Category Archives: exposing Obama

Dr. Michael Savage: An Authentic Conservative Voice Crying Out in the Progressive Wilderness

Savage and Teddy

Being an authentic conservative often means standing outside the inner-circle where conservatives should stand together fighting the progressives destroying America and the Constitution.

Dr. Michael Savage understands the alienation and fight better than anyone in radio and print news. He’s banned from entering Great Britain and placed on a terror-watch list for excising non-violent free speech.  Savage has never called for the killing of Muslims and gays.

I’m not sure if being banned from a country where people boil everything they eat and everyone marries their cousin is punishment.

The lack of camaraderie has been wielded against Dr. Michael Savage often. I still wonder where conservatives were when Savage was banned from entering the UK? Why weren’t fellow radio hosts screaming “this is a violation of free speech” and “If this can happen to Savage, it can happen to all of us!”

The fact is, authentic conservatives like Savage, working to restore our Constitutional Republic from socialism overrunning this nation into a soft-communist malaise, are trashed by the Left and Republican elites (who became Democrats for minority vote-grabbing) saving the can and kicking the Tea Party down the road.

I believe moderate Republicans (Democrats in cheap GOP suits) are fearful of Savage’s voice: Heavens! He might offend the people conservatives must stand up against and expose—Islam and illegal aliens—rather than trying to appease America’s greatest threats so the party can say “see, we’re really not racists.”

If you’re conservative, you will be deemed racist no matter what, so why waste time appeasing voters who disdain traditional values and the Constitution, and why pander to the Left that invents non-existent hate for profit?

Savage does not, that’s why he’s popular with millions of Americans:

People listen to me to get a different point of view.


Savage doesn’t douse his words in political PCP and wrap his views in Reince Priebus’s pink panties in order to pander to leftists who deserve a good kick in the political ass for destroying this nation from within.

Sugar-coating turns Americans off. People want reason with blunt honesty. For heaven’s sake, we are not Europe, despite what Democrats would have you think! This is America, the land of cowboys!

Have any of you ever seen a French cowboy?

Did that mental image scare any of you out of this Euro-Statist coma we are in?

In his best-seller Trickle Down Tyranny, Savage demonstrates how Lenin’s Statism is Obama’s vision for America:

[Lenin] thought that a nation could only grow more prosperous when it was controlled by a vanguard, an elite…No more haves and have-nots. No more private property. Only boundless prosperity. All Russia had to do was transfer its entire wealth to Lenin’s elite. The Leninist vision  had terrible consequences. If you didn’t want to relinquish your property, Leninists would take it.

Expansive government says “get sick and you are on your own without government, you’ll have to depend on yourself if you don’t have government to feed and cloth you!” But isn’t that what Americans know to be the best success–self-reliance without government dependence?

Savage points out:

Like the Leninists elite, they’ve [Soros, Obama, progressives, the EU] conned the world into believing that they’re looking after the interests of ‘the people’ when in fact they’re in the process of seizing control of the world’s financial assets at the people’s expense.

We’ve allowed everything we disdain to seize control. We put America’s interests last and our enemies first. Conservatives stopped fighting GOP interests while our economy crumbles and money is lost to our enemies.

Going along for the cause is Progressive. Even when it sticks like hard, raw peanut butter on their tonsils, leftists would rather die than admit Islam is evil and breeds terrorists and illegals are “turning the melting pot into a chamber pot.”

Note to Leftists and moderate Republicans: The chamber pot is not something California Food Stamp surfers smoke in the judge’s office. But you would have to read one of Dr. Savage’s many medical books to understand that.

Savage is unafraid to address the trampling of God and Biblical core values our founders upheld and practiced–absolute laws. Savage calls out the activist Supreme Court judges and those communist inbreed “Dogs of Hate” are abolishing our Judeo-Christian heritage with authorized Statist “Religion-Free Zones” in our schools.

 Dr. Savage believes in national sovereignty and is not afraid to admit it: Sovereignty is national pride, something American’s have been taught to hate, because Hitler, a leftist, misused nationalism for destructive means as all progressives do.

Our nation is threatened from within by leftists and moderate Republicans forging socialist deals with Democrats recreating a newly ordered American society like the European Union:

[O]ur federal officials seem to be allies of those international forces who would override our democracy…The emergence of an international social liberalism, which is at its core soft-communism, is a very real threat to the sovereignty of our nation. Forces from within and without our country continue to try and tell us that we are out of step with the rest of the world. The “sophisticated” Europeans laugh at us for our naiveté and our clinging to religion and family values. These Euro-socialists and their American counterparts see a terrible beauty struggling to be born, a beauty that would like to sweep away our dying civilization and bring us into an unbrave new world.


Let those vaporized “Aunt Pitty Pats” laugh at us! Who cares if we conservatives stand on the outside because we believe Americans should speak Standard English, illegal aliens should be deported, and Mitt Romney lost the election because 1. He’s a Democrat, and 2. If Democrats wanted a woman on their ballot, they would have put Hillary on the ticket!  

This is why people listen to the Savage Nation: Honesty. If Republicans spoke like Michael Savage, Democrats would put a fork in themselves.

In Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Dr. Savage spoke directly to liberals of something that now screams loudly of modern-day Republicans:

In the end, your tolerance of the intolerable is actually reflection of your loss of clarity; your tolerance of virtually everything and your “anything goes” attitude is not a mark of liberalism, it’s a mark of the degeneration of your ability to judge anything.



While the left is marshalling their battalions to assault the pillars of America, the right is disorganized and provides little national leadership.


Conservatives, don’t let the GOP Machine and its supporters silence, gag, and shut out those defending our nationalism and liberty. As Joseph Farah says: “If we don’t all hang together, as they say, we’ll all hang separately.”

Stand up like Michael Savage and let progressives know what we patriots will do to them and their polices: Disorganize them with our battalions of liberty.


Dispensing with the ‘It’s the Law’ Rhetoric

Over the past few months, Progressives and Democrats who favor the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – both elected and not – have insisted that the new and expanding entitlement will go forward as planned because, after all, it is “the law of the land.” When I ponder this statement I find myself less inclined to laugh and more inclined to succumb to sadness. That a faction that holds the Constitution in such disregard would so disingenuously foist the hypocrisy of this statement in defense of what is arguably an unconstitutional law, defies humor.

A cursory recollection of how this horrific, economy-killing piece of legislation came to be, not only illustrates a fundamental transgression of the spirit of American government, it shows how the Progressive movement executes an “ends justifies the means” political game plan. Because Progressives believe that the United States should provide socialized healthcare to every living being existing legally in the United States (and some who do not), they purposefully circumvented the legislative process, crafting the legislation with special interest groups – including labor unions, Progressive think tank operatives and foreign aligned special interest groups, behind closed doors and excluding members of the minority party. They then moved the legislation forward – at times threatening to “deem it passed” – along party lines, ignoring the protests of the minority party and howls of discontent from the American citizenry, and into law.

Today, as Republicans in the US House, which has the constitutionally mandated power of the purse, threaten to exclude any aspect of Obamacare from the funding of government operations – which is their constitutional right to do, Progressives and toady Democrats protest that the ACA is “the law of the land.” The proclamation would have even the slightest bit of weight if these same hypocrites always acquiesced to “the law of the land.” The fact is that they transgress the “law of the land” as a matter of policy; to advance an agenda that is often times anathema to the American system of government and the rule of law.

One can look back to the first Obama Administration’s abdication of the rule of law when newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder approved of political appointees at the Justice Department quashing the prosecution of New Black Panther Party members who executed one of the most egregious instances of voter intimidation in modern history. The “law of the land” mandated that the DoJ prosecute these constitutional transgressors to “the fullest extent” of the law. If “the law of the land” was so precious to these Obama-ite Progressives and Democrats, they would have been exploring ways to include charges of racial discrimination (as the perpetrators were Black and targeting White voters) and hate crimes. But, “the law of the land” wasn’t so important as to be followed in this instance.

One could look into the non-enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama Administration to evidence their selective support of “the law of the land.” For the entire tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency we have witnessed border patrol members and their union representatives catalog a litany of directives emanating from DHS obfuscating efforts to secure our nation’s borders and hold to justice those who have broken our laws to exist here. Yet, in a post-911 world, when we hold proof-positive in our hands that Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda are working with Mexican and South American drug cartels, the “law of the land” isn’t so important to the Progressives and their sycophant Democrats so as to be honored.

The several Congressional investigations into operational and political malfeasance executed under the Obama Administration provide ample evidence that the Executive Branch Progressives have little use for “the law of the land” when it does not suit their need or the advancement of their ideological, globalist or social justice agendas. The US Constitution gives the power of oversight – including subpoena powers – to Congress. Yet today the Obama Administration routinely obstructs congressional investigators, usurping “the law of the land”:

▪ Fast & Furious saw the Holder Justice Department illegally facilitating the movement of banned weapons across the Mexican border. And even in the face of the deaths of US Border Patrol Agents, the Obama Administration – to this day – thwarts efforts to fully investigate the program.

▪ The politically motivated use of the Internal Revenue Service to target what can only be described as opposition groups, i.e. TEA Party, Conservative and Libertarian advocacy groups, stands as one of the more serious misuses of a federal agency to affect politics in the history of the country. In fact, it was the second count in the impeachment indictment leveled against former-Pres. Richard Nixon. Yet, the Obama Administration shows little interest in assisting congressional investigators in their pursuit of protecting the American citizenry from their own government’s unlawful actions. (Note to Mr. Obama…President Nixon at least had the nobility to resign).

▪ The expansion – not just the continuation – of the NSA domestic surveillance program arguably usurps the Fourth Amendment protections provided the citizenry, but under the guise of protecting the country, even some members of Congress who have Top Secret clearances are kept in the dark on the program by members of the Obama Administration.

▪ And as four brave Americans – Amb. Christopher Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith & Glen Doherty – lay cold in their graves, exclusively because Mr. Obama and his Progressive crew couldn’t be exposed for their putting politics ahead of protecting American assets overseas; American soil in the form of Embassy grounds, the “most transparent” administration in American history hides behind anything that will give them cover so as not to act in the spirit of “the law of the land”; so as not to afford the justice “the law of the land” is owed those four dead Americans (Note to former-Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Yes, it does matter, to every American but the Progressive elected class, evidently).

But getting back to Obamacare being “the law of the land,” and the fact that these Progressive ideologues intend to inflict this economy-killing, divisive, wealth-redistributing program onto the American people, regardless of the fact that it has never – never – been popular with over half of the nation, and that it now falls well short of providing health insurance to “every American,” I have two questions:

1) If “the law of the land” is so very important to follow, then how is it that these same people ignore the fact that “the law of the land” allows the House of Representatives to refuse to fund the entitlement program?

2) If the “law of the land” is so sacrosanct then how can these Progressive elitist oligarchs decry any part of the US Constitution – the literal “law of the land” – as malleable; as subject to dictates of the day?

The truth be told, the only time “the law of the land” means anything to Progressives is when it serves their purpose. In any other case it is an edict to be scorned, rebuked, castigated and/or ignored. That Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the White House Communications Office and President Obama himself shamelessly hide behind the “It’s the law of the land” declaration in their defense of the legitimate House effort to save the country from this legislative mistake would be laughable if it weren’t so deadly serious.

So, let’s dispense with this rhetoric, shall we?

Rebuttal of Paul McLeary’s and Kingston Reif’s lies on nukes


On June 26th, the leftist DefenseNews portal, owned by the Gannett company, published yet another biased, anti-nuclear weapons article which aims to present Barack Obama’s planned deep cut of America’s nuclear arsenal in a positive light and in which only a supporter of nuclear cuts is asked for opinion – while no opponent is asked to weigh in.

In that pathetic screed, the author decries the size of America’s nuclear arsenal, tries to assure the readers that Barack Obama’s new deep cuts of America’s deployed arsenal won’t harm US national security, and that Republicans are groundlessly opposing it.

He also quotes Republicans’ charges of Russian noncompliance with “a major arms control treaty”  and of Obama disarming America unilaterally as if they were outlandish, which they’re not.

Let’s deal with these issues one by one.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, RUSSIA HAS NOT CUT A SINGLE WARHEAD OR DELIVERY SYSTEM UNDER NEW START – because the treaty obligates ONLY the US, not Russia, to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal. It allows Russia to actually grow its arsenal – which it has done since New START’s ratification and will continue to do, as confirmed numerous times by Russian leaders, including President Putin and former Defense Minister Anatoliy Syerdukov. Thus, New START amounts to America’s unilateral disarmament.

Secondly, Obama did not say in Berlin he’d do the cuts by treaty. He – like his administration’s officials in their Congressional testimonies last year and in pre- and post-Berlin speech remarks to the press – left the door open to unilateral reductions in America’s nuclear deterrent.

So those who accuse Obama of engaging in America’s unilateral disarmament are exactly right. Obama IS unilaterally disarming America. He has also unilaterally withdrawn nuclear warheads and nuclear-capable Tomahawk TLAM missiles from US submarines. That is unilateral disarmament.

He’s also woefully underfunding the modernization of America’s nuclear deterrent. That is also unilateral disarmament – by neglect.

Thirdly, yes, Russia IS violating a major arms reduction treaty – two, actually. The first is the INF treaty, which prohibits the development, testing, production, or possession of any ground-launched BMs or CMs with a range between 550 and 5500 kms. Russia has recently tested a pseudo-ICBM (really an IRBM) called the Yars-M at a range of 2,000 kms – a blatant violation of the INF Treaty. Dr Mark B. Schneider, an expert on nuclear weapons, has been warning of such development since at least 2012. This was reported yesterday by the Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz.

Russia is also violating the adapted CFE Treaty by possessing in Europe far more tanks, IFVs, APCs, and artillery pieces than the treaty allows.

How can America negotiate or sign any arms limitation treaties with Russia when Moscow blatantly violates the treaties it has already signed and ratified?

Fourthly, the cut Obama wants to make – to a mere 1,000 warheads – will gravely undermine the security of America, its allies, and the world at large, contrary to his and the rest of the disarmament crowd’s lie that a weaker America translates into a more secure world.

1,000 deployed warheads are way too few to deter Russia (which has at least 1,500 deployed strategic and around 1,300 nondeployed strategic warheads, as well as 4,000-6,000 deployed and nondeployed tactical warheads, and the mean to deliver all of these warheads) or China (which has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, warheads according to Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin (SMF, ret.) and former DOD chief nuclear strategist Professor Philip Karber). On top of that, the US has to deter North Korea and Iran and provide a nuclear umbrella to over 30 allies who depend on it for their security and their very existence.

If the US makes further cuts to its deterrent – especially ones on the scale demanded by Obama – America’s allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Already 66.5% of South Koreans want to do so, and Japan has a facility ready to produce enough fissile material for 3,600 warheads in a year if need be. Persian Gulf states will almost certainly “go nuclear”.

Thus, as the WSJ has correctly observed, Obama’s legacy will be a world with more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states in it.

Other than Obama’s America, NOBODY ELSE is disarming themselves. Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. France and Britain are not growing, but they’re modernizing. Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon acquisition.

A world without nuclear weapons is not “distant” or “aspirational”. It’s completely unrealistic and utterly impossible – now and for the indefinite future. Period.

Kingston Reif’s claim that Obama’s cuts would be no problem because the US would retain some warheads in reserve is a phony assurance. By his admission, most of these warheads would need weeks or even months to be reactivated. Yet, in the event of a nuclear first strike by an enemy, there would be only half an hour to arm America’s ballistic missiles and to launch them. America’s retaliatory strike would have to be conducted in less than an hour, not days, let alone weeks or months.

The conservative Heritage Foundation estimates, based on a holistic study, that the US needs between 2,700 and 3,000 deployed nuclear warheads.

And let’s be honest, neither Reif nor his extremely leftist group, the CLW, want America to be strong or secure. They don’t believe in nuclear deterrence; they utterly reject it.

The author laments the size of America’s nuclear arsenal, but it pales in comparison to Russia’s nuclear arsenal – 6,800 warheads according to the FAS, 8,800 warheads according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Of that, 2,800 are strategic warheads, the FAS says.

The only advantage the US still has is in deployed strategic warheads – some 1,700 compared to Russia’s 1,500. But under New START, the US will have to cut its deployed arsenal while Russia is allowed to grow its own.

How biased th DefenseNews article is is best illustrated by the fact that only the representative of a pro-nuclear-disarmament organization was invited to comment, while no one from the numerous organizations opposing nuclear cuts was asked to weigh in. So that article is one-sided and irredeemably biased.

“MAY” – The One Little Word That Changes Everything

obamacare fallout
Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in July 2009, said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.” Now, in July 2013, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has interjected one little word into Obama’s statement: “MAY“. The HHS created and controlled website “” has this statement: “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.”   [emphasis mine]   What happened, Kathleen, to Obama’s one little word: “Period“?

Obama even offered a guarantee. He said, “Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

Then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi, (of “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t.” fame), and Senator Harry Reid, in 2010, rammed ObamaCare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) down our throats. Obama signed the bill into law fourteen days after Pelosi made her remark.

Obama also said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” But (and there’s always a “but” when Obama is involved), has this statement: “Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider.”   [emphasis mine]   There’s that word may again. But wait! We may be misunderstanding Obama here, taking him at his literal word. Obama said, ” No one will take it away. No matter what.” But says, “Depending on the type of policy you buy…[.]” So, Obama can still make his “No one will take it away.” claim if you choose another plan (perhaps in order to get similar or any healthcare coverage and/or to keep your doctor). I predict that this is the “reasoning” that Obama (and Reid, and Pelosi, and ObamaCare proponents) hides behind. Is Obama quibbling? Your call!

Again, but wait. We got this from White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle in 2011:

“… the president wasn’t saying the legislation would guarantee that everyone can keep his or her preferred plan, just that the legislation wouldn’t force anyone to change. What the president promised is that under health care reform, that he would make it more possible for people to have choices in these (health insurance) exchanges.”

Unbelievable. Was DeParle prescient, anticipating what was to come? Obama is getting more and more like Clinton: every word he utters must be carefully parsed. Why should we believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth if others come behind him and say we should not take what he says literally?

Pelosi, in March 2010, said, “We’re prepared for every eventuality, including success.” Well…, Nancy, it seems that you were not prepared for the one little word may, but you somehow forgot Obama’s use of the word period.

The word period sounds unequivocal to me. The word may is an equivocal word. Which is it, Nancy? Try as you may (and, sadly, in November 2012, you succeeded), you can’t have it both ways.

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

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 20th

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: It’s time for another Saturday Night Cigar Lounge. This time Brandon Morse visits to talk Misfit Politics and #Merica. Plus an interview with Reason’s Shikha Dalmia on Detroit.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Russia has repeatedly violated the INF Treaty


In 1987, the United States and the then Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which required both countries to completely dismantle all of their ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles – nuclear or conventional armed – that had a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

No other nuclear power – not China, not India, not Pakistan, nor anyone else – was included in the treaty. However, it did at least require the Soviet Union to verifiably dismantle its medium-range ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.

However, since Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia, Moscow has repeatedly violated the INF treaty.

It has tested and deployed the R-500 ground-launched (and nuclear-capable) cruise missile, which has a range within INF treaty limits, and last month, it tested a “missile defense killer” Rubezh/Yars-M “pseudo-ICBM” at a range of just 2,000 kilometers (1,242 miles) – again within INF treaty limits. This means it’s an intermediate-range missile, prohibited by the INF treaty.

The treaty, ratified in 1988 by both sides, completely prohibits any development or testing, let alone procurement or deployment, of ground-launched missiles of such range (between 500 and 5,500 kilometers).

The test occurred on June 6th and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon the next day. The Rubezh IRBM was launched from a missile base at Kapustin Yar and impacted a test target at the Sary-Shagan range, about 2,000 kms (1,242 miles) away. This is INF Treaty range.

Again, it bears repeating: even the development or testing, let alone the production or deployment, of such missiles is completely prohibited by the INF treaty.

The fact that the test occurred at a 2,000 km range was first disclosed by the Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz, a veteran national security journalist, and confirmed by US intelligence officials as well as nuclear weapons expert Dr. Mark B. Schneider of the National Institute for Public Policy. Dr Schneider has been warning about Russian violations of arms reduction treaties for years.

Schneider has also warned that Russia’s air and missile defense missiles could be used as medium-range surface-to-surface missiles, and so could be the first stage of the SS-27 ICBM – as a stand-alone missile, it would have a 3,000 km range, clearly within INF treaty limits.

Also, the Republican chairmen of the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Reps. Howard McKeon (R-CA) and Mike Rogers (R-MI), respectively, and chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), have been warning about Russian violations of such treaties for at least a year now.

The confirmation of Russia’s repeated violations of the INF treaty by the WFB and US intel officials confirms the soundness of their warnings.

Accordingly, the chairmen, not wishing to see America’s nuclear deterrent cut unilaterally, or in a worthless treaty with an untrustworthy partner who violates his obligations, have introduced amendments to the annual National Defense Authorization and Energy Appropriations bills that would prohibit ANY further reductions to America’s nuclear deterrent, except through a treaty or an Act of Congress itself.

American and foreign pacifist saboteurs, however, are not giving up. Desiring to see America disarmed, they continue to lie on Russia’s and Obama’s behalf, advocating for even deeper cuts than those Obama has proposed, and are whitewashing Russia to absolve it of its blatant violations of arms limitation treaties, including the INF treaty.

FAS’s Hans M. Kristensen, a Danish pacifist now living in the US, has recently written a FAS blogpost lying about the June 6th missile test, falsely claiming that the missile traversed over 5,500 kms, outside INF treaty range. He claims that the Washington Free Beacon and Dr Schneider merely “claim” the Russians have violated the treaty.

But, as US intel community officials have confirmed, the test actually occurred at a 2,000 km range, from Kapustin Yar to Sary-Shagan, meaning the test WAS a violation of the treaty.

By denying that a violation occurred, Kristensen is essentially accusing these officials, as well as the three House committee chairman (who have access to classified information, whereas Kristensen doesn’t and never will), and the WFB’s Bill Gertz of lying.

But why would Bill Gertz – a reputed journalist who has been covering national security issues for almost 3 decades – lie? And has anyone found even one instance in his long journalist career in which he lied?

On the other hand, Kristensen – a lifelong Danish pacifist whose explicitly stated agenda is to see the US give up its nuclear weapons – has a motive to lie, and indeed has repeatedly been caught lying, over and over again.

Kristensen is nothing but another anti-American, pro-Russian Danish pacifist propagandist. He’s been working for pacifist, anti-nuclear organizations since being 21 years old. He has no credibility and no integrity whatsoever.

Moreover, this is not the first time when Kristensen has (implicitly or explicitly) accused of lying people who are far more credible than he is. Not so long ago, he accused the commander of the USAF’s nuclear forces of hiding America’s nuclear modernization programs from PDF slides, even though these programs were all listed in one of the slides.

In short, Kristensen is a lying, dishonest, pro-Russian pacifist propagandist. Not one word he says is credible.

As for Russia’s recent missile test, the matter is quite simple. If the test did occur at a 2,000 km range, it WAS a clear violation of the INF treaty. If it occurred at a range of more than 5,500 kms, a violation did not occur.

US intel officials, Dr. Schneider, and the WFB’s Bill Gertz say the test did occur at a 2,000 km range.

Hans Kristensen denies that.

Whom will you believe?

UPDATE: The State Department’s annual arms control treaty compliance report completely omits – but does not deny – Russia’s violation of the INF treaty by testing that Yars-M (Rubezh) missile. Meanwhile, McKeon and Rogers continue to protest against further nuclear arms cuts and to criticize Russia for its noncompliance. They say the Obama administration has never addressed their concerns – neither publicly nor privately. Bill Gertz says more on that here.

Egyptians depose their dictator: When will America depose ours?

anonymousartofrevolution2The Egyptian people have spoken loudly. They were tired of the broken promises and the poor excuses. They were tired of the Muslim Brotherhood’s dictatorial ruling style and discriminatory practices against Christians and other non Muslims. They were tired of their President, Mohamed Morsi.

Millions upon millions of anti-Morsi protestors filled the streets of Cairo and demanded their authoritative dictator step down. When Morsi refused, he was forcibly removed from power by the Egyptian military.

So this brings me to this question. Can what happen in Egypt happen here in America? Should it happen here what would trigger it? Who will lead the revolution?

There is no question that what transpired in Egypt could also happen here in America. The question is will it happen and when? The Egyptian people had some of the very same grievances with their government as Americans have with ours.

The Egyptian people were tired of a government that ran roughshod over their rights. They were tired of a government that spent more money than they took in. They were tired of a government that borrowed money from other nations that future generations of Egyptians will have to figure out how to pay back.

Sound familiar?

The same thing is happening here in America. We have a President that has run roughshod over our Constitution. We have a President that has routinely gone over and around Congress by using an unprecedented amount of executive orders. We have a President that has repeatedly used intimidation tactics and targeted his political enemies. If Barack Obama is not a third world dictator then he should get an Oscar for his portrayal of one.

Like Mohamed Morsi, Barack Obama has presided over a bad economy and has made it much worse. He has spent trillions of dollars that future generations of Americans will somehow have to try to pay back and as a result has devalued our currency. Our faltering economy, high unemployment rates, and high energy costs are the same things the Egyptian people are also suffering from.

The sad truth is these two leaders have more in common than they do apart.

They both were educated in America. They both were former College Professors. They both have close associations with anti-American groups. The both have ties with radical groups and organizations that are hostile towards Israel. They both rose to power out of relative obscurity by promising some form of “hope and change”. They both have blamed their predecessors for their current failures.


A leftist is a leftist is a leftist, it doesn’t matter who they are or where they come from.

A radical leftist leader like our current President is the same as any other radical leftist leader in any other part of the world. They all believe in the same things and they all use the same tactics.

They capture the hearts and minds of the less educated voters in their countries and promise the minority factions special handouts and big government programs. They use lofty speeches and utopian platforms to mesmerize voters into thinking that they; and only they are the key to a brighter future and a better tomorrow. Finally, they use class warfare and identity politics along with the power of the labor unions to sway the persuadable middle voters to support their cause.

Since Barack Obama has been President our nation has never been more divided. Many Americans thought that his election would help race relations and bridge the gap between Whites and Blacks. The truth is the President blew a historic opportunity to culturally heal the nation but he failed. The President failed because he has purposely tried to divide us rather than unite us. He is nothing more than an oppressed minority with a chip on his shoulder who thinks every White person owes him an apology. The President is a radical, Communist sympathizing race baiter who is unfit to even hold the position of dog catcher let alone President.

Barack Obama has created The Divided States of America. Half the country is dependent upon the other half to make money for them so they do not have to work for it themselves. We are a fractured nation made up of makers (tax payers) and takers (dependents). The country will change once the government taxes the death out of the makers to a point where there is nothing left for the takers. When the takers realize that their government benefits and welfare checks have stopped coming there will be a revolution. When this happens you will see a similar situation unfold here in America just like what unfolded in Egypt.

Rebuttal of the WSJ’s garbage pro-disarmament screed


On June 19th, after Barack Obama’s infamous Berlin speech, the Wall Street Journal published an utterly ridiculous, irredeemably biased, and misleading article propagandizing in favor of Obama’s proposals to further cut America’s nuclear deterrent. The screed, written by extreme leftists Adam Entous and Julian Barnes, proves how far the WSJ has moved by now, and proves that the WSJ is no longer a respectable, credible publication.

The screed makes numerous utterly false claims, attempts to smear and demonize Republicans, and quotes only the claims and “arguments” of the supporters of cutting America’s deterrent. Only supporters of cuts are quoted or allowed any say; no opponents are quoted and no arguments against the cuts are cited.

In short, the article is nothing but a shameless propaganda screed masquerading as an objective article, and can have no purpose other than to brainwash and mislead the public.

The central lie of the article – and of the numerous nuclear cuts supporters it quotes – is that even after Obama’s newest round of cuts in America’s deterrent, the US will still have enough weapons to deter Russia, China, and others:

“A one-third cut would allow Washington and Moscow to lower the number of warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100 each, down from the New Start limit of 1,550. That still would leave them with more than enough warheads to deter any current or future adversary, said U.S. officials.

“The president determined that we can ensure the security of the United States, and our allies and partners, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear weapons from the level established in the New Start treaty,” a senior Obama administration official said of Mr. Obama’s message in the speech. (…)

The senior administration official said the disputes between the U.S. and Russia over Syria and missile defense shouldn’t affect talks over nuclear reductions because both the U.S. and Russia are acting based on what they see as their interests.

“If we both determine that it is in our interest to work together to reduce our arsenals even further, then we’ll move in that direction,” the official said. “I think that’s irrespective of other issues in the relationship.”

Advocates of further cuts say the number of warheads in the U.S. arsenal even after the proposed cuts would be more than sufficient to deter not only Russia but also a rising China, which has an inventory of 250 nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists and other organizations. (…)

“If you still have 1,100 weapons that is pretty good deterrence,” said one U.S. official.”

Those claims are blatant lies. 1,000-1,100 warheads would be utterly inadequate to deter Russia or China, let alone both at once. This is because, in order to deter, you need to be able to:

a) have enough weapons to credibly threaten the destruction of the vast majority of the enemy’s assets if he commits aggression; and

b) survive any enemy first strike to conduct retaliation.

And for that, a LARGE nuclear arsenal – far larger than a mere 1,000 warheads – is needed. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the US needs between 2,700 and 3,000 strategic and tactical nuclear warheads for effective deterrence.

Why is a large nuclear arsenal needed, and why will it always be needed?

Because both Russia and China have large arsenals, countering which will require far more than just 1,000 warheads. (China’s arsenal is far larger than the FAS claims – more about that below.)


Russia has 434 ICBMs, all of which except Topol and Topol-M missiles carry multiple warheads; collectively, they can deliver at least 1,259 warheads to the CONUS. 58 of these are “Satan” heavy ICBMs with 10 warheads and up to 38 countermeasures each. It has just fielded a road-mobile ICBM also capable of carrying 10 warheads: the Yars-M. Furthermore, it has 251 intercontinental bombers (63 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, 171 Tu-22Ms, though not all of them are combat-capable at all times) and 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III, 7 Delta IV, 1 Typhoon, 1 Borei class), all of which can carry 16 SLBMs. Each of these, in turn, can carry 4-12 warheads – the R-29M Sinyeva carrying four to ten, the SS-NX-30 Bulava ten, and the R-29RMU2 Liner twelve warheads each. Russia’s bombers can each carry 3-6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on its wings and one nuclear freeball bomb in the bay.

That’s just Russia’s strategic nuclear triad. Russia also has a vast tactical nuclear arsenal, consisting of, according to various estimates, up to 4,000 warheads. All of these are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including submarines, their cruise missiles, surface ships, artillery pieces, short-range missiles, and tactical strike aircraft.

Russia is now steadily growing and modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is developing several new ICBM types: the “Son of Satan” heavy ICBM (10 warheads), a rail-mobile ICBM, the “Avangard” ICBM, and a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range, in addition to the forementioned Yars-M now entering service. Moscow is also developing a new bomber type (due to enter service in 2020) and fielding a new class of up to ten Borei class SSBNs.

As numerous distinguished analysts have observed, Russia has significantly increased, not cut, its nuclear arsenal under New START, and Mark Schneider warns Moscow will actually deploy more strategic warheads than New START’s “notional limits” allow, and that New START places no limits on the size or payload (including number of warheads carried) of the Russian forces. It is also building up its Tu-160 bomber fleet from stockpiled components. And, the introduction of newer Bulava and Liner SLBMs, capable of carrying – as noted above – 10 and 12 warheads, respectively, will dramatically increase the warhead carriage capacity of its SSBN fleet.


As for China, contrary to the FAS’s and WSJ’s lies, it has far more nuclear weapons than just 250. Former Russian missile force Chief of Staff Gen. Viktor Yesin estimates (based on China’s fissile material stocks and Russian intelligence data) that China has 1,600 to 1,800 nuclear warheads, while former DOD chief nuclear strategist Professor Philip Karber estimates China has up to 3,000 warheads, based partly on its vast, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for strategic missiles and their warheads. (You don’t build such a vast network for only 250 warheads.) Reputed analysts such as John Tkacik and Frank Gaffney consider these figures credible.

To deliver its warheads, China has:

  • 36 DF-5 heavy ICBMs (capable of carrying up to 10 warheads each); over 30 DF-31/31A ICBMs (4 warheads each), 20 single-warhead DF-4 IRBMs, and some DF-41 heavy ICBMs (10 warheads each);
  • 6 ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying at least 12 ballistic missiles each, each missile carrying 4 warheads, thus making the Chinese navy able to deliver 288 warheads (6*12*4), and even more if their SSBNs can carry more than 12 missiles each;
  • 20 DF-3 and at least 80 (probably many more) DF-21 MRBMs, one warhead each;
  • 440 nuclear bombs for its 440 strike aircraft (Q-5, JH-7, H-6), and possibly nuclear warheads for the CJ-10A cruise missiles arming China’s H-6 bombers;
  • over 1,600 SRBMs (though most of them are probably conventionally-armed); and
  • a large quantity of ground-launched CJ-10 and DH-10 cruise missiles.

This writer estimated last year, very conservatively, that China has at least 1,274 immediately deliverable nuclear warheads – without counting ANY of China’s SRBMs or GLCMs as nuclear-armed. In any case, it is a blatant lie to claim China has only 250 warheads when China’s airforce alone has at least 440 nuclear bombs for its strike aircraft, a fact acknowledged by General Yesin.

Not only that, China is rapidly modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad. It is now introducing new DF-41 ICBMs, DF-25 MRBMs, and a sixth Jin class ballistic missile sub, and bombing

So no, America WILL NOT be able to maintain nuclear deterrence against either Russia and China if Obama gets to cut America’s arsenal further. Any claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.

And anyone claiming that, with a mere 1,000 warheads, the US will be able to deter “any current or future adversary” is a  fool or a congenital liar. How can anyone predict what capabilities and how many weapons will future adversaries have?

Nobody can accurately predict that. Nobody knows what the future holds.

Yet, the mission of America’s nuclear deterrent is to protect America and over 30 allies not just against the threats of today, but also those of the future. The larger your nuclear arsenal, the larger your margin of safety is.

Nobody who claims to support nuclear deterrence or to be concerned about current security and deterrence requirements can support further cuts in America’s deterrent. Cutting it – and thus weakening the US military – will only gravely  undermine deterrence and US and allied security.

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 WSJ screed further quotes disarmament supporters (and only them):

“”Action by the president to achieve further cuts to the Cold War nuclear arsenal is overdue and in our national security interest,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.”

Those are also blatant lies. As I have demonstrated above, if Obama cuts America’s barely-adequate nuclear arsenal further, the US will no longer be able to deter Russia and China, both of whom retain large nuclear arsenals, which they are growing, not cutting. Obama’s nuclear deterrent cuts will imperil America’s and its allies’ security.

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent is absolutely AGAINST America’s national security interest and is not “overdue” – it should never happen.

Moreover, Kimball – whose organization is funded by a plethora of extremely leftist groups to propagandize on behalf of disarming America unilaterally and is PAID TO LIE for the sake of disarming America – has shown he (like his bundlers) completely rejects any notion of peace through strength and subscribes to a notion of peace through weakness.

Of course, his claims – and the notions on which they’re based – are utterly wrong. It is military STRENGTH, not weakness, that brings about national security and peace. Weakness, including cutting one’s own nuclear deterrent, only brings about aggression, war, death, and destruction – as the US and numerous other countries have experienced throughout history.

The WSJ also claims that:

“Advocates of cuts say they would help save money as the Pentagon struggles to cope with deep, automatic spending cuts.

A 2013 assessment by the Arms Control Association estimated that the U.S. could save $58 billion over the next decade by reducing its nuclear force to 1,000 or fewer strategic deployed nuclear warheads.”

But those claims are also utterly false. Cutting the nuclear deterrent would “save” only pennies and thus would not help the DOD cope with deep defense budget cuts at all – while inviting a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike.

The ACA’s own $58 billion figure is not only vastly exaggerated, but also decennial: it talks about “savings” over 10 years.  divided by 10 years is just $5.8 bn per year – only a drop in the bucket. Remember that under sequestration, the DOD is obligated to cut its budget by a whopping $55 bn EVERY YEAR.

The cuts Obama and the ACA would save close to nothing – while gutting America’s nuclear deterrent.

The WSJ article (not people quoted in it, but the article’s authors themselves) claims that:

“Calling for a significant cut in the size of the nuclear arsenal will lend Mr. Obama’s remarks historical significance.”

But if these remarks will have any historical significance, it will be because his speech will go down as one of the most shameful moments in American history – when a sitting US president blatantly lied and called for unilaterally disarming his own country.

The WSJ article also falsely claims that:

“Mr. Obama has made reducing the size of global nuclear arsenals a priority of his administration, but the effort stalled after the 2010 treaty. Mr. Obama struggled to get the treaty ratified. Republicans in Congress demanded a costly nuclear-modernization program and have made clear they oppose additional warhead reductions.”

Oh, those dastardly Congressional Republicans! How dare they demand that what is left of America’s arsenal is modernized instead of atrophying through neglect!

The fact is that the modernization Republicans demanded would not be costly at all. Modernizing the B61 warhead will cost only 10 bn over several years, for example. A new ICBM could cost only 70 mn.

The real reason why Obama’s effort to “reduce the size of global nuclear arsenals” has stalled is because NOBODY except Obama’s America wants to disarm themselves. Not Russia, which rejected Obama’s arsenal cuts proposal shortly after it was made. Not China, which refuses to even talk about its arsenal, let alone accept any limitations on it. Not North Korea, which continues to grow and perfect its nuclear arsenal and threaten the US and its allies. Not India and Pakistan, hostile to each other and desiring to retain their nukes. Not Israel, which is surrounded by enemies on all sides. Not even Britain or France, whose nuclear arsenals’ importance will only grow as America cuts its own.

THAT is why Obama’s effort has gone nowhere – because nobody else is crazy enough to disarm themselves.

There will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons. NEVER. Obama will never succeed in getting other nations to disarm themselves – because nobody else is crazy enough to do so.

And the reason why Obama “struggled” to get New START ratified is because it was never, and is not, in America’s national interests – it undermines US national security, contains dozens of huge loopholes, and allows Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal – which it has been doing since New START ratification.

The WSJ also falsely claims that Obama can make further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent without any Congressional oversight:

“Nuclear-arms experts said Mr. Obama doesn’t need to wait for a formal follow-on treaty to move on new reductions. The two presidents instead could achieve similar results, more rapidly, through parallel, reciprocal reductions of strategic warheads to well below 1,000 within the next five years. (…)

… the White House hasn’t ruled out an alternative approach of seeking parallel, reciprocal reductions that could be undertaken by both governments without a treaty, eliminating the need for Senate ratification.”

That is also patently false. Section 2573 of Title 22 of the US Code states that ANY agreement limiting the US armed forces, armaments, or weapon inventories must be drafted as a treaty and thus submitted to the Senate for ratification. No ifs, no buts, no ands. Obama is obligated by law to submit such agreement to the Senate.

Thus, any cuts Obama makes to America’s nuclear deterrent without a formal Senate-approved treaty would be utterly illegal and grounds for impeachment, in addition to being treasonous.

Moreover, without a treaty and a strong verification protocol, such cuts would be utterly unverifiable, making it highly likely that Russia would cheat and not make any cuts at all. Historically, Moscow has NEVER complied with any arms reduction treaties it has signed.

The WSJ screed is irredeemably biased

But the numerous blatant lies stated in the article aren’t the only reason why it’s a scandalous screed. It’s also because the authors, clearly taking sides, quoted only ONE side of the issue – the side favoring further cuts in America’s arsenal – while not asking any opponents of further cuts to voice their opinion. Nobody from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Hudson Institute, the NIPP, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, or any other non-extremely-leftist institution has been asked to comment.

Nor does the article cite any arguments against the cuts, even though there are many. The article barely mentions the concerns of some of America’s allies:

“Some European officials voiced concerns that Russia won’t reciprocate with equal warhead reductions and will balk at cutting its tactical-nuclear-weapons arsenal. Russia maintains some 2,000 tactical nuclear bombs, many of which are on obsolete naval and air-defense systems, according to an analysis by the Arms Control Association, which advocates for reductions in the nuclear arsenal. The U.S., in turn, keeps 180 aircraft-delivered nuclear bombs in Europe.”

And by gushing about the speech’s “historical significance”, the authors clearly betrayed their bias in favor of the deep cuts Obama plans to make.

In short, their screed is irredeemably biased, highly misleading, contains a litany of blatant lies, and clearly serves only one purpose: to brainwash the public into supporting Obama’s unilateral disarmament of America.

EDIT: To be fair, the WSJ’s editors, by contrast, penned an editorial criticizing Barack Obama’s disarmament plans and pointing out – quite rightly – that his legacy will be a world with more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states in it.

Help STOP Obama’s unilateral nuclear disarmament of the US


As everyone should know by now, Barack Obama intends to disarm the United States unilaterally and has already taken substantial steps in that direction. He has signed, and rammed through the Senate (in the twilight days of the 111th Congress) the New START treaty requiring unilateral cuts in America’s deployed nuclear arsenal and the fleet of delivery systems, while allowing Russia to grow its own arsenals of these. He has unilaterally withdrawn nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from US Navy ships and submarines – without Russia or anyone else reciprocating. He has banned the development of any new nuclear weapons, or even upgrades to current ones, cut funding for the service life extension of existing ones, and cancelled plans to develop a new ICBM. He has prohibited current USAF ICBMs to carry more than 1 warhead each, while both Russia and China have multiple-warhead ICBMs.

Obama deceptively claims that he wants to create a “world without nuclear weapons” (a fantasy that will never exist), and he has repeteadly repeated that claim. But let’s put aside for the moment even the fact that there will never be a world without nuclear weapons because these weapons are so powerful and so attractive (and what is powerful is automatically attractive), and the fact that NO ONE is following him on his imaginary road to “nuclear zero.” He couldn’t care less.

The goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” isn’t just “distant”; it’s utterly unrealistic and ridiculous.

The world is not “moving towards nuclear zero”; it isn’t even on the beginning of the road to nuclear zero, and never will be. The world (other than Obama’s America) is going in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE direction: more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states.

Obama’s legacy will not be “a world without nuclear weapons”, or even a planet going in that direction. Obama’s legacy will be a planet going in the exactly opposite direction, and quite possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran.

Obama also deceptively claims that his unilateral cuts will enhance “nuclear security” and strategic stability and stem nuclear proliferation.

But cutting America’s nuclear deterrent – especially unilaterally – will only UNDERMINE security and stability by weakening America’s deterrent while Russia’s and China’s arsenals remain large and modern (and keep growing), and ENCOURAGE nuclear proliferation by both friend and foe – allies will no longer trust America’s nuclear umbrella and will develop their own arsenals, while enemies like Iran will only be emboldened to develop nuclear arsenals – since America’s deterrent will be smaller, weaker, and thus easier to destroy in a first strike. Fewer nuclear weapons equal fewer consequences of attacking the US or its allies.

Make no mistake: Obama’s unilateral disarmament of the US has nothing to do with “global zero”, and everything to do with simply disarming the US unilaterally and making it easier for America’s enemies to attack the US.

As a part of that unilateral disarmament, the Obama administration is now seriously considering, and will likely decide to, eliminate an entire Air Force ICBM wing – 150 missiles! It is not known which wing will it be – the one based at Minot AFB, ND, at Malmstrom AFB, MT, or at Francis E. Warren AFB. But they are now conducting an Environmental Impact Statement, the first step in the process.

The Obama administration deceptively and falsely claims it’s just an “implementation of the New START treaty.” But that is completely false. New START does not require cutting an entire ICBM wing with 150 missiles, or any further deep cuts on this scale.

Make no mistake: Obama is planning to make further deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent over and above those required by New START. That treaty, however damaging it is by itself to US national security, has nothing to do with the planned elimination of 150 ICBMs.

How do we know? Because in 2010, shortly before New START was ratified, then Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed what the force structure would be under New START limits: 420 ICBMs, 58 nuclear-armed B-52s, 20 B-2s, and 14 or fewer ballistic missile submarines with 20 or fewer missile tubes per boat.

Currently, the US has 450 ICBMs. Under the treaty, the remaining 30 ICBMs were to be decommissioned and put in storage, but not dismantled.

So under New START, America was required to cut its ICBM fleet by only 30 missiles – not 150, which is five times that much!

And contrary to the claims of pro-disarmament organizations, such cuts would save very little: only about $360 mn per year even according to ACA estimates. So eliminating 150 ICBMs would save close to nothing while deeply and unilaterally cutting the cheapest, most reliable, and most responsive leg of the nuclear triad, which has readiness levels of around 96-99% at any time.

But it gets worse. While Obama has been unilaterally cutting America’s nuclear deterrent, and plans to continue doing so, Russia and China have been building their arsenals up.

Russia is building up its nuclear arsenal – and the arsenal of delivery system – and has been doing so since New START’s ratification in early 2011. Before that treaty was ratified, Russia was below its ceilings of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 800 delivery systems per side.

But since then, Russia has built up to New START levels, as State Department data exchanges show – and as was precisely Russia’s goal and was promised by Russian leaders, including then-Defense Minister Anatoliy Syerdyukov, who correctly told Russia’s parliament that Moscow wouldn’t have to decommission a single warhead or delivery system.

Russia, as veteran journalist Bill Gertz writes in more detail, is in the midst of a massive nuclear (and conventional) military buildup. It is currently growing its arsenal of both warheads and delivery systems. It’s currently developing several different ICBM types: a road-mobile “Yars-M” ICBM, a rail-mobile one, a heavy liquid-fueled ICBM called “the Son of Satan” (slated to replace the famous SS-18 Satan), the “Avangard”, a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range (in violation of the INF Treaty), and another ICBM mentioned recently by Deputy Premier Dmitry Rogozin (it might be one of those previously mentioned ICBMs).

Concurrently, Russia is developing a next-generation strategic bomber, a next-gen cruise missile for its bombers (the Kh-102) and for its submarines (the Koliber[1]), and deploying a new class of ballistic missile subs (the Borei class) with a new type of sub-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava, or SS-NX-30 in NATO nomenclature, with 10 warheads). It is also modernizing its already large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems (artillery pieces, Su-34 tactical strike jets, SS-26 Stone SRBMs, etc.) and growing its fleet of Tu-160 bombers with production from stockpiled parts.

Also, Russia’s current-generation Bulava and Liner submarine-launched ballistic missiles can carry far more warheads (10 and 12, respectively) than previous generations of Russian SLBMs, such as the Sinyeva (R-29M). So Russia will be able to, and will, load more warheads on each of those new SLBMs.

Overall, Russia’s strategic nuclear triad currently has:

a) 434 ICBMs, all but 171 of which can deliver multiple warheads;

b) 14 ballistic missile subs with 16-20 intercontinental missiles each (and each can carry up to 12 warheads, depending on missile type); and

c) 251 intercontinental bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, and Tu-22Ms).

Overall, Russia is estimated by the Federation of American Scientists to have 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads – deployed and nondeployed. Keep in mind that all of the above numbers – of missiles, bombers, and warheads – will only grow over time, and with them, the nuclear threat to America and its allies, and thus, the need for an American nuclear deterrent.

Moscow is not only growing its arsenal but also becoming more aggressive as well. In the last 12 months, Russia has practiced simulated nuclear bomber strikes on US missile defense facilities five times, each time flying dangerously close to US or allied airspace, and three times flying into Air Defense Identification Zones – forcing US or allied fighters to scramble. For more, see here and here.

“Who told you that the Cold War was ever over? It transforms; it is like a virus,” said Russian KGB/FSB defector Sergei Tretyakov in an interview with FOX News in 2009.

And yet, Obama wants to disarm America unilaterally in the face of such an aggressive Russia wielding thousands of nuclear weapons!

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 by Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

How can the US sign any deals with Moscow, and believe anything the Kremlin says, when it doesn’t comply with its existing treaty obligations?

In addition, Russia is developing missile defenses – the same kind of defensive stuff which Russia doesn’t want the US to deploy – which would help Russia mop up the few remaining US missiles that might survive a Russian nuclear first strike.

China has a far larger nuclear arsenal than the Obama administration admits – at least 1,600, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and enough delivery systems to deliver at least 1,274… without even counting its SRBMs or ground-lauched cruise missiles, that is. With these systems, China could deliver thousands of warheads.

China has at least 86 ICBMs (36 DF-5s, at least 30 DF-31/31As, 20 DF-4s, and an unknown number of DF-41s), all of them multiple-warhead excluding the DF-4s; 6 ballistic missile submarines with at least 12 multiple-warhead missiles each; 440 nuclear-capable strike aircraft (H-6[1], Q-5, JH-7) capable of carrying both nuclear bombs and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles; and at least 100 DF-21 and DF-3 MRBMs. For local nuclear strikes, it has over 1,600 short-range BMs and hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles like the DH-10 and CJ-10.

Overall, former Russian strategic missile force chief of staff Gen. Viktor Yesin estimates China to have at least 1,600-1,800 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for 3,600, while former DOD chief nuclear strategist Dr Philip Karber, now a Georgetown University professor, estimates China to have 3,000 warheads.

China itself continually refuses to disclose the size of its arsenal while deceptively claiming it has a “minimum deterrence” policy. Deception, of course, is what ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu advised.[3]

So while America’s potential adversaries are growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, Obama is deeply and unilaterally cutting America’s own. What term would you use to describe such behavior?

Please call your Congressman and both of your senators and tell them they MUST support the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2014 (H.R. 1960) with the Rogers Amendment in it. The Rogers Amendment, authored by Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the widely-respected chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, will prohibit Obama from cutting the US nuclear arsenal any further unless a new arms reduction treaty, requiring proportional cuts in Russia’s arsenal, is ratified OR Congress itself consents to cutting the nuclear deterrent.

Also please tell your Congressman and both of your Senators to go further and pass a firm, TOTAL ban on ANY further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, absent a decision by Congress itself. No more one-sided New START treaties.

Please tell them that you will NEVER, EVER vote for them again if they fail to support such important legal protections of America’s nuclear umbrella, which is the best nonproliferation tool ever invented.

And lastly, if your Congressman is Mike Rogers of Alabama, or one of the Republicans who voted for his amendment in committee, please contact his office to thank him.


[1] Called the Kalibr in other sources.

[2] I conservatively count each of China’s 160 H-6 bombers as being capable of delivering only one warhead, even though some of these bombers – namely, those of the H-6K variant – can deliver at least 6 nuclear-tipped ICBMs over a distance of 4,400 kms. The bomber’s own combat radius is 2,200 kms, and the missile has its own additional range of another 2,200 kms.

[3] Indeed, Sun Tzu wrote that all warfare is based on deception.

Rebuttal of Obama’s latest lies on nuclear weapons


On June 19th, in Berlin, speaking to a crowd of German pacifists, Barack Obama delivered a cretinous speech calling for the total nuclear disarmament of the United States and for creating a fantasy “world without nuclear weapons”. Indeed, disarming the US completely has been his goal since the beginning of his presidency.

Obama claims that such world is realistically achievable and would be more peaceful and more secure than the current world; that cutting the US nuclear arsenal – even unilaterally – and refusing to modernize what remains of this arsenal is the way to achieve it; and that if the US disarms itself, other countries will follow suit and be nice enough to disarm themselves, too – they will be convinced by “the power of America’s moral example” and “American leadership.”

All of that is utter garbage.

Firstly, despite Obama’s deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, NOBODY is following his “example” and “moral leadership” – because nobody cares about them. Other countries, including Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan, care only about their military power and their national interests. In fact, they (correctly) see America’s unilateral disarmament as a sign of weakness. That makes them more likely to build up, rather than cut or dismantle, their own arsenals.

As even Jimmy Carter’s SECDEF, Harold Brown (himself a nuclear scientists who designed some of America’s warheads), says, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Indeed, Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are presently all GROWING and MODERNIZING their arsenals, as are India and probably Israel, while Iran relentlessly continues pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea has even explicitly announced it will grow its arsenal, saying so AFTER the latest crisis and AFTER Obama’s latest Berlin promise to cut America’s further.

Even the pacifist Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Danish pacifist Hans Kristensen (now blogging for FAS) admit that all other nuclear powers are currently modernizing their nuclear arsenals (Kristensen even speaks of “rampant modernization”) and utterly refuse to scrap or even cut these arsenals. SIPRI also admits that China is growing its nuclear stockpile, but vastly understates it at just 250 warheads.

Real experts, like former DOD chief nuclear strategist Dr Philip Karber and retired Russian general Viktor Yesin estimate that China has at least 1,600-1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, not the 240-400 often claimed by Western disarmament advocates – representing massive growth since the 1980s.

What’s more, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India refuse to even discuss signing any arms limitation treaties, let alone opening their arsenals to inspection or admitting how many weapons they have!

What’s more, China is hiding much of its arsenal in a network of 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers!

And now, according to Russian and American analysts alike, including Vasiliy Kashin and Foreign Policy’s John Reed, China is developing a stealthy intercontinental bomber that could strike the continental US. The Chinese air force has even created mockup models of this bomber. Hardly signs of China willing to disarm itself.

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 by Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

NOBODY is following Obama’s pointless, useless example – because they know that unilateral disarmament is a road to inviting aggression and subjugation, a road to disaster – not to security and peace. Only Obama doesn’t realize that – or he does, and is disarming America unilaterally and deliberately precisely to invite aggression against America.

The goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” isn’t just “distant”; it’s utterly unrealistic and ridiculous.

The world is not “moving towards nuclear zero”; it isn’t even on the beginning of the road to nuclear zero, and never will be. The world (other than Obama’s America) is going in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE direction: more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states.

Obama’s legacy will not be “a world without nuclear weapons”, or even a planet going in that direction. Obama’s legacy will be a planet going in the exactly opposite direction, and quite possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran.

Obama has asked Putin to agree to further nuclear arsenal reductions. But Putin’s Russia continually and stubbornly refuses – because it knows it is military strength, not weakness, that brings about security, peace, and global influence. It is also loathe to cut its nuclear arsenal while China retains its own large stockpile – as the Kremlin even pointed out in its reaction to Obama’s proposal.

Since Putin came to power, Russia has been steadily rebuilding its arsenal. Under the widely touted New START treaty, Russia was allowed to build up its nuclear arsenal – both the warheads and the delivery systems – and has done exactly that, and continues to do so to this day.

Currently, Russia has 434 multiple-warhead ICBMs (collectively capable of delivering 1,684 warheads to the US), 251 intercontinental bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M) capable of delivering 7 warheads each, 14 ballistic missile submarines (16-20 missiles each, each missile capable of carrying 4-12 warheads depending on the missile type), 2,800 strategic warheads for the forementioned systems, and up to 4,000 tactical warheads deliverable by a wide range of systems: tactical aircraft (Su-24/25/34), short-range missiles, submarines, cruise missiles, surface ships, artillery pieces, etc.

Russia is not just modernizing, but building up its nuclear arsenal. It is producing additional ICBMs and bombers and producing newer sub-launched missiles (Liner and Bulava) capable of carrying far more warheads than previous generations of missiles. Likewise, its land-based road-mobile Yars-M ICBMs can carry 10 warheads, versus only 1 for previous generation Topol missiles.

And yet, Obama has prohibited US ICBMs from carrying more than 1 warhead each!

So under Obama’s policies, Russia is not cutting anything. The US is the only country in the world cutting its nuclear arsenal.

Moscow is also developing an intermediate range ballistic missile in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces  Treaty, which prohibits such development.

In addition, Russia is developing missile defenses – the same kind of defensive stuff which Russia doesn’t want the US to deploy – which would help Russia mop up the few remaining US missiles that might survive a Russian nuclear first strike.

Russia absolutely refuses to even consider any cuts to its arsenal (indeed, it categorically rejected Obama’s proposal immediately after he made it); if it agrees to a new treaty, it – like New START – will require cuts only in America’s arsenal, i.e. America’s unilateral disarmament. No wonder Obama plans to do so by “executive agreement” without Senate ratification; he knows even the current Senate, even with 54 Democrats, is unlikely to ratify such treaty. So he plans to (illegally) avoid the Senate altogether, making it irrelevant. (And the Senate allows him to do so.)

Meanwhile, America’s allies around the world, from South Korea to Japan to Europe are all becoming increasingly worried and are now seriously mulling developing their own nuclear weapons. 66.5% of South Koreans already want to do so. Japan has recently opened a facility allowing it to produce enough material for 3,600 warheads if need be.

So NOBODY is reciprocating Obama’s unilateral cuts. NOBODY. This is what always happens when one makes unilateral cuts in one’s own arsenal; the same has happened everytime America tried unilateral cuts, including the 1970s, 1990s, and early 2000s. Since the Cold War’s end, the US has reduced its nuclear arsenal by over 75%*; nobody has reciprocated. Russia agreed to some cuts during the 1990s, when it was weak; it is now steadily building its arsenal up.

So we know very well what the result will be if Obama cuts America’s arsenal further: nobody will reciprocate. America will get much weaker and much less secure, and the world much less peaceful, as a result, contrary to Obama’s blatant lies.

And contrary to his blatant lies stated in Berlin, a US arsenal cut further by a whopping 1/3 – to just 1,000 warheads – will be woefully inadequate to provide for nuclear deterrence, given Russia’s and China’s large arsenals, North Korea’s nascent one, and Iran’s nuclear program. This will leave US allies no choice but to develop their own arsenals.

It is military STRENGTH, not weakness and disarmament, that makes a nation safe. Cutting one’s own weapon arsenals only makes one weaker and less secure. This is especially true with nuclear weapons – a business in which no margin of risk is acceptable.

There is absolutely no reason at all to cut America’s nuclear arsenal any further, ESPECIALLY not now, when all potential adversaries – Russia, China, and North Korea – are all steadily building up and modernizing their arsenals of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, and when Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. It would be decidedly AGAINST America’s national security interest.

Obama falsely claims a world without nuclear weapons would be more peaceful and secure. That is also utterly false. The world actually was “nuclear-free” from the dawn of humanity until 1945 – and yet, that didn’t prevent the bloodiest, most destructive wars in human history from happening: the Peloponesian War, the Punic Wars, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the two World Wars. 60 million people died in WW2 alone.

All of human history prior to 1945 is one of incessant wars between the world’s great powers. But since 1945, the advent of nukes, there has been NO war between the great powers (US, Russia, Britain, France, China).

And it didn’t happen by accident or pure luck. It happened because nuclear weapons are here – they’re restraining the world’s leading powers far more effectively than treaties or the useless UN.

Eliminating nuclear weapons would mean eliminating the sole meaningful restraint on the great powers – one that forces them to coexist rather than fight each other. A restraint that has never failed, not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when US nuclear deterrence and the naval quarantine of Cuba forced Khrushchev to back down.

A world without nuclear weapons would be the pre-1945 world, with no restraint on the great powers, which would feel free to go at each other’s throats again. It would be far less secure and peaceful than today’s world.

But fear not, such a world will never exist.

As I stated above, none of the world’s nuclear powers, other than Obama’s America, is cutting its arsenal or is willing to disarm itself. NOBODY is following Obama’s “lead” to “Global Zero.” Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel are all building up.

So a world without nuclear weapons will NEVER exist. N-E-V-E-R. (Unless even more powerful, and cheaper, weapons are invented – in which case the Left will move on to prohibit America and her allies from developing them while not opposing their acquisition by America’s adversaries.) No amount of willpower or wishful thinking will change that fact.

“A world without nuclear weapons” is an utter, childish fantasy, just like a world without hunger, thirst, disease, or crime. It will never happen.

Unfortunately, it is possible to create a world without AMERICAN nuclear weapons – and that is what Traitor Obama really intends to do, by disarming America unilaterally.

He must be stopped at all costs. Congress should attach a firm and total PROHIBITION on any further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent – whether unilaterally, by “executive agreement”, or by treaty. Period. Any lawmaker who does not support such prohibition must be voted out of office. Period. Additionally, Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

Do not allow Obama to mislead you, Dear Readers: his unilateral disarmament of America will impress nobody and will only encourage adversaries to build up their arsenals and to commit aggression against America and its allies. And it will certainly not lead to a world without nuclear weapons – which will never exist.

*This 75% cut in America’s nuclear arsenal since 1991 also utterly disproves Obama’s false claim that the US still relies on “Cold War postures” – had that been true, which it isn’t, the US would’ve still kept over 20,000 nuclear weapons.

Obama Calls For End To Catholic Schools—“Too Divisive”

obama-catholicsThe “Scottish Observer” reports while Obama is in Northern Ireland he addressed a group:

President Barack Obama (above), repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division in front of an audience of 2000 young people, including many Catholics, at Belfast’s Waterfront hall when he arrived in the country this morning.

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

The US politician made the unfounded claim despite a top Vatican official spelling out the undeniable good done by Catholic education in a speech in Glasgow on Saturday and in his homily at Mass on Friday.

Archbishop Gerhard Müller (below), prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, told an audience in Scotland that Catholic education provided a rare place where ‘intellectual training, moral discipline and religious commitment would come together’ while giving the presitigous Cardinal Winning Lecture on Saturday to officially launch the St Andrews Foundation for Catholic teacher education at Glasgow University. During Mass at St Andrew’s Cathedral, Glasgow, on Friday night he said that ‘the Catholic school is vitally important … a critical component of the Church,’ adding that Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to ‘grow up with Jesus.’

Hmmm, I guess Muslim schools etc don’t cause division?  He stated that “peace” comes from empathy and some other liberal propaganda regurgitated talking points.  ITS all goes back to that secular humanism, which MAN is his own “god”.  Peace can only come from “MAN” meshing all religions ultimately into a “One World Religion, all genders, so we are gender “neutral”, everything with any semblemce of Natural Law or God given Right and making it into what MAN decides it should be—not what God created IT to be.   To see the video click this link


Killing Freedom

Stabbing Freedom 



The fact America won the War of Independence should have everyone thankful: If Jefferson didn’t dissent, every American would talk like the prissy wanna’-be queen Piers Morgan.

Now that I’ve scared the crap out of conservative-minded readers with that thought, let’s wake up and face facts.

The reality that the government has reverted back in time to British troop tactics by confiscating your personal information on whim should have every American deeply troubled.

Are you free to speak out against your government? The Constitution says yes.

Are you free to embarrass the government and make it accountable for injustices? The Constitution says yes. The IRS, Progressives and Obama say no.

The IRS harasses conservative organizations standing up against the Sixteenth Amendment and Christian organizations feeding and doctoring the poor. It seems the CIA and NSA have been given full authority to wiretap everyone’s phone calls and internet conversations, rather than monitoring enemies only.

NSA and CIA information gathering is not those harmless, annoying pop up ads caused by internet services collecting information on your purchases. Internet services are allowed to share (not to sell your information) to companies looking for customers. Technically that doesn’t confer your personal information since you already gave your phone, address and e-mail to your server provider. Internet services can only share catch phrases and key words from places you shop and share that with companies bearing those words in their titles or descriptions. The most annoying thing that comes from sharing of information is computer pop-ups and ads.

Don’t grab the tin foil people. If you shop on line, your transaction is not completely private, because you are freely, openly shopping with companies. This sharing doesn’t allow internet servers or companies to give IRS information to invade banking records and transactions, tap phone calls and treat Americans like terrorists–rather than actually tracking terrorists before they blow up Boston streets or fly planes into New York and Washington, D.C. buildings.

Unfortunately, that is what the government is forcing some phones and internet services to do: Hand your information over to government.

And you thought powdered wigs went out!

Over two centuries-ago our Founders declared independence against Britain by signing Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. The accomplishment was considered treason against the crown. But technically that undertaking only broke the Divine Right of the King, which was authorized only by kings, not God or the people. King George violated the Magna Carta, therefore, Jefferson and the Founders had every right to dissent and address King George’s infringement against the Rights of Man.

Brits invading colonists


We’ve lived peacefully, respecting the Constitution for centuries, yet government does the opposite to Americans and the Constitution..

The government is less interested in doing its job: Upholding the Constitution and serving the people.Washington is more interested in expanding power and authority over the people.

We are once again under siege by government wielding unwritten rights to impose its will against us. 

FBI v libertarians cartoon

This is why Thomas Jefferson drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence: To stand up to government abuses against the rights of man written in the Magna Carta.


Magna Carta

We have reentered the era where We The People must stand up in the fashion of Patrick Henry and declare as he did:

Paine painting

This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.


Americans are well aware  CIA and NSA wire tapping is nothing new. America must be on guard against the enemy, we expect the government to watch and prevent threats.

Before the Patriot Act, America had FISA. Before that, World War II and Cold War era watched enemies within the United States. Why; communists infiltrated the American government: The communists Rosenberg Soviets   sold our Atomic Secrets to the Soviets: 

In 1995, the CIA released ‘the Venona Cables’ [the] decoded Soviet communications that document, along with other espionage doings, the antics of Julius and Ethel. Khrushchev himself mentions the Rosenbergs in his memoirs, identifying them as spies for Russia.


The Rosenbergs got what they deserved, yet conservative Americans are now treated as threats while threats are ignored.

Americans want government to catch the bad guys; yet, the CIA and NSA have failed to prevent  some deadly attacks, because government focuses on Americans purchasing American flags and donating to tea party organizations and demands we tolerate enemies.

Case in point: Mohammad Atta came to America for flying lessons. He learned to fly planes—but not land them—in order to bomb cities by crashing jets into buildings. Flight instructors warned the FBI, but Janet Reno and Operation Able Danger ignored the 1999 findings on Atta.

Reno forbade FBI confiscation of Atta’s lap top: It might violate Atta’s Civil Rights. Reno gave Atta privacy privileges; Atta violated 3000 human rights.

Law-abiding Americans are harassed, not enemies, despite government having legal ways of weeding out enemies. The government despises conservative Americans speaking out against government. The IRS harasses and threatens Tea Party and Christian organizations, but never Islamist living inside America, who all pose threats to this nation: Islam demands liberty be destroyed in favor of Islamic Sharia law and Islamic takeover.

Yet many turn a blind eye, assuming government is supposed to have full authority over our lives. If that’s true, why do Americans demand rights to do as they please with their bodies and possessions? Answer: Natural Rights are instilled at birth.

 Iris and cameras

We ignored government so long; it entered our homes and has become the monster hiding under the bed. 

Patrick Henry warned:

We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?

What else is government doing to us? Should we continue going along blindly, assuming everything is well when we see Americans pleading with Congress against abuses incurred by government agencies targeting anyone taking a stand for liberty and freedom?  We have Fourth Amendment rights, but rights mean nothing to a government that assumes it has unwritten authority and control to make us serve it with a by-your-leave.

Chained hands

The modern day government violates the United States Constitution in every way by overreaching into the states and people’s lives that locked doors and four walls no longer protect. When will we all stand up and declare:

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Getting Hammered Radio – Friday, June 14, 2013



When: Friday, June 14, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: LIVE from Casa de Hammy, join Stevie and Steve as they sort thru this whole Snowden / NSA mess (weren’t we just talking about Benghazi ad the IRS? Ignore the man behind the curtain!). Bailey Connell (@BailofRights) and Mandy Nagy (@Liberty_Chick) join us to figure it all out.

Plus…#HotConChicks? We’ve got a list too!! Who says there’s only one Top 10?? So, grab a cold one and get ready for the show…cause it’s Friday night…and we’re Getting Hammered!!! :)

Getting Hammered Radio – Friday, June 7, 2013



When: Friday, June 7, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: We’re not letting some Tropical Storm keep us down…we’re having a HURRICANE PARTY at Casa de Hammy’s!!! So join Stevie and Steve tonight with their guests Kira Davis (@KiraAynDavis) and Mike Gannon (@MikeCGannon), along with Elisha (@Planet_Rawr), the one and only #HotConNewsDeskChick.

It’s Friday Night, the wind is blowing, and the BAR IS OPEN…batten down the hatches and pop open a cold one ’cause…we’re GETTING HAMMERED! :)

The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda

“Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.”
— John Adams

The number of scandals involving the encroachment of the Obama Administration into – and onto – the constitutional rights of American citizens is beyond stunning. And it is without question criminal in many cases. But with an Attorney General seated who – as a practice – routinely tries to manipulate the limits of the law to affect an ideological agenda, and a federal “classification system” that keeps those elected to represent us in Congress from bringing issues of government instituted malfeasance to light, what recourse is left the American citizen?

These encroachments against the United States Constitution are the product of over one-hundred years of Progressive political advances in the area of government. Put succinctly, two of the founding principles of the Progressive Movement; two of the “givens” held in understanding by each and every Progressive, are that: a) Progressives are enlightened; intellectually superior to the masses; and, b) that through centralized government, Progressives can help the masses help themselves to a better life, regardless of whether they want it or not. Once these two facts are understood, you can begin to understand some of the declarations made by Mr. Obama and his spokespeople about the many scandals – or what We the People perceive to be scandals – surrounding the Obama Administration.

According to R.J. Pestritto, the Charles & Lucia Shipley Chair in the American Constitution at Hillsdale College and author of American Progressivism, ““America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.”

Jonah Goldberg writes of Pestritto’s examination of the Progressive Movement in Liberal Fascism:

“They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted ‘a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.’

“In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand.

“…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

“This perspective dovetailed with the progressives’ notion of an ‘evolving’ or ‘living’ government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term ‘living Constitution,’ connoting the idea that the US Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles — a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.”

On the subject of the Obama “scandals” the key words here are “…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives” and “…whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.”

In each of the perceived scandals, the Progressives of the Obama Administration justify their actions through those eyes. They see the situations as being too complex for the average American to understand, too emotionally disturbing for them to fathom; the need for constitutional transgression in their quest for the “fundamental transformation” of America too great. And so they deceive their political opposition – and the American public – about their actions, reasons, intentions and goals.

This understood, it is easy to see why, after myriad transgressions against the Constitution and the mission of the Justice Department itself, Mr. Obama declares that he still has “confidence” in Eric Holder. He needs Eric Holder in the senior-most law enforcement position so that he can unilaterally achieve his Progressive agenda through a totalitarian Executive Branch; so he can achieve the “fundamental transformation” of our country through, Executive Order and regulation, especially regulation – legislation through regulation.

It is for this reason – unilateral fundamental transformation – that Progressives have sought to grow our federal government to its current behemoth size; a bureaucratic labyrinth filled with “career” public servants (an oxymoron?) and interminable political appointees whose entire existence is to move the American political center incrementally to the Left; a task they have been achieving with regularity since the days of Wilson and Roosevelt.

It is for this particular reason – it is for this particular governmental mechanism: the bureaucracy – that Mr. Obama will not be directly linked to any of these so-called scandals (scandals in the eyes of all those who revere the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but not as much to Progressives). The entire Progressive Movement has culminated in this moment in time. They truly believe it is their time. Progressives believe that because they have achieved a twice elected hyper-Progressive president – disregarding the retention of the US House of Representatives by Republicans and ignoring the many governorships that went “Red” last election – that they have a mandate, not for Mr. Obama’s “programs,” but for the complete transformation of our governmental system from that of a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy based on the now failed models of Europe.

In each scandal there is a bureaucratic figurehead that insulates Mr. Obama from direct responsibility. In the IRS scandal we have Lois Lerner and Douglas Schulman. In the Fast & Furious and AP/FOX scandal there is Eric Holder. In Benghazi there were Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton…and dead men tell no tales. In each instance, Mr. Obama has a dedicated and loyal “useful idiot” who will fall on his/her sword for the “good of the movement.” It is assumed they will, just as it was assumed they would execute their actions of transgressions against the Constitution and liberty itself, with fidelity to “the cause” and without a direct order ever being given.

As We the People watch the “scandals” of the Obama reign unfold, we need to understand that even though Progressives believe this is “their time,” it would have been “their time” regardless of who was in the White House. Was it easier to execute with the first “Black” president in the White House, someone whose constitutionally destructive actions Progressives could defend with a claim of “racism” toward his detractors? Sure, it made it easier, but it would have happened anyway, and it would have happened because of two reasons: a) the public has become apathetic towards their duty to be accurately informed and engaged, and b) the bureaucracy was in place.

Unless We the People insist on the decentralization of government, a viciously executed reduction in the size of the federal government and a radical transformation of the federal tax code to a limited flat tax, FAIR tax or consumption tax, nothing will change with the 2016 elections, regardless of which party captures the White House and holds sway in Congress. Our country – our Constitutional Republic – will continue to be “nudged” to the Left; continue to be fundamentally transformed away from liberty and self-reliance and toward servitude and dependence.

Barack Obama was correct about one thing all those years back in 2008, our nation – the United States of America – is in need of fundamental transformation. That transformation, though, needs to be from a culture of bureaucratic elitism in a centralized government where no one is able to be held accountable, to a nation dedicated to justice for all and the rule of law under the constraints of the United States Constitution.

Or, as John Adams so eloquently wrote in Novanglus Essay, No. 7:

“[Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington] define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

We, my fellow Americans, are a Republic and not a Democracy, for precisely that reason.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »