Category Archives: Obarrassments

Obama Moves to Weaponize IRS

In 2010 millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP’s Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.

The Obama administration wasn’t going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught – smoking gun in hand – intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation and, ultimately, for political destruction.

Not only has Obama faced zero accountability for these arguably impeachable offenses, he has since doubled down. With jaw-dropping gall, his administration has now moved to officially weaponize the IRS against conservatives once and for all.

Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, this man – a despotic radical who’s turned our constitutional republic into one of the banana variety – has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).

The new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.

Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at a Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.

These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.

Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.

Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”

Specifically, here’s what the proposed regulations would do to conservative groups and their leaders:

  • Prohibit using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject.”
  • Prohibit mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
  • Prohibit mentioning the name of a political party, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office.
  • Prohibit voter registration drives or conducting a non-partisan “get-out-the-vote drive.”
  • Prohibit creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills.
  • Prohibit hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before the general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program.
  • Restrict employees of such organizations from volunteering for campaigns.
  • Prohibit distributing any materials prepared on behalf a candidate for office.
  • Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to publicly speak about incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records.
  • Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges.
  • Create a 90-day blackout period, on an election year, that restricts the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations.
  • Declare political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare.
  • Protect labor unions and trade associations by exempting them from the proposed regulations.

Continued Mat Staver: “We would be restricted in promoting conservative values, such as protecting our constitutional rights against these very kind of Executive Branch infringements.

“We would even be prohibited from criticizing the federal bureaucracy. If this new set of regulations goes into effect, Liberty Counsel Action – all conservative 501(c)(4)s for that matter – will be forbidden to ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ anything in the political arena and we’ll be prohibited from conducting our ‘get-out-the vote’ campaigns or issuing our popular voter guides.

“Further,” continue Staver, “individual employees of conservative groups will be banned from speaking or messaging on incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records – or speaking on the nominations of judges or political nominees being considered by the Senate. This also includes taking on state and local politicians.”

“These are the same tactics used by the Obama administration to illegally target conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the last two election cycles, only now the strategy has been greatly intensified and formalized.

“You may recall that former President Richard Nixon was famously forced to resign for improperly using Executive Branch assets for political purposes.

“Rather than preparing a solid defense to confront these serious allegations, a brazen Barack Obama has chosen instead to reconfigure his illegal tactics into a set of ‘regulations’ on nonprofits, opening the door for an IRS crackdown on select organizations,” Staver concluded.

Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.

But we’re not talking about an honorable man.

On a Fool’s Errand

Sometimes it appears that the federal government, maybe every level of government, is on a fool’s errand.  Now, for those that are unaware of this phrase a fool’s errand is “a completely absurd, pointless, or useless errand”.

Some examples of a fool’s errand would be the United States Senate, controlled by Democrats, spending hours attempting to pass a gun control Bill that is completely absurd, pointless to send it to Republican House of Representatives, and ultimately a useless effort.  The president, rather than recognizing the inevitable outcome, then squeals like a stuck pig because it didn’t pass the Senate.  He promises to not let it go, just like he did with “Obamacare”.

Now, consider that for all intents and purposes Obamacare has been an abject failure.  States are getting waivers.  Cost projections to conduct the fiasco have exceeded all pre-vote estimates.  Businesses are making major shifts toward reducing personnel expenses in order to avoid Obamcare mandates.  In other words the jobs recovery is in fact threatened by this boondoggle.  Barack Obama is a lame-duck president.  His shaky allies from the Obamacare days will not have the loyalty to him that he could demand previously.  A fool’s errand.

Let us move on so as not to focus all failures on the president.  The senate had the opportunity to prevent a discussion of the violation of Second Amendment.  Sixty-eight senators, including sixteen Republicans decided for their various reasons to evade their oath of office, which reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Yet, sixty-eight senators specifically ignored “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. The oath does not say “If I agree with it”.  Now for clarification the Constitution says, quite clearly I might add, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

In other words each senator takes an oath of allegiance to not infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  That is the starting point, not the fallback position.  An effort by the senate, regardless of how well meaning it was, to bring this gun control Bill to the floor for a vote was in fact a fool’s errand.  For a senator faithful to their duty any excuse was absurd.

Finally, following on these ill-conceived notions by Senators, House members, and the President we had a terrorist attack in Boston.  I have jokingly said that more people were trampled by Washington politicians, racing for a microphone, than were injured in that attack.  Each had to express an opinion outside their role in the government.  They pretend to be reassuring the nation and consoling the victims.  Yet, we have become so accustomed to their frivolity we recognize their efforts for what they really are; A fool’s errand, absurd and unbelievable.

I am not hard-hearted.  I fully believe in rallying a nation behind a good cause.  However, I also oppose grandstanding by politicians to curry favor during a crisis.  Here is the key element.  Congress passed a Bill to provide for the defense of the nation.  The president signed that Bill, and it became law.  Whether you agree with that law or not Congress is done with it.  The Executive Branch has a duty under that law.  Grandstanding by Congressmen is a fool’s errand.

Now, back to the president.  His duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the land.  That duty is in the Constitution as his oath of office; ” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  That is all he needs to do.  It is neither requisite nor prudent to engage in discussions of reading someone their rights, exaggerate to avoidance of the use of the word “terrorist”, or even issue threats (idle or genuine).  To do otherwise is “completely absurd, pointless, or useless”.  Regardless of what religion the president is, or claims to be, the advice of Jesus Christ is sound “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; {or} Nay, nay.”

The nation, overall, lacks confidence that our Washington DC elected officials are sincere, capable, or rational.  The people see them as being on a fool’s errand.  And, quite candidly, that is exactly how they act.




Rebuttal of John Kerry’s blatant lies

In a recent (April 8th) screed for, written for the 3rd anniversary of the signing of the New START treaty, Secretary of State John Kerry advertises his blatant lies that he falsely claims are “facts” and admonishes the American people, policy analysts, and politicians to express their opinions (and in politicians’ case, make policy) based on “facts.” The problem is that there are NO facts in his pathetic screed.


To start with, Kerry falsely claims that New START has preserved peace, stability, and predictability between Russia and the US. That is false. The treaty’s Potemkin village verification regime is extremely weak (compared to that under the original START), with only 17 visits per side per year allowed, and is very prone to cheating.


As Ronald Reagan said, “We comply with arms control treaties. Those nations which don’t wish us well don’t.” Moscow has never complied with ANY arms control treaty it has signed.


New START cuts only America’s nuclear arsenal – not Russia’s. Moscow is actually allowed to increase its nuclear arsenal (and has done so, right up to New START limits; it is now grousing about growing its stockpile above these ceilings) and the treaty’s definition of a strategic bomber does not include Russia’s 171 Tu-22M aircraft, even though these are clearly intercontinental strategic bombers, just like Tu-160s.


Furthermore, New START doesn’t limit Russia’s huge tactical nuclear arsenal, which consists of as many as 4,000 nuclear warheads and their diverse delivery systems. Russia has an advantage of up to 10:1 over the US in tactical nukes. New START does nothing about this.


Nor has New START moderated Russia’s behavior or its aggressive nuclear exercises and simulated attacks on the US. Last year, Russia held the largest nuclear strategic exercises since the Cold War’s putative end, and conducted simulated nuclear bomber attacks on the US on two occassions: in June and on July 4th. In February 2013, Russia conducted two new such simulated attacks – against Guam and then against US missile defenses in Japan, with the very Tu-22M bombers New START exempts from its limitations.


No, Secretary Kerry, New START is not “working exactly as advertised”. It’s an utter failure of US diplomacy and a huge weakening of America’s defenses. Signing and ratifying it was an act of treason.


Kerry claims that New START’s ratification was a sign of bipartisan consensus on arms reduction. That is also a lie. In fact, the treaty just barely passed the Constitution’s required 2/3 treshold; had only 5 more Senators voted against it, it would’ve failed as it deserved to. Most of the 13 gullible Republicans who voted for it were retiring Senators heading out the door; others, like Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, were deceived by Barack Obama’s dishonest, and never fulfilled, promises of funding for America’s nuclear facilities modernization – funding that never materialized.


Kerry falsely claims that the biggest threat today is that of nuclear terrorism, not Russia or China’s nuclear arsenals. That is also patently false. Nuclear terrorism is a merely hypothetical threat that has failed to materialize; meanwhile, Russia and China have (and are growing and modernizing) large nuclear arsenals. (China reportedly has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, not the mere 240-300 that American arms control advocacy groups falsely claim.) THESE are the biggest threats to US security and that of its allies.


And contrary to Kerry’s false claim, nuclear retaliation CAN sometimes deter terrorists – by deterring their state sponsors.


Kerry claims he wants to see the “commitment to arms control and nonproliferation” that started under Richard Nixon renewed, but that commitment should’ve never been made in the first place. For arms control has been an utter failure for US national security and national interests.


America has cut its nuclear arsenal by 75% since the Cold War’s putative end in 1991. However, since then, China and India have significantly INCREASED and modernized their nuclear arsenals while two new countries joined the nuclear club: Pakistan and North Korea. And now, Iran is well on its way there. Meanwhile, Russia has begun rebuilding and significantly modernizing its nuclear arsenal from its 1990s nadir. It is now developing 3-4 ICBM types and a “pseudo-ICBM” to circumvent the INF treaty as well as retaining its huge lead in tactical nukes.


Arms control has utterly failed to reduce nuclear arsenals outside the US and Russia, prevent Russia’s nuclear re-building and rapid modernization, or prevent nuclear proliferation, as two new entrants joined the nuclear club.


By all evidence – by the facts – arms control has been an utter failure and has been detrimental to US national security and interests.


Kerry reminds his readers that New START is merely the first cut the Obama administration intends to make in America’s arsenal, while falsely claiming that it will make “only those reductions which are in US interests – and those of our allies.” That assurance is entirely hollow, however. It’s not credible. The Obama team does not care one whit about America’s security; its goal is to “cut America down to size”, as Obama bundler George Soros has openly stated.


If they really cared about America’s and its allies’ security, they would not be making cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal, especially not at this perilous time as America’s enemies rapidly grow and modernize their arsenals and America’s allies rely on the American umbrella for protection against these common enemies. And they wouldn’t be stalling the modernization of America’s deterrent and its supporting infrastructure or lying about the threat environment.


Not one of their assurances is credible. They are all lies. Obama does not honor his promises – except to America’s enemies.


Moreover, NO reductions in America’s nuclear arsenal are in her national interests. None whatsoever. Cutting that – or any other – weapon arsenal only weakens America’s defenses, thus emboldening America’s enemies to perpetrate nuclear blackmail (as North Korea does now) or even potentially aggression (as North Korea threatens to do).


Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent – or any other part of America’s defenses – is especially foolish today, as Russia and China rapidly grow and modernize their already large nuclear arsenals, North Korea grows its own (and threatens to use it), and Iran speeds up nuclear weapons development. It is always foolish, but particularly in such dangerous times.


Kerry falsely claims that cutting the US nuclear arsenal will make for “a more stable and secure world.” Again, that is a blatant lie. In fact, it will produce the opposite: a more unstable and dangerous planet.


Not only will it mean dramatically weakening America’s defenses, it will force America’s allies to develop their own nuclear weapons, since they cannot bet their own security and their very survival on America breaking free of its “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kool aid. 66.5% of South Koreans already want to “go nuclear.”


And no, the world won’t be peaceful. Just the opposite. Recall that, prior to 1945 (nuclear weapons’ advent), for humanity’s entire history there were no nuclear weapons (and thus nothing to moderate the world’s great powers). The result? Dozens of long, bloody wars between the planet’s great powers, whole countries laying in waste, tens of millions of people dead (mostly civilians), people starving, and countries in revolution. World War 2 alone killed over 60 million people.


By contrast, since 1945, there has been NO war between the great powers.


Nuclear disarmament is not a desirable goal. It would be an utter disaster for US national security.


John Kerry admonishes American citizens, policy analysts, and politicians to focus on “the facts.” But none of his claims are “facts”, despite his desperate insistence on using that word. All of his claims are blatant lies, as demonstrated above.


But we shouldn’t be surprised. This is the man who, as a veteran, appeased Jane Fonda and badmouthed American troops, and as Senator, voted against every crucial weapon system the US military has employed – B-2 bombers, F-14 and F-15 fighters, Trident ballistic missiles, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Apache helicopter, etc. He’s a fierce enemy of a strong national defense.


Shame on Secretary Kerry for lying so blatantly, and shame on all Senators who voted to confirm him.

Rebuttal of Joe Cirincione and Jenna Lee’s blatant lies

Center for Security President Frank Gaffney recently appeared on Fox News to debate Obama’s planned further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent with Joe Cirincione, a strident liberal who leads the treasonous, extremely leftist Ploughshares Fund, which lies about nuclear weapons and advocates America’s nuclear disarmament. During that short, 8-minute debate, Cirincione and the Fox News anchor who was supposed to be a neutral moderator, Jenna Lee, made a number of utterly false claims.

What follows is my rebuttal of these claims.

1) The US military is NOT saying that the US has too many nuclear weapons. None of America’s current military leaders have said that. On the contrary, the current commander of the Strategic Command, Gen. Bob Kehler, and his predecessor, Gen. Kevin Chilton, have said that the current US nuclear arsenal is “exactly what we need” (Gen. Kehler’s words, not mine). Both of them, moreover, have utterly rejected proposals of groups like “Global Zero” to cut the US nuclear arsenal deeply.

2) The US nuclear arsenal is NOT expensive to maintain and is NOT siphoning money away from “the troops” and the military. It costs only $32 bn to $36 bn per year to maintain (all of it plus its supporting infrastructure). That’s about 6% of the total FY2013 US military budget ($613 bn). Nor is it causing defense budget cuts (the Budget Control Act and the Congress’ inability to rein in nondefense spending is causing that). Cutting the US nuclear arsenal, no matter how deeply, would not save more than a pittance. Eliminating the entire ICBM leg of the nuclear triad would save only $1.1 bn per year; eliminating the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. So deeply cutting the US nuclear arsenal would save only a pittance. Peanuts. There would be NO significant savings.

3) While Cirincione has listed the deep cuts that have been made in the US nuclear arsenal since the 1980s, those are only cuts in AMERICA’s arsenal – not in those of other countries. They have made America WEAKER and LESS SECURE, not more. These deep cuts in America’s atomic arsenal have utterly failed to convince countries “around North Korea” and “around Iran” to step up the pressure on North Korea and Iran.

(Besides, America’s East Asian and Middle Eastern allies are in full agreement with the US on the necessity of stopping NK and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It’s China and Russia who are the problem, and they won’t be convinced to “pressure” North Korea or Iran no matter how deeply the US cuts its nuclear arsenal. For them, their lucrative business deals with Tehran and Pyongyang are far more important than American disarmament gestures.)

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent by over 75% since 1991 has therefore UTTERLY FAILED to increase the pressure on North Korea and Iran and has UTTERLY FAILED to stop or even slow down nuclear proliferation. Thus, it has made America much less secure.

Doing this further will only make America LESS SECURE and WEAKER while UTTERLY failing to convince anyone to increase pressure on North Korea and Iran – just like all past cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to do so.

Doing more of the same and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

4) Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapon states has INCREASED, not shrank. The US, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, and Israel retain nuclear weapons; Pakistan and North Korea have joined the nuclear club; and Iran is well on its way there.

5) The number of nuclear weapons that the US has DOES matter. A small nuclear arsenal of just 50 or 500 nuclear warheads and their delivery systems would be laughably easy for any enemy to destroy – precisely because of its small size. A nuclear arsenal HAS to be large in order to be survivable. Otherwise, it will be easily destroyed in a first strike by Russia or China. Moreover, a small nuclear arsenal of just a few hundred warheads would be way too small to target Russia’s, China’s, NK’s, or Iran’s military assets (bases, factories, etc.) and could target only their civilian populations – an immoral targeting policy that no sane person would ever endorse. Moreover, such “minimal deterrence” policy would not deter these enemies, because they don’t value their civilian citizens’ lives. The only effective way to deter them is to target their military assets – and for that, thousands of nuclear warheads are needed.

6) Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented or eliminated from the world. That a number of US presidents, from JFK to Ronald Reagan, dreamed of eliminating them from the world, is completely irrelevant. US defense and foreign policy need to be guided by realistic assumptions and the brutal truth about the world, NOT by idealistic, lofty, unrealistic notions of a world without nuclear weapons that are neither achievable nor desirable. North Korea, Pakistan, China, and Russia will never give up their nuclear weapons.

7) Since Putin came to power, Russia has begun REBUILDING its nuclear arsenal and continues to increase it. And recently, it declared straightforward that it will NOT agree to any further cuts in its arsenal.

Cirincione’s claim that the US needs only a few hundred nuclear weapons and that no one has a bigger arsenal is a blatant lie, like the rest of his claims. Russia has 2,800 strategic and up to 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – deployed and nondeployed – and the means to deliver all of them. Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS, while its SSBN fleet can deliver 2,200 warheads to the US homeland. China has at least 1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads and 3,000 miles of tunnels to hide them and their delivery systems. The claim that the US can safely cut its nuclear arsenal to just 50-500 warheads is a despicable lie.

9) And to Jenna Lee, who falsely claimed that the US nuclear arsenal has failed to slow down nuclear proliferation: it has not. It acts, and ahs acted, as a protective umbrella for over 30 allies of the US, thus convincing them that they don’t need their own nuclear weapons, since America’s umbrella protects them. But should that umbrella be cut further, or eliminated, they will have no choice but to “go nuclear”. They cannot bet their security and their very existence on America’s kool-aid notions that “nuclear disarmament will make the world safer”, or on America breaking free of those notions in 2016.

Frank Gaffney made, IMHO, a good case for retaining America’s nuclear deterrent and against cuts in it, but he could’ve made a stronger one by refuting Joe Cirincione’s and Jenna Lee’s blatant lies (about supposed savings, about US military leaders supposedly saying they have too many nukes, etc.) directly.

Nuclear disarmament advocates are STILL blind to the truth

Despite North Korea’s nuclear test and recent provocations and signs of preparing for aggression, the advocates of America’s nuclear disarmament have not admitted being wrong and do not intend to ever do so, despite the fact that they’ve been wrong all along.


As recently as March 5th, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Clinton Administration SECDEF William Perry (who presided over part of President Clinton’s disastrous defense cuts), and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) wrote an op-ed titled “Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Risks: The Pace of Nonproliferation Efforts Doesn’t Match the Urgency of the Threat”. They advocate deeply cutting the US nuclear arsenal further, and fast, in the face of North Korea’s nuclear armament and tests and the rapid growth of Russia’s and China’s already large nuclear arsenals and delivery system fleets.


Yes, you read that right. While Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran are all ARMING themselves with nuclear weapons, Kissinger, Shultz, Perry, and Nunn advocate that the US DISARM itself.


One could not think of a more idiotic, more cretinous policy.


Already the title of their screed contains three implicit claims:


1)      That the US nuclear arsenal poses a “nuclear risk” that must be reduced, or that it encourages other countries to acquire their own arsenals and thus creating risks;

2)      That the US nuclear arsenal causes, or contributes to, nuclear proliferation, and that cutting or eliminating it would be a major contribution to “nonproliferation”;

3)      That the US nuclear arsenal is a threat, or a part of a threat, to US national security.


We’ll deal with these ridiculous implicit claims.


But first: what is proliferation? It’s a phenomenon whereby something proliferates, i.e. spreads, i.e. something that was once unique or limited to one country, or a few, spreads around the world to become more common. Nonproliferation means stopping the spread of this “something” – in this case, nuclear weapons.


But nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be un-invented. It can, at best, only be contained and limited to a few countries. Moreover, the only nuclear weapon state that Washington can verifiably disarm is the US. Russia, North Korea, China, and Pakistan will NEVER give up their nuclear weapons. (Britain and France might, though – in which case the Western world would be completely disarming itself, opening itself squarely to aggression by anyone with as much as one nuke.)


As President Reagan has said, “We abide by arms reductiont treaties. Those nations who don’t wish us well don’t.”


Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal, no matter how deeply, or even eliminating it, will do NOTHING to even slow down, let alone stop, nuclear proliferation around the world. It will not “induce” nor encourage nor convince North Korea, Russia, China, and Pakistan to give up their nuclear arsenals or even to reduce them – on the contrary, it would only encourage them to grow these arsenals and to perpetrate aggression against the US and its allies – because cutting America’s nuclear arsenal (or eliminating it outright) would only give them an advantage they would be eager to exploit.


We don’t need to rely on predictions or prophecy here: we have history to back this up. Over the last 22 years, the US has cut its nuclear arsenal by over 75%, from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to just 5,000 today.


Meanwhile, China has grown its arsenal from about 240-300 warheads in the 1980s to possibly as many as 3,000 today; North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and possesses around 13; Pakistan acquired such weapons in 1998 and has around 100; and Russia, whose nuclear arsenal declined sharply after the Soviet Union’s collapse, has, since Putin’s arrival, made significant progress in rebuilding its arsenal of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, as well as modernizing existing ones. Now Iran is racing to acquire nuclear arms as well.


Cutting America’s atomic arsenal by over 75% since 1991 has UTTERLY FAILED to convince any of these countries to forego nuclear weapons or, if they already had them, to stop expanding its arsenal.


Doing the same thing over again and expecting different results is insanity.


The US nuclear arsenal does not cause or even contribute to nuclear proliferation. On the contrary, it helps STEM it by acting as a defensive umbrella for over 30 allies of the US, including many technologically-advanced allies who could develop their own nuclear weapons (and would do so in the absence of the American umbrella). If this umbrella is taken away, they’ll have no choice but to “go nuclear” themselves. Already, 66.5% of South Koreans support developing their own nuclear weapons.


As Dr Steven Rademaker and Dr Kori Schake have pointed out, America’s nuclear arsenal is actually a very useful and very underappreciated nonproliferation tool. Thus, dismantling it will only make nuclear proliferation much worse.


Calling America’s arsenal a “risk” or a “threat” to US national and world security is even more absurd and ridiculous. No, America’s atomic arsenal is not a “risk” or a “threat” to the US, to the world at large, nor to anyone else – except those who wish to attack the US or its allies.


If you’re an enemy of the US, then yes, America’s nuclear arsenal is a huge threat to you indeed. As it should be.


The only “risk” and “threat” comes from the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan and from Iran’s nuclear program. That risk and that threat, however, cannot be eliminated or even reduced by cutting or scrapping America’s own nuclear arsenal. Doing so would only aggravate that threat and that risk.


That’s because, when the enemy has a huge arsenal (or is acquiring powerful weapons), you don’t disarm yourself. You retain your weapons and upgrade them. It’s Deterrence 101. And it always works.


Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan would love to see the US cut its nuclear deterrent further (or even eliminate it outright), because that would leave the US defenseless and open to nuclear attack – which they would perpetrate if they could get away with it.


“Arms control”, arms reduction and disarmament in military/foreign policy terms are just as cretinous and suicidal as “gun control.”


Think about it: if someone entered your home uninvited with a weapon, would you prefer to be unarmed (or poorly armed) and negotiate with him or to have a good gun to kill him?


The vast majority of Americans would obviously choose the latter.


The same applies to international relations and military affairs. Disarmament and arms reduction are downright suicidal. They only open your country to aggression.


Why, then, do politicians from both parties (including Sen. Tom Coburn and at least 11 House Republicans) advocate deep, unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent? Why do presidents of both parties do so? Why do they get away with it? Why do Senators from both parties routinely vote for whatever treasonous arms reduction treaty (which no one but the US complies with) Presidents send them? Why is John McCain, a leftist and an advocate of America’s nuclear disarmament, hailed as an expert on defense issues? Why do the good people of Arizona continue to reelect him to the Senate?


They clearly don’t understand – or utterly reject – the principle of nuclear deterrence and the need for a large, modern nuclear deterrent.


They don’t understand, or refuse to recognize, that Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan will NEVER give up their nuclear arsenals or stop expanding and modernizing them, and that Iran will never freewillingly stop pursuing nuclear arms. They don’t get it – or refuse to acknowledge – that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent in the face of these threats is downright suicidal and would only invite nuclear attack on the US and its allies.


It is absolutely crucial to remove all of these people from power, prevent the election of more such people to any office, and to STOP and REVERSE the cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent.


The Cold War may be over; but the need for a large, modern American nuclear deterrent is not, and will not be for the foreseeable future.

Welcome to the Liar’s Club

liars clubWhat is it with this administration? Have they become so used to media not questioning them that facts are no longer relevant? Do they believe there are so many ‘low information voters’ that whatever they say will be believed without question?

Consider just this week. As you recall, the Obama administration was for the sequestration before they were against it. But, as Jay Carney says, “It’s irrelevant.”

Still…hail, fire and brimstone. All hell would break loose if the sequestration was allowed to happen.

Or so they said…

Obama on March first said, “Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”

But that statement was worthy of a Four Pinocchio fact check by the left leaning Washington Post. The head of Capitol employees had to rush out a memo stating, “We do not anticipate furloughs for AOC employees as a result of Sequestration.” (You can see the memo at the above link…)

Not to be outdone, Education Secretary Arne Duncan had to backtrack when he recently claimed schools were already firing teachers in anticipation of sequester cuts taking effect.

Caught in his exaggeration, Duncan admits he misspoke, saying, “When I said ‘pink slips’ that was probably the wrong word,” he said to reporters, according to multiple reports. “Language matters, and I need to be very, very clear.”

On Monday, even after signs that the sequestration might have less impact than previously stated by the administration, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano cited Chicago, LA, and Atlanta’s airports as suffering from security checkpoint lines that were “150 to 200 percent as long as we would normally expect”. Specifically, she said: “We’re already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry, the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this weekend.”

Au contraire Ms. Napolitano.

Officials with airports cited by Napolitano as examples of how the sequester would delay airline travelers say she’s wrong — they’re not delaying flights one bit. “We haven’t had any slowdowns at all,” said Marshall Lowe, a spokesman for Los Angeles International Airport who was on duty all weekend.  Hartfield and O’Hare airport spokemen also denied delays.

Four Pinocchio’s to all. Welcome to the Liar’s Club.

“I Am Not A Dictator!”

“O Duck Luck, ” says Hen Pen, “the sky is falling!”
“Why, how do you know it?” says Duck Luck.
Obama Chicken Little told me.”

And so goes the story of another famous alarmist, Chicken Little. President Obama has attempted for the past few weeks to raise alarm about the awful “cuts” that would affect everything. The economy will be hurt and crippled for years, other results include millions of furloughed federal employees, and a non-functioning military. All because those darned Republicans would not agree with him to further increase spending.

Stoking more fear and animus, the president now seeks to paint the entire fallout from the ever-so-slightly decreased future spending on Republicans. The president specifically named John Boehner and Mitch McConnell as the responsible parties. And although Obama has to yet figure out how to paint the reluctance to support spending as either racist, or to invoke class warfare narratives, we need only to give it time, and his friends will spin furiously until a good excuse develops. It is their nature.

The president, when asked by the adoring press, what more he could have done to ensure sequestration did not take effect, blurted out, “I am not a dictator…”, and says he could not send the Secret Service after Republicans to prevent their planes from taking off. From your mouth to Uncle Joe’s ears, eh Mr. President? If only leadership were that easy – but, then again no one has ever made a good case for your leadership abilities.

In blurting out his most recent excuse for his failure (or was sequestration itself the failure? Obama previously supported it), the president again reveals his juvenile mindset when it comes to politics. It is frequently his way or else. If things do not go his way, then the most dire circumstances will occur. How can you nudge people into thinking or behaving the “right way”? Send your sycophants out to do the dirty work for you. Bob Woodward’s being threatened by a White House insider is the most recent example.  Have your supporters engage in some name-calling and belittle your opponent. It is all in a day’s work for any grade-school bully.

For a president who has also: bemoaned the fact he has to work with Congress and wished he could work around them, threatened to use executive orders to accomplish things that Congress balks at doing, and who actually has a “kill-list” that gives him the final ability to determine who has the ultimate right, that is, to exist – when he claims, “I am not a dictator…”, if he is not, he is the closest thing the country has ever had to one. The rights so valued and inherent in each of us have slowly continued to erode away, and with a president such as Obama, this will be a long four years.

Sequestration, nuclear disarmament prove that Washington has learned nothing

As the sequestration of the defense budget – coming on top of all defense cuts previously administered or ordered – approaches, and as Obama prepares to unilaterally cut the US nuclear deterrent again, this time down to just 1,000 deployed warheads – leftists (including leftist libertarians) are again telling us that we have nothing to fear, that America will still be strong and secure, that all of America’s potential adversaries are still no match for the US military, and that such cuts will actually make America and the world safer.

But all of their claims are blatant lies, and I will show you why.

History is the teacher of life – historia magistra vitae. And all human history teaches that it is military strength, not weakness and appeasement, that provides peace and security, while military weakness only invites aggression and leads to war, death, destruction, and human suffering. History teaches that disarmament has never made anyone more secure or the world more peaceful – that it has only done the opposite. History teaches that countries which disarmed themselves while their enemies were arming always invited aggression and paid a heavy price.

We saw it happen throughout human history. In the early 1800s, America’s tragic military weakness – the lack of a serious army or a navy that could protect America – invited the British to dream about reconquering America one day, to harrass American ships, to impress (kidnap and induct into Royal Navy service) American seamen, and to support Indian attacks on the US. It also ensured that America would be totally unprepared for the War of 1812, which she declared over these British provocations.

In the 1930s, France’s, Britain’s, and America’s unilateral disarmament and unilateral adherence to failed arms control treaties – which Japan and Nazi Germany were violating and eventually withdrew from – ensured that the West was totally unprepared for renewed German and Japanese aggression, causing the bloodiest, costliest, and most brutal war this planet has ever seen: World War 2.

In the late 1940s, disastrous cuts in the US military orchestrated by President Truman and SECDEF Louis Johnson led to gutting of the US military and its total unpreparedness for the Korean War outbreak. The military was so unprepared that it had to hastily assemble formations such as Task Force Smith.

In the late 1950s, President Eisenhower’s foolish defense cuts ensured that the US would fall significantly behind the Soviet Union in missile development and in the space race. Furthermore, USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Thomas White had to move Heaven and Earth to obtain funding for ICBMs.

In the late 1970s, disastrous defense cuts orchestrated by the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations completely gutted the US military, as anyone who served in the military at the time will attest. Reenlistment rates plummeted, drug usage was widespread, little new equipment was procured, few warships were built, the Navy’s size declined dramatically, and there wasn’t even enough funding to maintain the equipment the military still had. As a result, it had planes that couldn’t fly and ships that couldn’t sail for a lack of spare parts or fuel. Also, the US fielded only one ICBM type in the 1970s – the Minuteman-III, still in service today – while the Soviet Union fielded five. No new bombers were built – the USAF would not get its first post-1962 bomber until 1986.

The result? The Kremlin got the message: it was allowed to attack countries – directly or with proxies – with abandon. And so, the Kremlin took control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, supported the Arab aggression against Israel in 1973, supported the Communist aggression against South Vietnam in 1975, and its own army invaded Afghanistan in 1979, cutting the Soviets’ flying time to the Persian Gulf by half.

But American policymakers in both parties, as well as the entire Left (including pro-arms-control and other anti-defense organizations) clearly have learned nothing.

They support sequestration and further unilateral cuts in the US nuclear deterrent. They blatantly lie to us that it won’t harm US security; they even claim it will make America more secure!

But they’re blatantly lying.

Sequestration, if it kicks in, will cause:

–          The Navy to cancel the maintenance on 23 ships (including 2 carriers) and 250 aircraft in FY2013 alone, and eventually deeply cut its (already greatly overstretched) ship fleet, which can currently meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their requests for submarines; eliminate up to four carriers; delay the RCOH on at least three carriers (CVN-71 through CVN-73); and to ground the Blue Angels, whose flying shows are watched by 11 mn people every year.

–          The Marines to cancel training for their Hornet pilots and to ground these aircraft, since un- or undertrained pilots cannot be allowed to fly them, and to make deep cuts in equipment procurement.

–          The Army to cancel training for 78% of all their brigades (all except those deploying to Afghanistan and South Korea), and to cancel crucial modernization programs.

–          The Air Force to dramatically cut back the procurement of new equipment (in the service that needs it most, as the vast majority of its aircraft fleet is obsolete and the average age of AF aircraft is 25), including such crucial weapons for the future as the KC-46 tanker, to cut the budget of its Global Strike Command (responsible for nuclear deterrence on the Air Force side) by 20%, and to cut flight training hours by 18%.

–          All services to cancel or dramatically scale back the purchases of new equipment (requiring contract renegotiation, loss of economies of scale, greater costs, and delays) and delay thousands of base repair and renovation projects around the country, from Alaska, to California, to Texas, to Virginia, costing tens of thousands of people in the construction industry (which is on life support) their jobs (11,000 people in California alone).

Overall, the result would be a dramatically reduced, poorly trained, poorly equipped US military possessing rapidly dwindling quantities of old equipment and very little new equipment.

In other words, a completely gutted US military.

All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have consistently and credibly testified before Congress that sequestration will result in a gutted, hollow military; for JCS Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, it would produce the very definition of a “hollow force.” The Joint Chiefs know very well what they’re talking about – they all began their military careers in the 1970s in a hollow military and they saw the consequences of that era’s disastrous defense cuts first-hand. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno has even said to the Congress: “I began my career in a hollow Army and I’m determined not to end my career in one.” All of them have also testified that, as Sec. Panetta has said, if sequestration proceeds, the new Defense Strategic Guidance of January 2012 would’ve to be thrown out the window, i.e. the nation’s current defense strategy could not be executed and America’s role in the world would have to be dramatically scaled down.

WRT sequestration, there are only three possibilities:

1)      The Joint Chiefs are blatantly lying to scaremonger the public and the Congress;

2)      The Joint Chiefs are ignorant hacks who don’t know what they’re talking about; or

3)      The Joint Chiefs are right to sound the alarm about sequestration.


Which is it, folks?

And we didn’t have to wait much for the consequences of sequestration to emerge. China is becoming ever more aggressive, both in terms of the words of its civilian and military leaders and its actions, such as intruding into Japanese territorial waters and airspace with aircraft and warships. Chinese generals and admirals have publicly claimed that “the US is not strong enough” to help Japan. Russia has violated Japanese airspace with Su-27s and, on February 12th, its Tu-95 nuclear-armed bombers flew from Khabarovsk to Guam, a US territory, and circumnavigated it in a show of strength. Russia and China, as well as other potential adversaries, are increasing their military budgets while the US and most of its allies are cutting theirs. North Korea has tested an ICBM and a nuclear weapon, and, according to Reuters, plans more nuclear and ICBM tests in the near future.

Meanwhile, Obama plans to cut America’s nuclear deterrent further, down to just 1,000 deployed warheads, down from the meagre 1,550 allowed by New START.

If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal further, it will NOT induce Russia and China to cancel the expansion of their already large nuclear arsenals, nor will it discourage rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons. It will only encourage them to produce more nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. As former SECDEF Harold Brown has rightly said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

As always, defense cuts (which lead to military weakness) are leading to aggression against those who weaken their militaries, and thus to war, death, destruction, and human suffering. You will see this happen when (not if) China attacks Japan or another US ally, or perhaps the US itself – whether over the Senkakus, the Spratlys, Taiwan, or some other pretext. Many people will die, and millions of others will suffer, because of the massive defense cuts that American (and other Western) disarmament advocates have fooled Western nations into and which Western politicians are enacting.

So when China again commits aggression against someone, believing that the US won’t come to the victim’s aid, remember you first read it here.

Rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU lies about America’s nuclear deterrent


When he delivers the SOTU tonight, Obama will likely mention his plan to deeply cut (read: dramatically weaken) further America’s already excessively cut nuclear deterrent at a time when Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India are all growing and modernizing nuclear arsenals, and just a day after North Korea tested a nuclear weapon – thus utterly refuting Obama’s notions of a “nuclear-free world”.

Republicans have the duty and the power to stop his cuts of America’s nuclear deterrent while explaining to the public – in their rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU as well as on other occassions – why Obama’s policy is suicidal and treasonous and why America needs a large nuclear deterrent and will need it for the foreseeable future.

The following is offered as advice on how to refute the lies that Obama is likely to make in his remarks.

Obama will likely falsely claim that:

1) “America has more nuclear weapons than needed for national security.”

Yet, on close inspection, this claim is completely false.

A significantly smaller nuclear arsenal will not be able to meet most, let alone all, of America’s defense requirements and those of its allies. It will not be able to effectively deter America’s enemies for the simple reason that it will be too small. Being significantly smaller, it will not be survivable enough and will thus be much easier for both Russia and China to destroy in a nuclear first strike on the US. Even if they refrain from such a drastic action, they will certainly use America’s weakness to intimidateWashington and its allies and to attack American allies and interests around the world. Don’t delude yourself that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would refrain from doing that if they had the opportunity to do so.

The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.

This is because there are simply so many strategic and nonstrategic weapon sites and other important military (and economic) targets in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that being able to target a majority of them will require far more warheads than Obama would allow – not a mere 1000-1100, but at least 1,550, if not more. The Heritage Foundation’s nuclear weapons experts have estimated that about 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads are required for that.

And why is it important to target at least a majority, if not the vast majority, of an enemy’s assets? Because only then will he suffer a truly devastating and prohibitively costly retaliation if he commits aggression. If he loses only a minority of his assets – even if they’re the most important ones – he will not be deterred from attacking. Only if the vast majority of his assets are held at risk will he refrain from aggression.

A small nuclear arsenal could only target Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian population centers, as it would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority of enemy military assets at risk. This would mean a shift from counterforce to countervalue targeting – i.e. targeting innocent civilian populations (which Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian leaders don’t value anyway) instead of enemy warmaking capability. Is this the policy we want? The proponents of arms reduction do.

But such a policy would arguably be immoral, and would not be accepted by most Americans. So the only credible and acceptable policy is counterforce – which requires a large number of warheads.

Yet, Obama and his bureaucrats and apparatchiks don’t care about that. All they care about is disarming the US and creating their pipedream “world without nuclear weapons”, a fiction that will never exist (as NK’s nuclear test yesterday proves).

So instead of reviewing possible targets and then deciding on how many warheads the US needs, they’ll instead impose an ideological, arbitrary warhead cut on the military: no more than 1000-1100 warheads, and the military will have to adapt its targeting strategy to that.

They’ve got it exactly backwards. They’re imposing an arbitrary warhead limit on the military and forcing it to THEN come up with a targeting strategy to fit that limit.

2) “Nuclear weapons are relics of the Cold War.”

This false claim doesn’t even meet the straight face test. Nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’s security environment.

The biggest military threats to America are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The first three have nuclear weapons; Iran is racing to acquire them. The biggest threat posed by these countries is that of a large-scale nuclear or (in Russia’s or China’s case) attack by them.

Russia has a very large strategic nuclear arsenal (2,800 warheads, 1,500 of them deployed and 1,300 in reserve) and the means to deliver it:

  • Over 250 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, and 151-171[1] Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a nuclear freefall bomb;
  • 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Typhoon class, and 1 Borei class submarine), which can carry 16 ballistic missiles each (the Typhoon class boat can carry 20); these missiles include the 12-warhead Liner SLBM and the 10-warhead Bulava SLBM;
  • 434 ICBMs, including (numbers in parentheses refer to the maximum warhead carriage capacity):
  1. 58 SS-18 Satan missiles (10 warheads and 30 penetration aids each);
  2. 136 SS-19 Stiletto missiles (6 warheads/missile);
  3. 171 SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topol) missiles (single-warhead);
  4. 74 SS-27 Sickle B (RT-2UTTH) missiles (single-warhead);
  5. at least 18 SS-29 (RS-24) missiles (4 warheads/missile).

The Satan fleet alone can carry 580 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s ICBMs are not currently loaded with the maximum possible number of warheads, but can be thus loaded at any time, if the Kremlin so orders.

Russia also has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – far larger than America’s. It is estimated to have at least 1,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – by any measure, far more than the US has (about 500). These are warheads of various types: missile warheads, aircraft bombs, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedo warheads, nuclear artillery shells, etc. They are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including aircraft (e.g. the Su-24, Su-25, Tupolev bombers, and the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family; Russia plans to procure 200 Su-34s), short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. the SS-26 Stone), surface warships, submarines, and artillery pieces.

So Russia alone has a huge nuclear arsenal which America must defend itself and its allies against. It has, in recent years, made repeated threats (over a dozen in the last 4 years alone) to use these weapons against the US or its allies if they don’t succumb to Russia’s demands on various issues.

Thus, the Russian threat, by itself, is huge and justifies the retention of a large US nuclear arsenal.

China has 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, as determined in objective, impartial studies independently by Professor Philip Karber (Georgetown) and Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former Russian missile force chief of staff. Their estimates are based on Chinese fissile material stockpiles, delivery system inventories, potential targets for China, and itsst, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear missiles (which the US has to be able to destroy to be capable of credible retaliation if China attacks). China’s nuclear arsenal is so large and so sophisticated and survivable that General Yesin visited the US last year to warn US policymakers about that fact.

North Korea has about 12 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them to the US, as demonstrated by its successful December 2012 test of a genuine ICBM and the fact that it can mate nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles. North Korea, of course, also has large arsenals of SRBMs and MRBMs.

Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and may have them by next year. It is also developing an ICBM capable of hitting the US, which US intel estimates it may have by 2015, and already possesses ballistic missiles which can hit targets as far away as Warsaw (e.g. the Sejjil missile).

Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself but also for 30 allies, many of whom would otherwise develop their own nuclear weapons. If the US nuclear arsenal is further cut significantly, they (especially Japan and South Korea) will have no choice but to “go nuclear.” This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

3) “Nuclear weapons are too costly to maintain. We can save a lot of money by cutting their number.”

This claim is also utterly false. The entire ICBM leg of the nuclear triad costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn. The total nuclear arsenal and its supporting facilities and workforce cost $32 bn to $35 bn per year to maintain according to the Stimson Center. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the DOD’s annual budget (over $600 bn), the annual federal budget deficit ($1 trillion), or the total annual federal budget ($3.6 trillion).

Eliminating both the bomber and ICBM legs of the triad would “save” a tiny $3.6 bn per year – 0.1% of the total federal budget. It’s nothing. It’s less than a rounding error.

4) “Cutting our nuclear arsenal will convince others to give up their nukes. If we give up ours, North Korea will give up its.”

This false claim is downright laughable. There is zero evidence supporting it. In fact, while the US has been dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal since the Cold War’s end – from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to 5,000 today – two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and fielded ICBMs, while China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal. India and Israel have grown theirs. Moreover, all of these countries consistently refuse to even talk about, let alone give up, their nuclear arsenals. China has recently categorically rejected nuclear disarmament and North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Other countries don’t give a damn about America’s “moral example” or “leadership by example”. They don’t care about American gestures. All they care about is THEIR military strength and how it compares to America’s. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal, they will only see it as a sign of weakness – which it would be. It will never convince them to give up their nuclear arms.

Signing and implementing New START has not convinced other countries to give up their nukes.

Moreover, further cuts to America’s arsenal will not enhance America’s “credibility” in the yes of the “international community” or convince that community to place meaningful pressure on North Korea and Iran; the “international community” has utterly failed to do so.

That Obama (reportedly) plans to cynically use North Korea’s nuclear test to justify further deep reductions in America’s own deterrent is mindboggling, ridiculous, despicable, and outrageous. As North Korea, China, and Russia grow their nuclear arsenals, it is foolish and suicidal to cut America’s. North Korea’s nuclear test is an argument AGAINST Obama’s US nuclear arsenal cuts, not for them.

In sum, there are absolutely NO reasons to cut the US nuclear arsenal. But there are many reasons NOT to do it. Republicans should study the above facts and disseminate them widely to counter the blatant lies that Obama will likely make tonight to defend his indefensible, deep cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and thus America’s deterring power. Republicans also have the power AND the duty to STOP Obama’s gutting of America’s nuclear arsenal.

For more information and analysis of America’s nuclear deterrence needs, check out my website. Recommended reading includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, thisthis, and this article.

Also, Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they don’t stop America’s unilateral disarmament by Obama.

NoKo nuclear test: Proof of the utter failure of arms control policies


Yesterday’s North Korean nuclear test – the third in just 7 years – which North Korea threatens to follow up with a test of its new road-mobile KN-08 ICBM – is yet more proof of the discreditation and utter failure of arms control, including but not exclusively the arms control policies which the Obama Administration and leftist pro-arms-control, pro-disarmament groups (such as the Arms Control Association, the Council for a Livable World, the Ploughshares Fund and Chuck Hagel’s Global Zero) have been advocating for many years.

It’s not a mere “failure”; it’s a total, abject, abysmal failure and discreditation of these leftist groups and this leftist administration and the policies and ideology they’ve advocated.

For many years, we’ve been told that America’s nuclear weapons pose a huge danger to America itself and the world; that getting rid of them (and cutting their inventory as a first step) will make America and the world safer; that if the US cuts and eventually eliminates its nuclear arsenal – even unilaterally – other nuclear powers will follow, while the “international community” will put sufficient pressure on rogue states who don’t yet have nuclear arms to forego them; that eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will stop nuclear proliferation; that American nuclear weapons are liabilities these days, not assets; and that they’re relics of the Cold War no longer needed or relevant in the 21st century environment.

All of these claims – repeated incessantly by pro-arms-control groups and by leftist politicians like Barack Obama over the last several decades – are blatant lies, and will remain such no matter how many times they’re repeated. Even if Barack Obama makes such false claims during his SOTU speech tonight, they will remain blatant lies.

As real-world events, including yesterday’s nuclear test by North Korea, have proven beyond any doubt.

America’s nuclear weapons do not pose any danger to anyone, except those who’d like to make war on the US or its allies. (But if you DO plan to make war on the US or its allies, then yes, America’s nuclear arsenal is a huge threat to you.) In fact, it is this arsenal that has kept America and its allies safe for the last 67 years (and counting), and which continues to keep all of us safe to this day. It is America’s and her allies’ life insurance – and the best one you could ever get.

Getting rid of America’s arsenal will not the make the world any safer; in fact, the contrary will happen. It will only deprive the US and its allies of their most powerful deterrence instrument, and the only one which can protect them against the most lethal threats – that of a massive nuclear or conventional attack by a hostile power, and that of a limited nuclear attack by a rogue state. It – like all other forms of arms reduction and disarmament will only weaken the West’s and America’s defenses (and severely so), thus only encouraging potential aggressors (such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) to attack the US and/or its allies. Don’t delude yourself for a moment that they wouldn’t do that if they could.

If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal – unilaterally or bilaterally with Russia – other nuclear powers will not reciprocate and will not be impressed by America’s meaningless gestures and “moral leadership” or “leadership by example”. They don’t give a damn about that; they only care about THEIR military power and what it will take to outmatch the US militarily or otherwise harm the US. China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan are all hostile to the US and will not follow America’s “leadership by example”; they will only capitalize on America’s nuclear disarmament by flexing their own nuclear muscles further.

Nor will the “international community” put any meaningful pressure on rogue states like North Korea and Iran or care about America’s “credibility” on nuclear disarmament. The international community has utterly failed in the last 20+ years to put any meaningful pressure on Pyongyang and Tehran, and both of these regimes continue to be protected by Russia and China, both of whom are also unrelentingly hostile to the US. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

This is and has been true despite the fact that over the last 21 years, the US has dramatically cut its nuclear arsenal – by over 75%, from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to just 5,000 today, and despite the US signing, ratifying, and complying with numerous arms control treaties since then: START-1, START-2, SORT, and New START – none of which Russia ever complied with, by the way.

In 1992, as a part of the “Agreed Framework”, President George H. W. Bush agreed to withdraw tactical US nuclear weapons from South Korea in exchange for the North’s worthless promise of not pursuing nuclear weapons. The US did its end of the bargain, North Korea has not. Yet, the US has, since then, continued its unilateral disarmament.

Over 21 years of cutting the US nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to even slow down nuclear proliferation or otherwise make the world and America safer. In fact, the exact opposite has happened: nuclear proliferation has accelerated (two new countries, Pakistan and North Korea, have joined the nuclear club in the last 15 years alone), America’s deterrent has been dramatically weakened, and the US (as well as the world at large) is much less secure than it was when it had a larger arsenal.

Meanwhile, China and India have significantly increased their nuclear arsenals (especially China, which now has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver at least half of them, as well as a vast, 3,000-mile long network of tunnels and bunkers designed to hide its nuclear-armed missiles). Meanwhile, under Vladimir Putin, Russia has been busy steadily rebuilding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal, strategic and tactical. It now has 434 ICBMs (capable of delivering 1,684 warheads to the CONUS), over 250 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M) capable of carrying 7 warheads each, and 12-13 SSBNs with 16-20 SLBMs each – and each of their SLBMs, in turn, can carry 10-12 warheads.

This utterly refutes the lie (propagated by groups such as ACA) that “the world is safer for it”, it being the dramatic cut of the US nuclear arsenal over the last 21 years.

This also utterly refutes the Left’s lies that American nuclear weapons are liabilities these days, not assets; and that they’re relics of the Cold War no longer needed or relevant in the 21st century environment. No, they’re not.

As Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear buildup prove, nuclear weapons are actually more needed now than during the Cold War, because the US now has to deter THREE (soon to be four) nuclear-armed adversaries, two of whom (Russia and China) have large, dispersed, and very survivable nuclear arsenals. The US also has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies who depend on it for their security and indeed, their survival.

Without an adequate American nuclear umbrella – a small one will not suffice – they will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear arms, as they will no longer be able to count on the US nuclear umbrella. This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

Indeed, America’s nuclear deterrent has done more to prevent or at least slow down nuclear proliferation than any arms control agreement in history.

Also, as America’s conventional military power atrophies steadily due to numerous, deep budgetary and programmatic cuts (including sequestration), the nuclear deterrent becomes even more important as a deterrent against a large-scale conventional aggression by China, North Korea, and Russia – against the US or any of its allies.

Thus, contrary to Obama’s and arms controllers’ lies, nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’ security environment, and will be for the foreseeable future.

In these circumstances, as Russia and China retain large, survivable nuclear arsenals (and continue to grow and modernize them), and as North Korea and Pakistan grow theirs and Iran races towards nuclear arms, it would be utterly suicidal to cut, let alone scrap, America’s nuclear deterrent – whether uni- or bilaterally.

We must not allow that to happen under any circumstances.

Folks, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they don’t effectively stop Obama’s unilateral disarmament of America by passing adequate funding for the nuclear deterrent and a firm legal prohibition on any further cuts in the deterrent.

An Officer in Your School? Check the Odds.

The tragedy of Newtown has caused many, including both the NRA and the President, to request School Resource Officers in all schools. A similar program COPS was enacted in 2000 by President Clinton and allowed for the hiring of 600 SROs. Those officers were distributed among 289 communities. One might expect that the schools chosen for such expenditures would be those with highest concerns for violence.

President Obama’s Executive Order will likely bear similar issues. But what about Newtown? Was there a history of violence? Would limitations put officers in high schools where there are more worries? Would this order have stopped the tragedy?

Here’s a simple math problem. There are 99,000 public schools. President Obama’s Executive Order says the administration will give UP to 1,000 school resource officers and counselors. How many officers will be allocated PER school?

resource officers



So the question is, will your school be one of the lucky ones? Or will you have to share a resource officer with ten or, mathematically, one hundred other schools?

The president wants to assure all Americans that their children will be safe in school but these numbers appear more a patch than a safety plan.

From the White House document: Now is the Time



Putting school resource officers and mental health professionals in schools can help prevent school crime and student-on-student violence. School resource officers are specially trained police officers that work in schools. When equipped with proper training and supported by evidence-based school discipline policies, they can deter crime with their presence and advance community policing objectives. Their roles as teachers and counselors enable them to develop trusting relationships with students that can result in threats being detected and crises averted before they occur. School psychologists, social workers, and counselors can help create a safe and nurturing school climate by providing mental health services to students who need help. Not every school will want police officers

or additional school counselors, but we should do what we can to help schools get the staff they determine they need to stay safe.

• Take executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers: COPS Hiring Grants, which help police departments hire officers, can already be used by departments to fund school resource officers. This year, the Department of Justice will provide an incentive for police departments to hire these officers by providing a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers.

Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.

• Invest in other strategies to make our schools safer: School districts could also use these Comprehensive School Safety Grants to purchase school safety equipment; develop and update public safety plans; conduct threat assessments; and train “crisis intervention teams” of law enforcement officers to work with the mental health community to respond to and assist students in crisis. And the General Services Administration will use its purchasing power to help schools buy safety equipment affordably.

Oval Office Hypocrisy

WH_ovaloffice_122912 menWH photoLast month the White House released the photo on the left showing various staff interacting with the president. This week they released a new photo from the Oval Office and the picture at left is hard to find on the White House website.

What’s the difference?

No skirts on the left. . . It’s as simple as that.

During the election campaign Obama and Biden took great effort to mock Romney’s comment of having binder’s filled with qualified women job applicants. But apparently mocking was all it was. As the new administration takes place there has been a noticeable lack of women and minorities nominated. As Charles Krauthammer says, “Obama’s binder of women was very thin.”

How can this be acceptable to minorities and women who backed Obama? Does it say that the administration can only find white men who are qualified for these inner circle positions?

Watch the FNC Special Report video below for more discussion:


Obama: My Ideas are Same as Built MI. Detroit Residents: Have You Looked Around?

President Obama visited Michigan to stand before workers telling them, “My ideas are the same that built Michigan.” Residents in the downtrodden city of Detroit may not be quite so enthusiastic.

Once a thriving metropolitan city Detroit saw its heyday begin with the automotive industry in the 1920’s. But changes led to economic downfall that depressed the city, causing much of the population to leave, while its infrastructure remains, crumbling. Built to house two Million residents there are now just one-third the population. A discouraging seven percent of eighth grade students can read at grade level according to US Daily Review while twenty percent of students are illiterate.  Homes are for sale at just $1000. The city holds the dubious position of most dangerous city by Forbes.  City managers are talking about bulldozing entire neighborhoods now vacant because they can’t afford to keep them secure.

The Blaze also chose to look at Detroit this week. They saw a different side of the city than what President Obama imagined. You can see the sad pictures of a once thriving area now completely dilapidated and destroyed. The Blaze.

The changes are being documented Visit their website and scroll through the slide show on the “Why” page.

This surely is not the future as envisioned by Obama. But if he is using the same ideas what’s to stop it from happening?

« Older Entries