Category Archives: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Urgency Of The Threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Is In America’s Vital Interest To Withdraw

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

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

This is also utterly wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trash New START, Too

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow is currently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ReaganPeaceQuote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 11 of the same article also clearly states:

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Article IV

 

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

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

Liberal-Progressive Policies Equal Devastation

 

If anyone wants to see how destructive Liberal policies are, they only have to look at the worst cities in the country. As if we didn’t learn anything from the collapse of Detroit, a once thriving city where the birth of the automobile industry began, but after decades of Liberal Democratic leadership has become a waste land.

What about the other cities, not only Detroit, but also Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC, among other cities have all become riddled with crime and poverty. All these cities have one thing in common; they have been run for decades by the Liberal Progressives.

Now we see Baltimore, a once vibrant city also run by Liberal Progressives for decades. On MSNBC, Michael Eric Dyson said, “Society refuses to help [young blacks] in a serious fashion,” Is this guy kidding or what, we have spent trillions of dollars since the 1960s trying to help, but Liberal Progressives seem to be blind to that fact, all they seem to cry for is more money.

Instead of looking into the heart of the problem, black leaders seem to be content making excuses for the rioters. The mayor of Baltimore walked back calling the rioters’ thugs, as well as many other black leaders did as well. Making excuses and not prosecuting these thugs will only ensure one thing, more violence.

Matthew Hennessey of the City Journal said; “Who owns Baltimore’s rage? Some facts: Every member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat. Every mayor since 1967 has been a Democrat. Such political homogeneity invites corruption. If some element of the city’s police department is brutal and corrupt, it’s because no one in Baltimore has lifted a finger to stop them.”

Over the past couple of years the one thing that these black men who were shot by cops all have in common, they were all criminals, but they seem to be glorified instead of calling them what the really are, a menace to a civilized society. More money is never the answer despite what those Liberal Progressives say.

U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West said it best:

West

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

This is one man’s opinion.

It’s the LEFT who keep racism alive!

Racist

This week, among all the garbage that was going on in Baltimore, we saw something we don’t see very often… a parent taking charge of her teenage child who was going down to where the riots were happening. Once the vandalism started it turned to from protests to riots. But she marched through the crowd not caring about her safety to save her child’s life. God bless that woman!

She was a real hero doing something that we don’t see much of today… a parent saying “no, no way, not my child, not today.” She said she wasn’t going to allow her son to disrespect property, disrespect the police, and destroy the community. She said he promised her he would not go down there! So, as SHE said, he lied and went where he should not have been.

This single mom of 6 children took time off from work to be involved. She said when she saw him with his face covered and a brick in his hand she knew he was up to no good. She grabbed him and started smacking him around (with an OPEN hand.) She told him if he wanted to protest he should be a man, show his face, and do it the right way… using nonviolence. (Remember, all you who love Dr. King – nonviolence.)

She did a good thing. She held her son accountable for his actions!

But did she really? The loons on the Left say “no”! They say what she did was wrong. And now Baltimore child protective services is investigating her out. Their statement, “If she would do this to her son in public, what is she doing to her kids in private?” WHAT?! Are they serious?

Read the rest at:  Responsability

Immigration Then and Now Part 2-Obama The Great Destroyer

immigration-protest-arizona-060510jpg-94515b31f37572ea_large.jpg (432×306)
140406protest.jpg (379×238)
Rush Limbaugh’s brother David, a highly respected lawyer, wrote a book on Obama few years ago called “The Great Destroyer” How right he was about that title. As I said in my previous blog, Obama was brought up to a hate this country and blames it for all the problems in the world. He is setting out to turn us into a third world socialistic banana republic and eventually a Muslim state I bet with letting77,000  Muslims a year in here.

He has been acting with impunity like a third world dictator by ruling by executive order thus bypassing congress. He did the Bergdahl  trade  without consulting congress, he recently granted amnesty to 5 million illegals without consulting congress and now his latest act which enrages me to no end, that of now granting 353,000 refugees from these war torn and third world countries food stamps along with welfare, free education ,free healthcare and other benefits all paid for by the taxpayer you and me and he intends to fly more here for free.

A joint program between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security called the In Country Refugee and Parole Program is reuniting children from Central America with their parents or just one parent who is now living in the US. And you get to pay for it.

The US State Department confirmed in a call with reporters earlier this month that US taxpayer dollars are being used to fly illegal aliens into the United States.

And once the arrive in the US they children and families will qualify for free education, food stamps, medical expenses and living expenses.

Recently Rush Limbaugh commented on Obama’s rush to amnesty saying:

The Obama administration is facing new accusations that the president’s amnesty-for-illegals program is focused on getting enough immigrants to  register as Democrat voters to keep his party in power in 2016.

According to J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney who writes at PJ Media, President Obama’s “amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof.

“Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system – the ‘Electronic Immigration System’ – to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

Two comments I recently saw sums Obama and his plans up:

 How much data does one need to figure out that Obama is no more a Christian then Judas Iscariot was. Obama would claim anything if it meant getting votes. His whole life is a fraud.

We don’t even know the guy’s legal name. You see his mother was supposedly married to a guy Barack Hussein Obama Sr and then divorces the guy. Obama only saw the guy once or twice. The guy was a deadbeat drunk and ultimately killed himself in a car wreck(look it up).

Fast forward, Stanley Ann Dunham(no kidding that was his mother’s name … look it up) was remarried to a Lolo Soetoro. They moved to the predominant muslim nation of Indonesia. Obama lived there during him formative years of 6 to 10. Gee I wonder what sort of non-USA worldview he acquired in Indonesia. So did he lose his citizenship? Um unless he knew the future, and given that Indonesia DID not allow for dual citizenship, inquiring minds would like to know. Oh and what became of his legal name?

Barry Soetoro named after his stepfather.

So how exactly does the guy leave his mother at age 10 and arrive back in the USA? Was he even legal. And what alias or name did he go by?

We don’t even know the guys legal name. Explains a lot when your whole life is living in the shadows. Also explains why a supposed Harvard Law grad would take up community organizing in one of the most corrupt cities which DOES not vet.. Chicago.

BobDes • 

Obama knows simple logic and that is to win an election it takes achieving the greatest quantity of votes. It is not important to him of how the votes are gained, “by hook or crook”, or what the unintended consequences will be with achieving a win! What he did not anticipate is the serious debacle Hillary has put herself in so he is now in a panic to capture the illegal immigrant votes by whatever means to offset what Democrats Hillary will lose. Also, what might be lurking in the shadows in Obama’s thinking is if he gains sufficient democratic control he just might be able to pry the door open enough for a third term in the future.

 He is right. There has been a lot of talk lately about here not being any elections and Obama will declare martial law and have a third term. It can’t happen here you say? Only time will tell. When the National Guard was called out in Baltimore they were quick to say this is not martial law. Think about it.

 The real reason for Obama’s executive amnesty

Powdered Wig Society 353,000 refugees now on food stamps, and the number is gr

 

Salon.com’s Joan Walsh: White People Got Freddie Gray Killed

Purge

Joan Walsh, published author and writer for Salon, doesn’t seem to like white people very much. In fact, she seems to blame what happened to Freddie Gray on white people in-general.

Before we get into the America-hating articles that Joan Walsh has written lately, a little bio might be helpful. Walsh is the author of “What’s the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America.” I’m not sure who the “us” is that needs to find their way in the next America or what the next America supposedly is, but both of those concepts sound like a push to continue the country on its currently hell-bound track.

Ms. Walsh is the not-so-amazing talent behind articles like “The hideous white hypocrisy behind the Baltimore ‘Hero Mom’ hype” and “How job flight & police brutality spelled doom for Freddie Gray’s neighborhood

From the latter article, Joan posits that what happened to Freddie was due to the “hole at the center of these communities: disinvestment, job flight, wage erosion; the ‘disappearance of work.'” But these issues are laid out as causes of inner-city troubles instead of examining them as the effects of something else – something deeper and harder to fix.

What causes these businesses to leave? Why is there “job flight?” Her article on the subject does not examine the business environment, political leadership, community leadership or other societal factors.

If the local populace want to loot and burn their local establishments, that is their choice, but who’s actually to blame?

Could it be the de-emphasis of church and community that big-government liberals have pushed for generations? Without a core for a community, it becomes more reliant on the political leadership and slowly quits listening to its own elders. Church leaders’ voices get replaced by the likes of Al Sharpton – what could go wrong?

As a result of these riots, riots before these and extremely high crime rates, banks will NOT loan money to put new businesses in those locations. Before long, no new jobs will show up and the stores and restaurants that do exist will have no choice to but to move to friendlier neighborhoods – the death spiral of the inner-city continues.

In her article on the “Mom of the Year” Joan scolds white people for their admiration of a black Mom yanking her child out of the riots:

anyone white who’s applauding Graham’s moment of desperation, along with the white media figures who are hyping her ‘heroism,’ is essentially justifying police brutality, and saying the only way to control black kids is to beat the shit out of them.

See, white people caused police brutality because they, according to Joan, believe that you have to “beat the shit” out of black kids.

White people did not torch Baltimore, nor Ferguson, nor L.A. nor Oakland nor any other neighborhood that allowed their local environment to deteriorate to the point that businesses decided to operate elsewhere.

Going off on white people when Baltimore has a black Mayor, a black police commissioner and a mostly black city council seems odd. Add in that  half of the officers charged in Gray’s death were black makes Joan’s arguments even more ill-thought.

There are awful things that happen due to racial issues. Making everything about race belittles the truly racist actions that occur.

Before long, crying “racist” will have no more impact than saying that someone isn’t your friend anymore. They may just take their ball and go home – much like those businesses in black communities.

Those businesses (owned by black and white alike) are doing what they have to in order to survive. While leaving the neighborhood might be similar to taking your ball and leaving, it is is not the same as causing someone to get killed.

Immigration then and Now

angry illegals
When immigrants first came to this country and made it into one of the greatest countries on earth, they came to get a better life for themselves and their families. They learned the language and assimilated. They worked hard maybe 12-15 hours a day and no holidays. Over the years into the late 20th century that changed.

Thanks to liberal policies by both Bushes and Clinton and now, made worse by Obama, a new immigrant emerged.  They want handouts and refuse to learn the language or assimilate.  They are bringing their customs here and expecting us to abide by them or be considered racist. Naturally our lily livered politicians give in for fear of being labeled racist and anti-semetic.

These new immigrants are getting free healthcare, free welfare, free education and numerous other benefits. They are coming in here by the millions and no real border security. Drug lords are smuggling in millions of pounds of drugs daily through tunnels underneath they built themselves and open borders. Along with this mass migration new diseases are coming in such as the entero virus that can paralyze you and cause breathing problems and diseases that have since been vanquished in this country such as measles, chicken pox and polio are back.

Obama is the worst transgressor in allowing this to happen due to his hatred for America. His father and step father both instilled their neo-colonial views in him blaming America and white people for all the problems in the world which he himself now believes and after spending 20 years in Rev. Wrights’ church listening to his anti-American sermons. Just read Obama’s book Dreams From My father or listen to an audio reading of it by him and you can see his distain for white people. For this Obama says America must be punished.

Obama is letting people in by the millions including 77,000 muslims per year from various muslim countries. Thousands of little kids came across the Mexican border recently by themselves and were distributed to various parts of the country. Where were their parents? Obama is having border guards change diapers and care for infants that come across rather than protecting our borders. Recently Obama has appointed open border/amnesty advocate Cecilia Munoz to replace Melody Barnes as the head of the Domestic Policy Council. Munoz, a strong supporter of the failed DREAM Act, is the former senior vice president for the radical open-border National Council of La Raza. For those of you not familiar with La Raza, it is Spanish for “the Race” and is a radical group that calls for the extermination of white people and to reclaim the western states that were taken from them they claim was part of Mexico. This is the type of people Obama puts in power.

The census has a new report that says by the year 2044 whites will be in the minority. Whites will be 49% of the population and minorities will be over 50% led by Hispanics at 25% and African Americans at 12%.There will be a total of 51 million new immigrants in here in the next 8 years.  Where are we going to put everyone and what happens when they all start reproducing? Is there anyone left in the other countries or is everyone here now? There are currently over 100 languages spoken here. We truly have turned into a tower of Babel, a society that has gone completely insane with a sense of entitlement.

Here is a great comment I recently saw that sums it up: illegaldestroyer 9 months ago

Our immigration system is no longer benefiting our country. We need fewer immigrants and a higher quality of immigrant. Allowing illegal aliens from Central America with parasites, diseases, no education, and who can’t speak English is NOT the way to go.

Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S.

Ray Stevens – Come to the USA – YouTube (listen to Ray tell the truth about immigration in his own catchy tune way. 😀

Obama Appoints La Raza Radical to Control Domestic Policy – …

 

 

Evidently, ‘Black America’ Doesn’t Get It

Baltimore on Fire

One Baltimore protester exclaimed to FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera, “I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.” And there you have it in a nutshell, the underlying sentiment trying to be vocalized by a violent, frustrated Black urban demographic that has taken to the streets in cities areas across America. There is just one thing wrong with that narrative. It is based in obliviousness of a cultural reality that has been prevalent for the last two to three generations. And it is truly sad.

I grew up in the 1960s. I remember full well the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The 1960s and the 1970s were decades of true and real change; change that reshaped and redefined American culture in many ways, some for the better, some for the worse. Those years gave way to the Civil Rights movement and the understanding of a need for gender equality, to name but a few of the good things that came from that era. But it also gave way to a degradation of the importance of personal responsibility, civility and a need to be a productive and positive member of a community.

During those years, children were taught to be painstakingly aware of what today would be referred to as racial privilege. In our schools and in our homes, Americans of all racial backgrounds began to understand, fully, the brilliance of the words of Civil Rights movement leaders, especially Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We were brought up – taught in our schools and by our parents – that we were to form our judgments of other people not on the color of their skin but on the conduct of their character. It made sense. And for at least two to three generations now that is the way White American children have been raised, the first of those generations now in their mid- to late-50s.

But where in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a real issue with racial disparity and discrimination, today we face a moment in time when an entire faction of American society – urban “Black America” – either won’t acknowledge or is incapable of acknowledging the fact that racial disparity and discrimination – societally and systemically, as history accurately recalls – has ceased to exist in the form they have been led to believe.

That sounds like a denial that racism exists in today’s culture. It is not. Rather, it is an observation – based in reality – that systemic racism and discrimination against Black Americans does not exist today, not in the form in which they are led to believe. Are there racists among us? Yes. That intellectually stunted way of thinking, sadly, will always be with us. It is human nature, and humans – no matter how dedicated Progressives are to perfecting the human race (even going so far as to practice eugenics, which is intrinsically detrimental to Black Americans) – will never reach perfection. But that societal malady is not systemic. It is a malady that affects individuals, not the entirety of cultures. Three generations of White Americans have been taught and conditioned to see past race; to see past the color of a person’s skin. Three generations have learned and benefited from a simple idea, that people should form opinions of other people based on their character, the actions, their deeds and the way they interact with others, not their skin color. But, evidently, sadly, urban “Black America” doesn’t seem to get this fact.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

I don’t doubt that the person who made that statement truly believes in what he says. In fact, I am certain that he does. I am certain that he believes that every single White American that he passes on the street sees a difference between them. But that is a perception issue based on assumption, not a racial issue. And therein lays the crux of the problem we are facing today in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Ferguson and elsewhere. Entire urban Black American communities are judging the entirety of “White America” by the sins of eras past (even though over 600,000 men, mostly White, died in pursuit of eradicating slavery in the US Civil War) and by the intellectually stunted actions of individuals today. The sad irony in all of this is that Black America is judging White America by the color of their skin and not the content of its character. Black America – especially urban Black America – is being racist against White America. Where post-Civil Rights Movement White America has learned from the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it appears urban Black America has jettisoned his wisdom in preference to special interest racial privilege, at least in a macro sense.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

Logic mandates that there is no possible way that one person can ever truly know what is in another person’s heart – regardless of their race – unless they engage them one-on-one. I would suggest that the man who made that comment has never taken the time to actually talk to the average “White American” about the issue; that he has never had an honest “conversation” about the issue outside of his own like-minded community. Instead, the person who made this statement has been conditioned by the opportunistic politicians and the permanently disgruntled to believe a false narrative, one that divides the nation along racial lines for the purposes of acquiring and maintaining power, and one that will be hard to remove from society unless we all – not just White Americans – start looking past skin color and more towards the character of all Americans, individually.

As for me, I will not be bullied back into the false narrative. I do not judge anyone on the color of their skin, nor do I know anyone, anywhere who does. It is an antiquated thought process that serves no good thing. Instead, I judge people on their actions, their deeds; the way they interact with others, whether they are kind and supportive or jaded, uncaring and indignant, whether they live by the rule of law, working to affect change through a peaceful process, or use violence to destroy, to bully, to intimidate and coerce…I judge them on their character.

Today, as I watch Baltimore burn, I can’t say much for the character of the urban Black American community. Their actions speak for themselves. They are, sadly, disappointingly, trapped in the death-cycle false narrative that institutional racism still exists in the United States…blind to the fact that they could, alternatively, truly be “free at last.”

Rebuttal of Doug Bandow’s Blatant Lies About Ronald Reagan

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

Bandow falsely claims that (emphasis mine):

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

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

These are blatant lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Bandow falsely claims that:

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

Those are President Reagan’s words, not mine.

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

We Live In A Mad House, A Mad House

Who could forget the scene from the original Planet of The Apes when Charlton Heston was in a cage getting hosed down by one of the apes; he shouted “This is a mad house, a mad house.” Well it seems the whole world has turned into “A mad house, a mad house.

It seems for the first time in US history, a judge has granted two chimpanzees a petition  through human attorneys to defend their rights against unlawful imprisonment, arguably bestowing the status of “legal persons” on the primates. Just last week, Manhattan

Supreme Court justice Barbara Jaffe granted a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two non-human plaintiffs, Hercules and Leo, chimpanzees used for medical experiments at Stony Brook University on Long Island.

But this is not the first time this has happened, in one failed bid to remove another chimpanzee, Tommy, from captivity in a trailer in Gloversville, New York, an appeals court argued that chimpanzees do not participate in society and cannot be held accountable for their actions. I guess this judge forgot that in 2009 a chimpanzee in Connecticut, bit both hands off a woman and also ate her face off. Chimpanzees are animals and should be treated as such, I think this judge needs to go back to law school, or get a mental evaluation. A person is a person and a chimp is an animal.

chimp_suit-300x180

In another event that proves the world is going mad, a traditional values leader is exposing the Girl Scouts for its continued move toward far-left causes. The latest announcement, says Linda Harvey of Mission America, is that little boys from kindergarten through high school can join the Girl Scouts, if the boy considers himself a girl. “In other words, he calls the shots,” Harvey says of young males. “He is the one that determines the rights and privacy of authentic girls.”

So let’s see, a 16 year old boy can get up one day and say he thinks he is a girl and they have to let him in the Girl Scouts. I don’t know about you, but if my daughter went on a camping trip with the Girl Scouts and I found out that a boy was gonna sleep in the same tent, there would be hell to pay. A while back I was reading that there are parents that actually ask there kids “What do you feel like today, a boy or a girl,” if that ain’t child abuse, I don’t know what is. It’s the same thing with the Boy Scouts allowing homosexuals in the group. Do I want my son sleeping in the same tent with a homosexual, hell no?  I won’t even mention trans-gender bathrooms.

Over the years the Girl Scouts have been trying to push a liberal left wing agenda by pushing liberal sex education, as well as ties to Planned Parenthood. But out of this madness comes a bright spot, a pro-family rival organization to the Girl Scouts, who believe in family, God and country, American Heritage Girls, is celebrating 20 years this year. Also a chapter is being organized for homosexual and lesbian families, see there is a solution for every thing if we just use our heads.

In a resent news article, the headline read; U.S. Army FORCES Cadets to Wear High Heels to Promote Feminist Campaign –  Army ROTC cadets are complaining on message boards that they were pressured to walk in high heels on Monday for an Arizona State University campus event designed to raise awareness of sexual violence against women. How demeaning is this to our future soldiers.

“Attendance is mandatory and if we miss it we get a negative counseling and a ‘does not support the battalion sharp/EO mission’ on our CDT OER for getting the branch we want. So I just spent $16 on a pair of high heels that I have to spray paint red later on only to throw them in the trash after about 300 of us embarrass the U.S. Army tomorrow,” one anonymous cadet wrote on the social media sharing website Imgr, IJReview.

For those of you who watch the O’reilly Factor know that on Wednesday nights he has on Dennis Miller, one thing he is always saying is the world is going mad, I have to agree with him.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

images

 

 

This is one man’s opinion.

The LEFT wants facts, but just THEIR facts!

16506786274_9a9334a265_b

This week Hillary’s “misspeaks,” “misleads,” and “what difference, at this point, does it make” sagas continue to be in the news. And I mean, the REAL news.

The news gods may be having a little change of heart. ABC, NBC, CBS, and, yes, even MSNBC have been asking questions and making comments about Hillary’s blatant disregard for the law and her failure to think things through when it comes to taking money from countries and questionable characters. Just when I thought the clouds were going to part and some sanity set in, in steps George Stephanopoulos, a very left-wing journalist, who, after speaking with the author of “Clinton Cash” basically said, “Move along nothing to see here.” His whole premise is that since we have no hard evidence that money changed hands for favors through the White House for the Clinton’s that all is well in OZ.

Well, Mr. Stephanopoulos, all is not well in OZ. And you, sir, are a MAJOR part of the problem. It used to be that journalists gave us all sides of the issue and allowed us to draw a conclusion. They didn’t decide what the truth was and then paint a picture that would lead us to their truth.

This same group of mainstream media people made many assumptions about George W Bush and had no problem accusing him while “misspeaking” their facts as truth.

HillaryCoverUp

Mr. Stephanopoulos is floored that anyone would draw any conclusion of wrongdoing starting with Mrs. Clinton’s email issue. She simply made a mistake and since the president knew about it, all is well! Really? Turn the tables and see what would have happened if it was done by a Republican.

Nothing “fishy” about Mr. Clinton getting on average $70,000 for speaking gigs before Hillary became Secretary of State. But after her appointment, all of a sudden he is worth $500,000 to $1.3 million per speaking gig. Did he take a speech writing class? Get better teleprompters? That’s not important. And no worries, most of those were events with some connection to donors.

In the immortal words of Yul Brynner in the “King and I”… “iz a puzzlement.”

Here’s a quick rundown… Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, $25 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. Australia, $10 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. Sultanate of Oman, $5 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. And the list goes on to the tune of $150 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons (CFFTBOTC).

Who else? What other legislator? What other past president? What other past legislator has received this kind of money from foreign entities? I’ll save you the time… NO ONE! Donations are made to Presidential Libraries for the purpose of upkeep and purchasing artifacts for the library, not the presidential families. But Georgie says you have nothing that actually ties to an agreement to provide services.

A uranium (shell) company donated big bucks to the CFFTBOTC. Shortly after the donation, coincidentally, Mrs. Clinton changed her mind about the U.S. blocking the uranium mining deal and even encouraged such deals in some of her speeches.

Then, there is the “re-filing” of past tax returns. Since it was brought to their attention that they forgot to include many, if not all, of the Canadian deal-based donations on their reports. Let’s pause here a minute. Hillary says she is a person of integrity and ethics. They have an elite team managing this foundation. How did they miss MILLIONS of dollars in donations with such an experienced team of employees at The Foundation? Not once, not twice, but 4 years in a row! Tax experts say it’s highly unusual for a foundation to refile this many years because of omissions.

Well, not to worry. Hillary stepped down from the foundation’s board of directors this month but her husband, Bill, and their daughter, Chelsea, remain directors. I’m sure she will keep and arm’s length (or at least a bedroom length) away from Bill and the foundation. After all, she has always been honest and up front with us on all issues. Right?

That whole, Benghazi debacle where she swears they never refused to send help. Oh wait… never mind! OK, then there is the “I turned over all the correspondence and emails pertaining to Benghazi and my term as Secretary of State” thing. Oh, wait… never mind. At least she only erased the emails that had to do with her daughter’s wedding, her aunt’s death, her yoga routines, and her personal transactions on the homes they purchased. Yup, all 33,000 of the personal emails. Oh, wait… never mind. OK then, we’ll just track down the entities and people she probably sent emails to and ask them for them… guess what? The first dozen or so refused to share. Can you see my shocked face?

Read the rest at CantFindTheTruth

G.W. Bush Offers Rare Criticism of Obama

President G.W. Bush

President G.W. BushAt an hour-long question-and-answer session with the Republican Jewish Coalition, former President George W. Bush offered harsh criticism of President Obama’s handling of the Middle-East.

Bush has previously avoided criticizing the sitting President, but Saturday night he offered his views on Obama’s handling of the Iranian nuclear deal, the retreat from Iraq and President Obama’s approach to dealing with ISIS.

Bush said that Obama’s approach to Iran is naive and that allowing sanctions to expire with an idle threat that they could be put back in place at any time was unrealistic. The former president also characterized Obama’s approach as short-sighted when he said “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then put ISIS’ advancement in Iraq squarely on Obama’s shoulders. He called President Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq without a Strategic Forces Agreement a “strategic blunder.”

On dealing with terrorists, Bush hinted that Obama has been too soft. Bush said “In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it. You gotta kill em.”

 

Deal Reached on Sex Trafficking and Lynch

Loretta_Lynch

Loretta_LynchRepublicans and Democrats came together to reach compromise on two contested issues – Loretta Lynch and sex trafficking legislation.

For the last week, the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General has been stalled while Democrats held up a bill intended to help the victims of sex trafficking.

The bill was set to make it unlawful for any fines paid by sex traffickers to be used to pay for abortions. Democrats disagreed and the tension began.

In order to force compromises on the sex trafficking bill, Republicans hold Loretta Lynch’s confirmation up until an agreement could be reached.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sat down and hashed out the base agreement with help from others.

The sex trafficking bill is set for a vote today and the Lynch nomination could move forward as soon as Wednesday.

The final deal gave both sides what they were looking for: Republicans prevented sex trafficking money from going to pay for abortions and Democrats get the President his Attorney General.

 

Equal pay starts at home!

equal_pay_2-20-121

Equal pay starts at home, at least that is what his Highness King OBLAMO thinks. In a speech this week, the guy who claims he knows the Constitution, knows what the people want, and, well, he just plain knows everything, hasn’t figured out that we didn’t elect his wife. She wasn’t on the ticket. OK, you got me. There are a lot of things he hasn’t figured out yet and, with any luck, won’t before the end of his “kill America” campaign.

This woman (yes, I said it, deal with it) started off by saying, when her husband ran for office, this was the first time she was proud of America or proud to be an American. Was that because they finally pulled off one of the biggest scams on the American public? Was it because they were able to use the legal tools at their disposal to seal Oblamos records and make sure that no one really knew about his upbringing, school experience, girlfriends (if he had any), boyfriends (if he had any), college scores, attendance, drug or alcohol abuse, and so on? All the things the Dems want to know about every Conservative candidate that has and ever will run? And they get nasty if it’s hidden or covered up! One-sided justice, but I digress. equal-pay-cartoon-mckee-495x327

Her Majesty, Mrs. Oblamo, has stated openly that being in the White House is like being in prison. That one of the reasons they stopped attending church is because they needed down time from their very demanding schedules. Down time away from God? WOW! A “Christian” family who says they need time away from God so they can just to be together. Very confusing. I guess they must have missed the scripture that speaks about forsaking fellowship or the gathering together of other believers. Again I digress!

Mrs. Oblamo consistently complains about her role, about her prison, about American, and now she wants to be paid for it? Really? She has more “aids” than any 20 prior First Ladies combined! She wastes more taxpayer dollars on personal vacations and shopping sprees around the world than any 40 First Ladies combined.

Mr. Oblamo tried to gain sympathies (and more of the women vote) by saying:

“I want to make sure that when she’s working she’s getting paid the same as men. I gotta say that First Ladies right now don’t get paid, even though that’s a tough job!”

Hey, professor, she has a voluntary job! One that she knew required a lot of work to represent this country. It’s called public service. When you spoke to Michelle before you ran the first time didn’t you guys agree that it would be a sacrifice, one worthy of the work for this great country? Didn’t you discuss the significance of you being the first REAL Black president (Clinton being seen as the first honorary black president) and the first black family to inhabit the White House… a house that you live in free of charge, on top of your salary, with full protection for your entire family.

Did you guys agree on the office? Or was it a “What the hey, let’s give it a try and see what happens. We’ll figure out the rest later,” kind of moment. I would bet it was the latter.

Michelle, your job is voluntary. Volunteers get nothing but recognition. You don’t like it, QUIT! Hang out. Lay around all day. Do nothing. You’d save us a bundle. People would give their first born to have that job, yes, the volunteer one. To have the power you have to influence education, children’s health (in a good way,) to go to foreign lands, and not for the shopping, but to influence governments for women’s rights, children’s rights, and bring light to the sex slave industry. Your volunteer job is an honor, not a nuisance.

Your role as First Lady is to be an ambassador for America, not a slug for America. Your husband is already getting paid more than he’s worth. Have him give you some of his money.

People, I have never seen two individuals who are so out of touch with the reality of the American people and the safety of the world than Mr. and Mrs. Oblamo. And they back it up with their actions.

I can’t find one real initiative they’ve done in the name of the United States. They’ve done many in the name of His High and Mighty Oblamo, but NONE in the name of this country. Only constant complaints about and apologies for America while in foreign countries and Mrs. Oblamo’s constant whining about how tough her job is.

NEW FLASH… you have NO job! You have an honorary position that you chose to accept. You don’t like it, LEAVE! And don’t let the door hit you on the way out……..

Read the rest at TRS

The Devil Has Taken America

Recently I read something that sent shivers up my spine. How could someone in 1965 predict what America would be like today? As I read the article I was shocked at how much this man said back then, is so true today. The mans name was Paul Harvey, who was a conservative American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Networks. Read the transcript of his commentary below, it is amazing how true it is and shows how much America has fallen.

“If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

And then I’d get organized.  I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame.  If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.  And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct.  I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.  And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure.  In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing.  Paul Harvey, good day.”

Amazing isn’t it? We have the Liberal-Progressives to thank for that.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

devil

This is one man’s opinion.

 

300 Muslims

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on in this country? Why does the world seem upside down? What has happened to America? It seems that people are so afraid of offending, that they just let common sense and the truth take a back seat in this country.

It seems that the University of Michigan Canceled the screening of American Sniper’ because it made members of Muslim Brotherhood front group feel unsafe. More than 300 Muslim students protested the decision to screen the film because it advanced “negative and misleading stereotypes” against Muslims.

Are these people idiots or what? Don’t they watch the news; don’t they see what is going on in the world? Muslims are terrorizing the world; you don’t need a film to see that. They say it shows Muslims in a bad light, are they kidding, the film shows the truth about Muslims, are they afraid of the truth?

I want to know how 300 Muslims can tell an American University what kind of movie they should show, maybe in their country there is no freedom of speech, but in this country that is what we have, or do we?

The letter in part said, “Middle Eastern characters in the film are not lent an ounce of humanity and watching this movie is provocative and unsafe to MENA and Muslim students who are too often reminded of how little the media and world values their lives. … The University of Michigan should not participate in further perpetuating these negative and misleading stereotypes.”

Let me tell these Muslim students something, you can thank those Muslim terrorists who find it necessary to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people around the world for the reputation Muslims have today. Why don’t they start protesting against those terrorists instead of protesting against a hero like Chris Kyle, people like Chris Kyle fight and die so idiots like them can make stupid remarks like they do.

But my real beef is with the University of Michigan, what kind of backbone do these people have, true they did reverse their decision, but it never should have happen in the first place. The university should have never issued this statement, “We have elected to pull the film from this week’s program and screen another movie in its place that we believe better creates the fun, engaging atmosphere we seek, without excluding valued members of our community.” My grandfather had a name for the people in Washington, he called them “educated jerks” it seems that it also applies to the people who run universities as well.

Muslims protesting a hero like Chris Kyle, Mexicans flying the American flag upside down, you come to America to become an American, people must assimilate to the American way of life when they come here, if they don’t want too, they should stay where they were. I bet if those Muslim students protested in their home country’s they would be in prison right now, or maybe worse.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

BCJ19-mCcAEdPB7.jpg-large-e1428528956257

This is one man’s opinion.

 

« Older Entries