resembling it. On the contrary, the Reagan years were eight years of continous, sustained, and relentless effort to bring the Soviet Union down – which eventually succeeded less than 3 years after he left office.

President Reagan did far more than moral posturing; he used every measure short of actual war to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. Specifically, besides condemning the USSR and Communism as evil, he:

  • Rebuilt the US military after 12 years of disastrous cuts, expanded it, and equipped it with thousands of new, cutting-edge weapons which gave the US military a technological edge over the Soviet military; in particular, F-117 stealth attack jets (which rendered all previous Soviet SAM systems obsolete), AH-64 tank-killer helicopters (which threatened to obliterate the massed Soviet tank armies in Europe), Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed), stealthy air-to-ground nuclear-capable cruise missiles, MX Peacekeeper ICBMs (capable of carrying 10 warheads each), B-1 bombers (America’s first bombers since 1962, although these are woefully obsolete by now), Ticonderoga class cruisers, M1 Abrams tanks (which, excluding the British Challengers, are arguably the best tanks in the world), M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and many others. Weapon programs that were initiated during the 1970s were significantly expanded, and many new weapon programs were started.
  • Computerized the US military, which the Soviet Union was not able to do for its own armed forces.
  • Began development of a National Missile Defense System, against which, again, the Soviet Union could not respond.
  • Imposed a slew of harsh sanctions on Moscow after the introduction of martial law in Poland in 1981 and after the Soviets shot down an unarmed Korean airliner in 1983.
  • Introduced American Pershing-II MRBMs and Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet deployment of SS-20 IRBMs, even though the Europeans themselves protested en masse against that and even though many in the US Congress, and even some in his own administration, were opposed to that step.
  • Greatly expanded American aid to anti-Communist movements and US proxies all around the world, including Solidarity in Poland, the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and anti-Sandinista (anti-Ortega) proxies in Nicaragua.
  • Intervened in Grenada to prevent it from becoming a second Communist outpost on America’s doorstep after Cuba.
  • Convinced Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to greatly increase oil production and thus dramatically reduce the price of oil – which threatened to kill the Soviet economy.
  • Successfully pressured Western European countries into scaling back the Yamal Pipeline project from two lines to one and into delaying it significantly – so much so, in fact, that it wasn’t completed until 1999… 8 years after the Soviet Union’s collapse.
  • Increased and modernized the US nuclear arsenal in response to the Soviet nuclear buildup.

This is a far cry from a policy of “appeasement” that Bandow alleges President Reagan followed. But the Gipper’s tough anti-Soviet policies should be no surprise, given that, as Professor Robert Kaufman reminds us:

“President Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75, signed in the summer of 1983, made changing the Soviet regime, which it identified as the root cause of the Soviet Union’s insatiable ambitions, the object of American grand strategy. President Reagan sought to achieve this goal by applying unrelenting and comprehensive political, economic, ideological, and military pressure.”

This was unprecented in US history: a sitting US president had identified a foreign regime as a threat to the peace and security of the whole world, and made changing that regime the highest goal of American foreign policy.

As regards the Polish crisis of 1981 specifically, President Reagan imposed a slew of economic and diplomatic sanctions on the Soviet Union and its puppet regime in Poland and significantly increased American aid to Solidarity in response. Also, Bandow is blatantly lying when he claims that the Polish communist regime of the time “feared Soviet intervention.” No, it did not fear it – it knew that such intervention was NOT forthcoming, because their Soviet puppet masters told them bluntly to their faces (as documents available today demonstrate) that they would NOT send troops to Poland and that Polish communists would have to deal with Solidarity themselves. In addition, both Polish communists and their Soviet puppet masters knew that a second military intervention would’ve been very hard for the Soviet economy – already burdened by the Afghan war – to bear.

Bandow also claims that “Reagan devoted more of his foreign policy time to arms control than to any other subject.” But unlike the “arms control” policy employed by the Obama administration today and advocated by its sycophants at the Federation of American Scientists, the Arms Control Association, the Council for a Livable World, and other pacifist, anti-military organizations, Reagan employed arms reduction policies only when they benefitted the US and only for that purpose – not for the totally unrealistic, fairy tale purposes of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons”, his rhetoric notwithstanding.

President Reagan negotiated and signed, with Mikhail Gorbachev, the first treaty that obligated both the US and the Soviet Union to completely scrap an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles – specifically, medium- and intermediate-range ground-launched missiles (defined as having a range between 500 and 5,500 km).

But this treaty came with a very tough verification protocol attached – something the USSR had stubbornly resisted until Gorbachev agreed to it. And under that treaty, the USSR had to verifiably dismantle almost 1,000 more missiles than the US had to, so the treaty was an American diplomatic victory… achieved, of course, when the USSR was in a position of weakness, with a declining economy burdened by the Afghan war and the 1980s oil price collapse.

Also, the USSR knew it had to comply because President Reagan had earlier shown he would not tolerate cheating on arms limitation treaties. When he caught the USSR cheating on the SALT-II treaty and Moscow refused to comply with it, he withdrew the US from the treaty.

That’s a stark contrast from the Obama administration, which knew of Russia’s violation of the INF treaty as early as 2009-2010, but concealed that information from the public and the Congress in order to goad the Senate into ratifying the (cretinous and treasonous) New START treaty (which has not resulted in Russia scrapping a single nuclear warhead, missile, or bomber). Last year, the Obama administration belatedly acknowledged Russia’s blatant violation of the INF treaty, but to this day, it refuses to do anything except admonish Moscow and “hope Russia returns into compliance.”

Also, Moscow is in violation of many other arms limitation treaties – but the Obama administration is not even willing to acknowledge that fact.

Finally, Bandow falsely claims that:

“Reagan was willing to switch rhetoric and policy when circumstances changed, in this case, the nature of the Soviet regime. (…) Reagan understood that Mikhail Gorbachev was different. A reform Communist, Gorbachev nevertheless humanized the system and kept the military in its barracks. Reagan worked with the Soviet leader, despite heartfelt criticism from his own staffers and fevered denunciations from activists—dissention that Reagan acknowledged in his diary. Gorbachev later wrote that Reagan “was looking for negotiations and cooperation.” Or, in a word, appeasement.”

Again, Bandow’s claims are blatant lies. Again, as Professor Kaufman reminds us (emphasis mine):

“True, Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher recognized sooner than most other hard-liners—or realists such as former President Nixon and his Secretary of State Kissinger—that Gorbachev was a different type of leader. When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

 

 

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

 

 

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism.”

But don’t take my word, or Professor Kaufman’s, for it, Dear Readers. Here’s what President Reagan himself said about how he brought about America’s triumph in the Cold War:

“Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.”

Those are President Reagan’s words, not mine.

Doug Bandow’s screed is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to falsify history in order to politically attack Republicans who support an assertive American foreign policy instead of appeasement. Bandow would have us believe that appeasement is what won the Cold War, and that President Reagan practiced it. None of that is true – nor is anything else that Bandow has ever claimed.

Hey, Hillary, It’s No Laughing Matter

During Hillary Clinton’s speech to reporters and analysts attending the Toner Prize journalism awards ceremony in Washington, DC, Mrs. Clinton employed variants of two classic Alinsky narrative manipulation tactics in targeting herself for ridicule over her use of a private email server and address during her time as Secretary of State. The use of her private server and email address allowed her to reverse the hierarchy of authority where the designation of government information is concerned. The use of the Alinsky tactics is meant to move the media on from this very damaging reality.

The UK’s Daily Mail quotes Mrs. Clinton as saying:

“I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight. You know my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated…But I am all about new beginnings. A new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account – why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy – after all, what good does that do me…”

Self-deprecating humor is a potent tool in a politician’s public relations toolbox, especially if the politician is trying to save face in an embarrassing situation. But targeting a damaging scandal with disarming ridicule is a tactic of manipulation to divert seriousness away from a point of vulnerability. Mrs. Clinton’s inclusion of the email scandal – which directly threatens her chances of becoming President of the United States – is purposeful and deliberate.

In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Rule Number 5 reads:

“‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions…”

Rule Number 12 reads:

“‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

By including the subject of the email scandal in her “humorous” remarks, Mrs. Clinton effectively targeted those who identify the scandal as a serious matter; a matter that includes the ability for her to shield herself from damaging information on policy failures including the rise of the Islamic State, the assassination of a US Ambassador and his security team in Libya, and the failure of the “reset” with Russia, all of which took place on her watch. By diverting the spotlight away from herself, and shining it onto those who are rightly sounding the alarm on her conduct, Mrs. Clinton has – or at least she hopes she has – painted herself the victim, while branding her “accusers” as the bullies.

Now that she has deceptively intimated that the acts of “unfairness” exist with her detractors, she is free to implement Alinsky Rule Number 12, by targeting those who have called her on her misconduct (the vast Right-Wing conspirators), attempting to make their objections the story, and personalizing it by inferring that the “conservative media” is once again on a Clinton witch hunt, thus completing the political divide into pro- and anti-Clinton factions; factions which the Clinton’s manipulate with ease for both personal and professional gain.

It’s important to remember that Hillary Clinton’s thesis at Wellesley College, There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, was, for her, a declaration of her intimate knowledge of Saul Alinsky. To say that her understanding of the Alinsky model has served her well would be an understatement. To say that she is an Alinsky disciple would be spot on. And the disciple preaches on to this day.

The Perfection Known as Obama?

Once again, this week many of Mr. Obama’s failed “policies” started to close in around him; military, economic, healthcare, and immigration to name a few.
Mr. Obama has, again, submitted a plan to defeat ISIS… ISIL… terrorists, I don’t even know what to call them so he will know who I’m talking about.
He wants a 3 year war powers authorization to finally defeat “the enemy.” But it still doesn’t include boots on the ground. Really? Even after many of his military advisors, many retired military advisors, and many of the allies that we have left in the Middle East say it won’t work without boots on the ground. This plan comes from a man who continually ignores the experts, a man who probably hasn’t ever played a game of “battleship,” let alone care about our military as a whole.
His last plan is working so well that 24 Christians were beheaded yesterday by ISIS affiliates and the successful example of his plan working in Yemen (his words not mine) is evidenced by their fall on the very day he claimed victory there.
Let’s pray for our troops in Iraq who are being surrounded as I write this. In the meantime, the White House is “monitoring” the situation. That’s just further proof that the Prez couldn’t care less about our men and their mental state. HEY PREZ… YO! Why don’t you grow a spine and send in our Air Force to wipe out anyone who even smells like they’re going hurt our guys? Show you care about US instead of THEM!!!
He has no problem housing, feeding and providing medical care for all those illegals within days of their arrival across our border, yet he is willing to keep letting our vets die long, slow deaths because they can’t get medical care, there aren’t enough facilities or doctors, and definitely, not enough caring! Apparently, there is no executive order he can sign to speed it up!
Mr. Obama also has decided it would be good to do a “selfie” commercial to get young people to sign up for Obamacare. Please note that Obamacare is woefully low on membership. They are millions of subscribers behind from what they need since they were relying heavily “forcing” young people to sign up and carry the older folks who would be a drain the healthcare system.
It looks like a little more than 10 million have actually signed up “for REAL” and the system, based on early estimates, needs at least 13 million with a large number being young signees. So far, there have been numerous complaints about broken exchanges, cancelled coverage, higher premiums, and unaffordable deductibles. Oh, and let’s not forget that the administration cancelled over 6 million policies deemed to be substandard forcing just under 6 million to have to sign up on Obamacare to get insurance again. Forced healthcare!
Our economy is good? Well kind of!
Read more at: TRS

The Real JV Team Emerges!

Talk about a “haunting comment.” This will go down as one of President Obama’s all time.

Can you imagine how thick the book of “Obama’s Greatest Faux Paus” will be? Or how many volumes it will be?  Do I need to list them all or do we have them memorized as some of us do the “Pledge of Allegiance”? (Notice I said some.)

Mr. Obama called ISIS a “JV Team” but now he says he didn’t quite say that. Just like he now says he didn’t quite say “you can keep your doctor” and he didn’t quite say “your health care premiums would be less than you cell phone bill.” It sure seems like we keep hearing him wrong and the internet records him wrong a lot too!

To continue, he called ISIS a JV Team because he felt they didn’t lack the brain power, resources, and commitment that it takes to go after the Pro Teams, like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Syria and God only knows who else he was thinking of.

You see the reason you have a JV Team is because the players are younger, less experienced, and need more time to practice together. You don’t usually want them on the big boys team because they would drag them down.

That “JV Team” that Mr. Obama tagged, aka ISIS, is now in control of a very large part of the Middle East. They are responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people. They are part of the reason oil prices are falling as they steal oil, load it up in stolen tankers, and sell it on the open market. They are instilling fear in and around Europe and parts of the U.S. These junior league boys are acting like, and accomplishing, senior league goals.

Why? Because they are committed at all costs, even to the point of death. That’s what makes them senior league. They are willing to give it all for the end game, and when they are up against it, they give some more. Their leaders speak out and stand behind their misguided principles and get the resources they need, by any means, to ensure they win.

Enter the “White House JV Team” (WHJV), the “Coyotes” ( I use coyotes because zoologist say they are the most cowardly animal and only attack when the enemy is well outnumbered.) This administration has gained control of one of the most powerful and feared fighting forces on the planet since the Roman army and has effectively turned them in to the most unreliable fighting force on the planet. And it’s no fault of the capable men and women that serve in the military.

This president knows more about more things than everyone of our great thinkers and philosophers before him. Just ask him and he tell you so!

I say this because he puts together military, economic, and social issue committees and takes little to none of the suggested actions from these committees.

He makes every mistake a first year law or medical student makes. Most students feel they have the answers after their first year in school and are willing to tell you what’s wrong with you before you even ask.

He put together a military commission on how to deal with ISIS and the threats in the Middle East. After they returned with their findings, mind you the committee was made up of seasoned military experts, he decided they were wrong and took it in another direction.  Ignoring the experts. A serious JV move.

To the jobs committee, he appointed the head of G.E. to chair it. The guy who took the majority of U.S. jobs overseas. Makes sense? Not so much. And once again implements almost none of the committee suggestions.

He gathered some well-known economists together for another committee, but none from the opposing side of the economic aisle. And when the committee came back with their recommendations, he implemented some but not the majority.

Read the rest at TRS

Americans Are Brave Enough to Say It, Why Not Their President?

The contortions to which those in the Obama Administration will submit themselves in order to avoid calling Islamist terrorism just that would be comedic if the subject matter weren’t so deadly serious. Case in point comes to us in an announcement by the White House that a “summit on how to counter violent extremism” will be held next month amid fears amongst the American populace that Islamist terror attacks on US soil are all but certain.

The Washington Times reports:

“The White House on Sunday announced it will host a summit next month on how to counter violent extremism amid renewed fears among Americans that terror attacks on the homeland are inevitable.

 

 

“A Rasmussen poll released Sunday shows that 65 percent of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely an attack ‘on those critical of Islam’ in the US will occur over the next year. Just 26 percent said such an attack is not likely, the survey shows…

 

 

“‘The [ani-extremism] summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community,’ White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Sunday. ‘Through presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions, participants will build on local, state, and federal government; community; and international efforts to better understand, identify, and prevent the cycle of radicalization to violence at home in the United States and abroad.’”

Missing in this grand overture was the words “Islamist” and “terrorism”. Go figure.

The Rasmussen poll cited as the catalyst for this “summit” (as Mr. Obama would say, “Just words. Just speeches…”) centered on the American population’s concern about terror groups executing attacks on institutions of free speech here in the United States. It didn’t ask about “extremist groups,” which the Obama Administration has bastardized to include TEA Party groups and Second Amendment groups. It focused solely on Islamist terrorism, period. But, as then Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel famously (or infamously) said, one should never let a good crisis go to waste. So, the Obama Administration widens the focus area from Islamist terrorism to “extremism” providing a wider blanket of topic coverage, and purely for political gain. It is sickeningly disingenuous.

It is sad, really, that the American people possess the courage to call Islamist terrorism what it is, even as their elected President bobs-and-weaves to avoid even using the terminology, all the while conniving, manipulating and distorting the issue at hand to affect marginalization of his political foes. His actions are not only beneath the dignity of his office and a stain on American history, they are a harsh and wicked slap in the face to everyone affected by Islamist terrorism, and especially those affected by the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo and the people of France, America’s oldest ally.

I would identify Mr. Obama as a coward for his refusal to state the obvious where Islamist terrorism is concerned. But I fear his motives are much more nefarious that cowardice. They are political. I don’t really know which is worse.

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

The Lightening-Fast Reflexes of the Obama Regime

The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, announced October 28th that his agency has raised the security level for federal buildings in the aftermath of last week’s terror attacks in Canada:

“The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently,” Johnson said in a statement. “Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance in the protection of US government installations and our personnel.”

Aren’t you absolutely bowled over by the cat-like reflexes of the Obama Administration? I mean really, we have only seen the fall of every major town in Iraq, sans Baghdad, the engagement of even Islamist countries in the fight against the Islamic State, beheadings and actual declarations of violent intent from the Islamic State and associated Islamist terror groups. We have seen “faceless selfies” of wanna-be jihadis and jihadist sympathizers featuring signs with pro-Islamic State propaganda in front of buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC. And we have seen beheadings on American soil in the name of Islam. Why should we expect any meaningful and/or timely response from an administration that is still trying to figure out if an infectious disease should warrant a quarantine of travelers arriving from infected countries?

Oh sure, the brilliant mind that is Barack Obama doesn’t succumb to the knee-jerk decision, especially where national security and foreign policy are concerned. That’s probably why he is still deliberating the security of the US border in the face of Islamist terrorists who have declared they will bring car bombs and beheadings to US soil; and why he is purposely ignoring the transportation of infectious disease across the border in the form of Enterovirus 68. Titrated to the Obama Administration’s response rate to serious issues facing the American citizenry, he will probably see our border secured after the 27th car bomb goes off in New York (after he chastises politicians there for their kneejerk Islamophobic responses) and after all of the schools in every state on the Southern border are quarantined.

My deference to Mr. Obama’s intelligence, and his ability to react in a timely manner to any crisis, is Obviously mired in sarcasm. Truth be told, I am more inclined to believe that Mr. Obama – whose entire tenure has been an exercise in group-think and governance by committee – is the dullest crayon in the White House box. Do you think for a moment that if he had achieved exemplary grades at Harvard or had penned a groundbreaking essay for the Harvard Review that the Progressive Left wouldn’t have showcased that behind the altar at the Church of Perpetual Obamaisms? No, it is likelier that he was a sub-par student whose falsely elevated self-esteem afforded him the opportunity to be “good at the mouth” and little else.

We all should have known this – or at least the voters on the Left side of the aisle should have known this – prior to his election in 2008, his only accomplishment being the failure of his community organizing efforts at the Altgeld Gardens in Chicago, still a cesspool of poverty, drug dealers, prostitutes and welfare queens to this day.

Of course, to have discerned Mr. Obama as wholly unqualified for the job would have required Liberal voters to actually think for themselves – before they voted, and to possess the integrity to understand and accept that race isn’t a qualification for office – at any level. To have realized the mistake of Obama – preemptively – would have required those on the pretentious side of the aisle to acquiesce to the notion that their ideological mindset just might not be as “fantabulous” as they think they it is.

Sadly, and to the detriment of liberty, personal freedom and representative government, we all know that the likelihood of a Liberal epiphany is next to nil. Liberals, led like clueless lemmings, will continue to fall prey to the emotionally marketed manipulation of their Progressive overlords; overlords who have co-opted their political party; self-centered and opportunistic overlords who have hoodwinked them into the chains of ideological slavery.

Unemployment at All-Time Low 5.9%… Just Kidding!

Government math takes on many forms. I think it’s the basis for Common Core math. In Common Core, 2 plus 2 plus 2 doesn’t always equal 6. Just like 18% of employable people in the U.S. equals a 5.9% unemployment rate.

The 5.9 %number is usually arrived at by simply looking at how many Americans file for unemployment every week, both new and continuing claims. You hear about the numbers of people dropping off the rolls but you never hear why. The assumption is that they found a job.

Do you ever hear them report about the number of people who drop off the unemployment rolls because they ran out of time? Or the ones who got discouraged and gave up looking because they couldn’t find employment. What about the ones who switch to disability because they are now having physical and mental issues as a result of their job search? (Insert crickets sound here.)

Most economists use another set of numbers that the government Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “U-6.” It defines the “total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.”

This number takes into account, by that definition, the underemployed, discouraged, and unemployed workers. This number actually did fall for the first time below 12% to 11.8%. Hey, don’t get too excited yet.

Remember, just before the election period in 2012, we were told unemployment was down. Many government math “adjustments” were made to the unemployment numbers all summer leading up to the November 2012 election. But fudging the numbers shouldn’t be a big surprise. I mean, look at the other “adjustments” that were made : Benghazi was “not” another 9/11 anniversary attack, the Obamacare rollout debacle was really just a few “minor” glitches, much like that whole “keeping your doctor” thing.

Now, back to government math. In September, the unemployment rate dropped by 0.2% to 5.9%. The number of people unemployed dropped by about 329,000 to 9.3 million.
Read more at THE REAL SIDE

Good Riddance to a Race-Baiting Divider

Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Black man to be appointed as United States Attorney General, has resigned. Americans who suffered the slings and arrows of rising above the racial divide since – and before – the enactment of Civil Rights legislation are jubilant in his departure. Never before has an Attorney General belittled the American citizenry as Mr. Holder has in his comments on racism. Never before has an Attorney General abused the power of his office as Mr. Holder has in the pursuit of racial retribution. And never before has an Attorney General overseen such an aggressive division of our citizenry based on race as has Mr, Holder. To put it directly, Mr. Holder, don’t let the door smack you in your racist behind as you leave.

I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s. My parents taught me, in no uncertain terms, to consider individuals through a lens that evaluated their character, not their skin color. When I didn’t, my attitude was “adjusted” and I am thankful for their unyielding insistence on that issue.

I remember all too clearly the evening when my Father returned home from his office the day he found one of his best friends – a Black man – dead on the office floor. He was devastated. Eddie Cain was more than an employee to my Father. Each day as he arrived at his fledgling business – a new and struggling metal manufacturing company – he was greeted by Mr. Cain. Each morning they took the time to have a cup of coffee, or two, and discuss family, life, and current events. It was irrelevant that my Father was the boss and Mr. Cain was the custodian. Both men looked upon each other with respect, as family men both struggling to achieve so as to take care of their respective families. They were men of equal honor talking like the friends that they were.

Many times, my Father would confer with his friend on business realities that weighed heavily on my Father’s mind. Many times the common sense advice that Mr. Cain offered my Father – as a friend – was advice that helped to ease my Father’s mind. I like to think that it was out of the catalyst of their friendship that my Father was moved to institute a profit sharing plan that included all of his employees. Mind you, this was in a day and age when such things were considered revolutionary. The harder everyone worked – from the custodian to the CEO – the more everyone would financially benefit; capitalism at its purest; everyone has “skin in the game.”

On the day that my Father arrived home from the office after having found Mr. Cain dead on the floor from a heart attack – the water for their morning pot of coffee together spilled across the floor – I could see, even at my young age, the heartbreak a man feels for the loss of a great friend. He was devastated and at a loss. He made arrangements for Mr. Cain’s family to be provided for and lumbered through the grieving process; a process which not only took a long time to complete (if it ever did), but one that taught my Sister and I an important lesson. Skin color doesn’t matter. Character matters.

I carry that experience with me today as I travel the road that is my life. I have had the pleasure to have performed with some of the most talented and revered jazz musicians the art form has to offer, most of them Black. I have worked, played, entertained, debated and counseled with Blacks, Latinos, Europeans, Asians, Indians and American Indians, many of whom have been very dear to me, not because of a superficial tally of acquired racial diversity, but because of the elevated level of character I demand of myself in choosing who I call friend. In each instance the idea of skin color was non-existent. We appreciated each other for our talents, our character, our knowledge, our counsel and our developing friendships. Over the years I have been graced to have been able to call many of these old friends “family,” if only in the extended definition.

So, pardon me if I believe that Eric Holder and his race-baiting, activist agenda have harmed the United States; have done an incredible disservice to the multiple generations who have already risen above the stain of racism. I find it pathetic and unintelligent that Mr. Holder is so stained by the inequities of eras past; so stained in the blood of racism that no longer exists in mainstream America (but for the corners of our society where it will never be expunged), that he wears racism like a birthmark; never to be removed, always an identifier to who he is. Sadly, or perhaps ironically, it is the very racism of Mr. Holder and his ilk that feeds the racism that exists in the extreme corners of our country. One would think an educated person like Mr. Holder would understand this. Or, perhaps he does understand this and rising above racism was never his true agenda…perhaps.

So, as the Progressives amongst us celebrate the end of the tenure of our first Black Attorney General, I weep for our nation and the American culture. Mr. Holder and his racist, biased, activist pals have set race relations back almost 50 years, and for what, retribution? Payback? So another generation can “feel the pain”?

To all of those who have existed on this planet blind to racism and acutely dedicated to evaluating a person by their character over their skin color, I say stay the course; teach your children; be the example that would serve to influence all generations to come. Condemn thuggish behavior from all who exhibit it – regardless of the color of their skin, and hold dear to you people of good character, loyalty and friendship, like my Father held dear to Eddie Cain.

As for Eric Holder and his gaggle of race-baiting dividers, it is they who are the real cowards. Goodbye and good riddance. May our culture heal from your poisons.

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

Not too long ago if you supposed that President Obama was sympathetic to his Islamic experience as a child, inside the beltway Republicans would cringe and Progressives would howl. Non-engaged and no- and low-information voters would immediately call you a conspiracy theorist, an Obama-hating racist and other assorted kneejerk labels. But given the incredible inaction and indecisiveness on Mr. Obama’s part with regard to the Islamic State, this question not only needs to be braved, but has become one we all need a definitive answer to.

In a 2007 New York Times article, Nicholas Kristoff wrote:

“‘I was a little Jakarta street kid,’ [Mr. Obama] said in a wide-ranging interview in his office…Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’

“Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite.”

Mr. Obama intended, from the very beginning, to bring a new perspective to the American people about the Islamic culture. His 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, was titled “A New Beginning.” In that speech Mr. Obama said:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

But as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his article “Obama’s Hazy Sense of History”:

“President Obama doesn’t know much about history…In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment…”

I would sign on to what Mr. Hanson is selling, if in fact Mr. Obama isn’t either executing the Progressive tactic of purposefully re-writing history, exhibiting an open sympathy for the Islamist movement (this would be the only transparent thing that has ever come out of his administration), or both. And while many people allude to the notion that Mr. Obama might be apathetic to his responsibilities as President of the United States, others, looking at myriad events taking place around the world and on our own doorstep, simply label Mr. Obama as inept and wholly unqualified. Again, I would sign on to these theories if I could be assured that Mr. Obama and his advisors aren’t purposefully re-writing history and facilitating the advance of the Islamist movement.

The truth of it all is this. I cannot be sure, anymore, that Mr. Obama isn’t purposefully re-writing history and actively helping the Islamist movement. We have come to a moment in time, given the real-time events that are unfolding, when Mr. Obama must prove to the American people that he is not facilitating the Islamist cause. And make no mistake; the stakes are high, perhaps even higher than the bar set by the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.

American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are openly acknowledging that they are very concerned with the Islamist-sympathetic demographic here in the United States. The New York Times reports:

“American intelligence and law enforcement agencies have identified nearly a dozen Americans who have traveled to Syria to fight for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria…As ISIS has seized large expanses of territory in recent months, it has drawn more foreign men to Syria, requiring more American and European law enforcement resources in the attempt to stop the flow of fighters, senior American officials said… ISIS has become more attractive to would-be militants because, unlike Al Qaeda, it has seized territory that it rules by strict Islamic law. ‘ISIS is able to hold itself up as the true jihad,’ said a senior American official.”

Brietbart.com reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued a memo warning that ISIS is taking advantage of the porous Texas-Mexico border in an effort to execute campaigns of terrorism against Americans on American soil. They also report that the US Border Patrol is taking the information seriously, with one Laredo Section Border Patrol agent saying they have credible information that ISIS is “attempting to find individuals and groups in Nuevo-Laredo Mexico to assist in gaining entry into the United States.”

Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, an individual intimate with the workings of radical Islam (lest we forget that Saudi riches fund almost all of Islam’s expansion into the West), is validating claims that ISIS has the United States, Europe and, in fact the whole of Western Civilization in its crossed-hairs. The Washington Times reports:

“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has a stark warning to America: The Islamic State’s terror will visit American shores in one month if it is not confronted in Syria and Iraq.

“‘If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,’ the king said Saturday, Agence France Presse reported…‘Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East…It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.’”

To reiterate, this is the King of Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Islam’s holiest place on Earth, Mecca, saying this.

Yet, Mr. Obama has taken to the presidential podium to admit that his administration has no strategy with which to counter the Islamic State threat. And while his handlers scramble to affect damage control at Mr. Obama’s statement, the reality of the matter is this: damage control is really all this administration is doing about the Islamic State threat. It appears that they are much more concerned about transforming the United States of America into a Socialist Democracy nanny-state than they are with executing the job of government, as well as the chief responsibility of that job, protecting the American people and guarding the homeland. It doesn’t matter what the issue is: securing our citizenry from illegal immigration, protecting our citizenry against foreign-born disease, guarding against violent drug cartels from disseminating death to our people, or violent jihadists courting drug cartels to mule them into the United States, the only angle Mr. Obama and his handlers cover – the only aspect with which this Progressive cabal is concerned – is the political angle.

But Mr. Obama has a response to accusations like mine. The Washington Times reports:

“President Obama told Democrat supporters Friday night that the news media is partly to blame for making Americans worry about emergencies overseas such as advances by Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

“‘If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,’ Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser in Westchester County, New York. ‘I can see why a lot of folks are troubled… ‘The world’s always been messy…we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,’ he said.”

The Saudi King warns the world about the viciousness of the jihadists of the Islamic State and Mr. Obama blames social media for ginning up discontent? Seriously? Countless numbers of videos, photographs and eyewitnesses recount Christians and non-Christians alike – even Muslims – being slaughtered at the hands of Islamic State barbarians, women being inducted into sexual servitude and children being cut in half and behead, their tiny skulls impaled on stakes as death markers to all who shall pass, and Mr. Obama says “the world’s always been messy”? Seriously?

A few years ago it might have been condemned and dismissed as Right-Wing demagoguery or conspiracy, but we have arrived at a moment in time when these questions are not only valid, but ones that beg to be asked.

Mr. Obama:

▪ Are you with the American people or against us?

▪ Are you sympathetic to the jihadi Islamist cause?

▪ Or are you just completely over your head in your station; unqualified for the job of President of the United States?

Sadly, regardless of the answers, the song remains the same. We have a vicious, power-hungry, and ideologically and financially emboldened enemy at the gates of Western Civilization and the United States and her people are saddled with a Commander-in-Chief who will do little to impede their progress. This leads to additional questions:

1) Will Mr. Obama’s time in office end before it is too late to do the job he refuses to do?

2) Will the American people be smart enough to elect a leader who is actually qualified for the job in 2016?

God help all of us who brave the pursuit of these answers.

Obama: All for Some But None for Liberty

Evidently history does repeat itself, or at least President Obama’s idea of “justice” is consistent. This is particularly true of moments in time when Mr. Obama is confronted with forces and situations where there is a clear-cut difference between those who champion liberty and the proper application of the rule of law, and the semblance of law as applied by the tyrannical and the ruthless.

In 2009, after Mr. Obama bloviated about having reached out to the Iranian mullahs to say that “his country” was ready to “move forward” with relations between the two countries, proceeding with “courage, rectitude and resolve.” That declaration, made in Cairo, Egypt, offered hope to the Green Movement in Iran, the Green Movement being a majority of Iranians who wanted to return to the days of freedom and liberty for their people, days unwitnessed since the Iranian Islamist revolution that delivered the non-native Islamist mullahs to power.

But in the days after the 2009 elections in Iran – an election declared rigged by everyone short of the ethically ambivalent Jimmy Carter, when the basiji and secret police were murdering freedom protesters in the streets, even as they screamed out in every avenue of communication possible for US assistance, Mr. Obama dashed the hopes of the Iranian freedom fighters. With the simple statement that the United States did not want “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, Mr. Obama extended a figurative middle-finger to those brave people literally dying in the streets of Tehran in a quest to be free of Islamist oppression.

Mr. Obama, with those simple words, abandoned the battle for liberty and freedom being waged by people yearning to be free.

Fast forward to the present day and yet another instance of a quest for freedom from the unjust and tyrannical, this time involving the imprisonment of a former United States Marine, if in fact, there can ever be anything a kin to a “former Marine.”

The Washington Times reports that in March of 2014, honorably discharged Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooresi was imprisoned, “for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck. The Marine maintains that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn on his way to meet a friend. He faces up to 14 years in prison if convicted.”

Since that time Americans, of every political denomination, have urged President Obama to do something – anything – to secure the release of Mr. Tahmooresi, a veteran diagnosed with PTSD. Again, from The Washington Times:

“More than 134,000 people signed a petition on the White House’s ‘We the People’ website asking the president to demand the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi, who was imprisoned nearly five months ago for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck…

“‘As in all cases when a US citizen is arrested overseas, our goal is to see that Mr. Tahmooressi is treated fairly during the judicial process with the hope that he can receive the support, both emotional and medical, that he may require now and at the conclusion of the proceedings,’ the White House said in an official response Friday.

“‘Mexican authorities have been very willing to engage on this issue. They have provided prompt and continued consular access and visitations,’ the statement continued. ‘We respect the rule of law and expect the judicial process of sovereign nations to protect other US citizens who might find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. We will continue to monitor the case and work with the Mexican authorities as this case proceeds through the Mexican judicial system. We continue to urge the Mexican authorities to process this case expeditiously.’”

Once again, Mr. Obama conveniently abdicates his responsibility to champion those seeking freedom and liberty from the oppression of tyranny.

Did Mr. Tahmooresi cross the border into Mexico with those firearms? Yes, and realizing his driving error, he freely offered up the fact he had those firearms. He did not try to hide the fact that he was in possession of the weapons and did not obstruct the Mexican authorities at the border. What should have been an instance where the Mexican authorities refused entrance to Mr. Tahmooresi based on his possession of the weapons, became a political hostage talking, and a political hostage taking that the Mexican government (if that’s what you want to call what they have) knew full well they would get away with given Mr. Obama’s milquetoast response to those crying out for actual justice in instances of tyrannical oppression.

Is it any wonder why the overwhelming majority of active-duty military personnel believe that Mr. Obama does not have “their six”?

Obama: All for Some But None for Liberty

Evidently history does repeat itself, or at least President Obama’s idea of “justice” is consistent. This is particularly true of moments in time when Mr. Obama is confronted with forces and situations where there is a clear-cut difference between those who champion liberty and the proper application of the rule of law, and the semblance of law as applied by the tyrannical and the ruthless.

In 2009, after Mr. Obama bloviated about having reached out to the Iranian mullahs to say that “his country” was ready to “move forward” with relations between the two countries, proceeding with “courage, rectitude and resolve.” That declaration, made in Cairo, Egypt, offered hope to the Green Movement in Iran, the Green Movement being a majority of Iranians who wanted to return to the days of freedom and liberty for their people, days unwitnessed since the Iranian Islamist revolution that delivered the non-native Islamist mullahs to power.

But in the days after the 2009 elections in Iran – an election declared rigged by everyone short of the ethically ambivalent Jimmy Carter, when the basiji and secret police were murdering freedom protesters in the streets, even as they screamed out in every avenue of communication possible for US assistance, Mr. Obama dashed the hopes of the Iranian freedom fighters. With the simple statement that the United States did not want “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, Mr. Obama extended a figurative middle-finger to those brave people literally dying in the streets of Tehran in a quest to be free of Islamist oppression.

Mr. Obama, with those simple words, abandoned the battle for liberty and freedom being waged by people yearning to be free.

Fast forward to the present day and yet another instance of a quest for freedom from the unjust and tyrannical, this time involving the imprisonment of a former United States Marine, if in fact, there can ever be anything a kin to a “former Marine.”

The Washington Times reports that in March of 2014, honorably discharged Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooresi was imprisoned, “for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck. The Marine maintains that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn on his way to meet a friend. He faces up to 14 years in prison if convicted.”

Since that time Americans, of every political denomination, have urged President Obama to do something – anything – to secure the release of Mr. Tahmooresi, a veteran diagnosed with PTSD. Again, from The Washington Times:

“More than 134,000 people signed a petition on the White House’s ‘We the People’ website asking the president to demand the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi, who was imprisoned nearly five months ago for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck…

“‘As in all cases when a US citizen is arrested overseas, our goal is to see that Mr. Tahmooressi is treated fairly during the judicial process with the hope that he can receive the support, both emotional and medical, that he may require now and at the conclusion of the proceedings,’ the White House said in an official response Friday.

“‘Mexican authorities have been very willing to engage on this issue. They have provided prompt and continued consular access and visitations,’ the statement continued. ‘We respect the rule of law and expect the judicial process of sovereign nations to protect other US citizens who might find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. We will continue to monitor the case and work with the Mexican authorities as this case proceeds through the Mexican judicial system. We continue to urge the Mexican authorities to process this case expeditiously.’”

Once again, Mr. Obama conveniently abdicates his responsibility to champion those seeking freedom and liberty from the oppression of tyranny.

Did Mr. Tahmooresi cross the border into Mexico with those firearms? Yes, and realizing his driving error, he freely offered up the fact he had those firearms. He did not try to hide the fact that he was in possession of the weapons and did not obstruct the Mexican authorities at the border. What should have been an instance where the Mexican authorities refused entrance to Mr. Tahmooresi based on his possession of the weapons, became a political hostage talking, and a political hostage taking that the Mexican government (if that’s what you want to call what they have) knew full well they would get away with given Mr. Obama’s milquetoast response to those crying out for actual justice in instances of tyrannical oppression.

Is it any wonder why the overwhelming majority of active-duty military personnel believe that Mr. Obama does not have “their six”?

The Slaughter of the Children

The Blood of Christian and Jewish Children is on Your Hands

Left-leaning news sources have been screaming about the death toll of children in the Middle East and all the kids that Israelis have killed. For them, collateral damage is unacceptable in any way.

Even though the Jews have emailed, mailed, dropped leaflets, called, and used loudspeakers in advance of planned attacks to warn the Palestinian people that rockets are coming and they are bombing building A or B, the Palestinians choose to stay and die in the bombings with their children. Kids are carried out, their lifeless bodies are a tragic scene, and it’s unacceptable.

But what is truly unacceptable is the fact that Palestinian parents who have been warned repeatedly in advance are ignoring the warning. Why aren’t they getting those kids out of there at any cost? You know, like the South America parents sending their kids for miles and miles alone on top of trains through dangerous areas to get their kids to the United States? Do those parents just love their kids more? You decide.

I posted pictures on Facebook (after I stopped throwing up!) People were outraged. Some said they were doctored or were inappropriate to post. These pictures were of little kids lined up on the ground with their heads removed from their bodies and placed next to them. Some bodies were cut in half. Some pictures showed the necks of these kids (babies) being sliced with what looked to be a steak knife and drained into a bucket. The outrage was deafening! Not really. I thought I had gone deaf because I heard nothing! Where is the outrage about that?!

There seems to be a common thread to reporting on violence by the mainstream media. They only show what they want you to see to get you on their side. If someone like myself shows the REAL violence, the REAL pictures, the REAL savagery of what’s taking place over there, its inappropriate. Are you serious?

The cries for Israel to stop bombing innocent children in Palestine is on practically every news channel, every minute of the day. Think about it, these are cries for Israel to stop defending itself because Palestinian kids were dying accidentally (or not so accidentally for those parents who chose to remain in an area they were warned would be bombed).

Yet those same Americans are crying to allow those kids who crossed our border illegally to remain in the United States simply because they traveled up from their crime and drug-infested cities for a better and safer life. Supposedly, we had to let them stay because if we sent them back they would surely die.

But we can stand by and watch Christian kids being butchered in the Middle East in the name of a Muslim god and do nothing about it? That doesn’t even make any sense!


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/08/the-slaughter-of-the-children/#EJyLUkc4vAzrew5w.99

« Older Entries