Category Archives: Support Israel

The Terrorists in Sheep’s Clothing



One could think that between the soon-to-be civil war in Egypt and watching the Zimmerman defense team wipe the floor with the prosecution, that there is no other news happening around the world. I’m sorry to disappoint, but there is.

Unfortunately, news comes from Israel where we learn that none other than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been secretly meeting with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to begin talks again on what some call a two-state solution, some call a three-state solution and what I call a no-Jewish-state solution.

This comes the same time as the “moderate” Palestinian Authority TV had a child, seven or eight years old, reading a poem describing Jews as “barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs.”

“Oh, you who murdered Allah’s pious prophets Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood You have been condemned to humiliation and hardship. Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations Oh barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs.”

Creative, imaginative and colorful isn’t it? I’m impressed and certainly not surprised. While the world media describes Hamas in the Gaza Strip as extremists, the Palestinian Authority is not any different. The methods may differ – Hamas sends rockets into Israel while the PA under the guise of “moderation”, brings Israel to the negotiating table to talk “peace”… the final result is the same, the dismemberment and destruction of the Jewish state.

Children, as we all know, are not born hating anyone. A child reading such an horrible “poem” has had to have been brought up in a culture of violence – being taught that Jews are less than human. Removing such terrible creatures (the Jews) would follow – we know this to be true since martyrdom is taught to such young children through television cartoons and advertisements glorifying death.

We are talking about the Palestinian Authority. The so-called “moderates” – not Hamas, who we know are clearly planning their next attack on Israel. I wrote about what the PA was doing with their children back in 2002. Nothing has changed. The culture of violence continues strong – creating the next generation of terrorists.

Why has PM Netanyahu jumpstarted talks with the Palestinian Authority? I have no idea.

Stop the Democrats’ unilateral cuts in the US nuclear deterrent!


The Left never ceases to attempt to weaken, sabotage, and undermine the US and its defenses. Its biggest target these days is the nuclear deterrent.

As the House moves to consider the annual defense authorization bill, the Democrats have filed a slew of amendments which, if they pass (God forbid), would deeply and unilaterally cut America’s already barely sufficient nuclear deterrent – at a time when no one else is cutting theirs and all adversaries of the US are GROWING and MODERNIZING their nuclear arsenals.

The Intercepts blog at reports that an entire slew of such amendments will be introduced by the Democrats during the floor debate; they’ll also attempt to cut the defense budget further, deeper than sequestration.

The Left absolutely must be stopped from cutting the (already barely adequate and aging) nuclear deterrent any further. By any means necessary. Here’s why.

Cutting the US nuclear deterrent – contrary to the Left’s lies – has not and will never make America and the world more secure. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence it will make America, its allies (including Israel), and the world much less secure, and the world will get much less peaceful.

Why? Because cutting America’s defenses makes the US, its allies, and the world less secure, not more. It is military strength that safeguards peace and security, and military weakness that jeopardizes them.

Nowhere is this more obvious tha in the nuclear deterrence realm. Cutting the US nuclear deterrent further will make it too small and thus much easier for America’s potential adversaries, like Russia and China, to destroy in a disarming first strike – which Russia reserves the right to conduct, and which China has refused to rule out.


Cutting America’s arsenal will also reduce the number of enemy assets (bases, units, stockpiles, industrial facilities, etc.) that the US can hold at risk and threaten to destroy in retaliation – thus precipitously reducing America’s retaliatory power. This is what the Dems’ treasonous policies would do.

Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals, militaries, and base infrastructure are so large and so reduntant and disperses that the US needs thousands, not mere hundreds, of nuclear warheads to deter them – especially to deter both of them. And both of them will have the ability to reduce the US arsenal in a preemptive first strike, if it’s cut as deeply as the Dems’ and their pacifist bankrollers like the Council for a Livable World want to.

Russia has 2,800 strategic and up to 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads, deployed and nondeployed. It has 434 ICBMs (most of them multiple/warhead/armed), 251 strategic bombers (each carrying up to 6 nuclear cruise missiles and many also carrying a nuclear freefall bomb), and 14 ballistic missile subs with 16-20 missiles each, and 4-12 warheads per missile, depending on its type (Sinyeva missiles carry only 4 warheads; Liner missiles carry 12). Russian boomer subs can launch their missiles while being homeported.

Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal is even larger. It consists of up to 4,000 warheads in various forms: nuclear depth charges, nuclear bombs, warheads for short-range missiles, nuclear artillery shells, etc. Russia can deliver them by many means: surface warships, submarines, cruise missiles, artillery pieces, SRBMs, etc.

What’s more, Russia and China are GROWING, not shrinking, their nuclear arsenals. Russia has been doing so since New START ratification – as allowed to do so by that one-sided treaty, which requires cuts only in the US arsenal. Russia is adding warheads as well as delivery systems. It has resumed Tu-160 bomber production from stockpiled parts.

China also has a large arsenal – contrary to the false claims of pacifist groups. It has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads according to General Viktor Yesin (former Russian missile force chief of staff) and Professor Philip Karber, respectively. It has recently built 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers for its nuclear missiles and warheads. You don’t build such a vast network for only a few hundred warheads.

China currently has 87 ICBMs (20 DF-4s, 36 DF-5s, at least 30 DF-31/31As, and at least one DF-41), over 1,600 SRBMs, hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles, at least 100 MRBMs (DF-21s and DF-3s), 6 ballistic missile submarines (5 Jin class, 1 Xia class, with at least 12 nuclear-armed missiles per boat), and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft (H-6, Q-5, JH-7).

Both Russia and China are also rapidly modernizing their entire arsenals of warheads and delivery systems. Russia is developing or producing several new ICBM types: the Yars silo-based and Yars-M road-mobile ICBM, a rail-mobile ICBM, the “Avangard” ICBM (little is known about it), a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range, and another ICBM recently mentioned by deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin. Plus the “Son of Satan” ICBM intended to replace the SS-18 heavy ICBM.

Russia is also developing a next-generation bomber and has recently fielded the Kalibr sub-launched cruise missile, the Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile, new warheads, and the Su-34 attack aircraft.

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

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

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

China is also modernizing by fielding new ICBMs (DF-31As, DF-41s), a new air-launched cruise missile (CJ-20), the new Jin class of SSBNs, improved variants of the JL-2 sub-launched ballistic missile with a 12,000 km range, and a sub-launched cruise missile. It’s also developing a new class of SSBNs (follow-on to the Jin class) and has ordered 36 Tu-22M bombers. Concurrently, both China and Russia are also developing missile defenses.

Moscow and Beijing aren’t the only nuclear threats to America, though. North Korea has 8-12 nuclear warheads, ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and – through its successful satellite test conducted last December – demonstrated capability to mate nuclear payloads to missiles, confirmed by the DIA and by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. North Korea has, since the last crisis, announced it will GROW, not give up, its nuclear arsenal – and has recently test-fired several SRBMs again. Meanwhile, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapons.

And yet, the Dems want America to dramatically and unilaterally cut America’s nuclear deterrent in the face of all of these nuclear threats! What’s more, they lie that cutting America’s deterrent unilaterally will make her and the world safer and more peaceful!

Do you see the idiocy of this, Dear Reader?

Meanwhile, America’s allies are slowly losing trust in America’s nuclear umbrella, which is being continually cut and undermined by the Dems. Already, 66.5% of South Koreans want their country to have nuclear weapons, and Japan has recently opened a facility that can produce enough plutonium for 3,600 warheads in several months if need be… that is, if the US cuts its nuclear umbrella further.

If the US continues doing so, America’s allies will have no choice but to develop their own arsenals, as they cannot afford to bet their security, and indeed their very existence, on the Democrats’ “unilateral disarmament will make us safer” fantasies – or on America breaking free of Democrat rule in 2016.

What’s more, the US needs to be able to deter nuclear threats not only today, but well into the future – decades from now. That cannot be done with a tiny nuclear deterrent, because the arsenals of America’s adversaries, already large, will only grow in the future. Thus, so must America’s arsenal.

Remember: in the nuclear deterrence business, there is zero allowable margin of risk and zero room for error.

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has only made her, her allies, and the world much less secure and peaceful. The US has reduced its arsenal by over 75% since the Cold War’s end; stopped designing, producing, or testing new warheads; hasn’t deployed a new ICBM since 1986 and a new bomber since the early 1990s; hasn’t modernized its nuclear warheads or facilities since the Cold War’s end; and is not seriously modernizing what arsenal it has left.

(This is a deliberate Obama administration policy: their Undesecretary of State for Arms Control has said, “We’re not modernizing. That has been one of the basic tenets and principles of our policy.”)

Meanwhile, Russia has begun rebuilding its nuclear arsenal, China has dramatically increased its, and two new states – Pakistan and North Korea – have joined the nuclear club. Iran is well on its way there, defying all international sanctions.

Judged by the results, “arms control” – cutting the US nuclear arsenal deeply – has been an utter failure which has made America, its allies, and the world dramatically less secure while encouraging nuclear proliferation.

The US should do the exact opposite of what the Democrats demand. It should modernize and grow, not cut, its nuclear arsenal.

UPDATE: The debate is now ongoing on the House floor. Liberal Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, one of the most vociferous Democrat opponents of America’s nuclear deterrent, has just made the ridiculous statement that

“What’s good for a missile base in Wyoming is not necessarily good for our country.”

The missile base he referred to is Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in WY. Do you believe, Congressman, that having a strong, large, and dispersed nuclear deterrent, consisting of three legs (ICBMs, bombers, submarines) is a bad thing? That having a large nuclear deterrent to dissuade Russia, China, and North Korea is a bad thing? Because that is exactly what you suggest when you make such claims.

This is not about one missile base in Wyoming. This is about preserving the nuclear deterrent – the part of our defenses which is responsible for protecting America and its allies against the gravest threats we face – Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And ICBMs are by far the cheapest, most ready, and most responsive part of that deterrent, costing only 1 bn dollars per year to maintain. No real savings can be achieved by cutting them. Congressman Cooper is a fool and needs to apologize to the folks in WY and to the Air Force.

UPDATE #2: The House has passed an amendment to preserve America’s current ICBMs in operational status, thus barring Obama from scrapping them. While 7 Democrats voted for it, 4 pseudoconservative “libertarian” Republicans voted against it: Justin Amash of MI, Mick Mulvaney of SC, Thomas Massie of KY, and Putin lover Dana Rohrabacher of CA.

In so doing, these 4 RINOs essentially voted to give Obama a free hand to scrap America’s ICBMs – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg of the nuclear triad, joining 185 liberal Democrats – their true ideological allies.

There is absolutely NO excuse – military, fiscal or other – for what they’ve done. The entire ICBM fleet costs only 1 billion per year to maintain, so even scrapping it completely would save only 1 bn dollars – not even a drop in the bucket that the budget deficit is.

In addition to being the cheapest, the ICBM leg of the triad is also the most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed one, deployed in 450 different (and hardened) siloes across North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming and with a 95-99% readiness rate at any moment. It could be launched minutes after the President giving the order.

And perhaps that’s why the Left – including leftist anti-defense Republicans like Amash, Massie, Mulvaney, and Rohrabacher have targeted it – because it’s so powerful, so ready, and so responsive at such a little fiscal cost.

The only good thing they’ve done by voting against maintaining America’s ICBMs is to show the entire nation that they are pseudoconservatives and are, in fact, strident anti-defense liberals/libertarians, and do not belong in the GOP or in the Congress.

There is NO excuse for voting AGAINST preserving ICBMs – the cheapest, most ready, and most responsive leg of the nuclear triad.

The basic myth at the heart of disarmament policies


The Left (including RINOs such as John McCain, George P. Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell) constantly (and falsely) claims that the US needs to continue reducing its nuclear arsenal, even unilaterally, with a view towards ultimate complete nuclear disarmament of the US.

They falsely claim that not only can the US afford to do so, but that it “needs” to do so; that to be secure, it needs to continually cut and eventually completely scrap its arsenal; that any cut in America’s nuclear stockpile, no matter how deep and no matter if unilateral, is “a good thing”; that the elder President Bush’s 50% cut in that stockpile and its associated delivery systems was “a good thing”; that cutting the US nuclear deterrent will make America and the world more secure!

It is on that basis that they demand that America’s nuke deterrent be cut further and eventually scrapped altogether, and it is on that claim – which leftists (including the forementioned RINOs) have elevated to a religious dogma – that all disarmament/arms control treaties and policies are based.

Leftists claim that the US “needs” to cut its weapon arsenals – nuclear and conventional – because it would supposedly make America more secure.

Even some non-RINO Republicans, such as House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mike Rogers (R-AL), have accepted this faulty logic and this utterly false claim and say they’re OK with deep cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent – as long as it’s done by treaty or by an Act of Congress. 13 Republicans, including Johnny Isakson, voted for New START, and Saxby Chambliss said in December 2010 that he “wanted to vote for it”.

But they’re dead wrong. Cutting America’s arsenals of weapons – nuclear, conventional, or otherwise – has never made and will never make America more secure. Read on, and I’ll show you why, in simple terms and with simple examples.

Firstly, history proves that disarmament proponents are dead wrong. No nation that disarmed itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally – became more secure as a result. On the contrary, disarmament and arms control have always made the nations practicing such suicidal policies LESS SECURE.

A classic example is the West during the 1920s and 1930s – Western nations (other than Germany) disarmed themselves, signed a number of “arms control treaties” and honored them, but Germany (from 1933 onwards) and Japan did not and armed themselves to the teeth. Peaceful Western nations (the US, Britain, France) refused to arm themselves even after 1933, after Germany’s and Japan’s aggressive designs were obvious to anyone with half a brain – and as a result, their militaries were too weak and too obsolete to stop German and Japan aggression.

Indeed, after WW2, George F. Kennan, the author of the Containment Doctrine, pointed these facts out and strongly condemned the “disarmament will make us safer” fantasy as a distraction that unnecessarily absorbed the West’s attention at a time when Western countries should’ve been rearming and modernizing their militaries. Kennan was likewise highly critical of the calls for disarmament made after WW2; he knew they were lunacies.

Had George F. Kennan been alive today, he would’ve likewise strongly condemned the Arms Control Association, the Ploughshares Fund, Global Zero, the “Project on Government Oversight”, and the “Council for a Livable World” and the suicidal unilateral disarmament policies these extremely leftist organizations advocate.

George Kennan is best known as the author of the Containment Doctrine, but he would have been the first to admit that the doctrine was based primarily on the power of America’s nuclear deterrent (the US had a nuclear monopoly until 1949) and on a global network of military bases surrounding the Soviet Union. In other words, on STRENGTH, not weakness. Because it is STRENGTH that deters aggressors. Weakness only invites aggression. This is another truth that has ALWAYS been proven correct throughout ALL of human history.


The facts are really simple: the fewer nuclear weapons you have, the weaker and more liable to aggression you are, and the fewer enemy targets you can hold at risk (and strike if need be), thus reducing the enemy’s risks should he commit aggression. Also, a smaller nuclear arsenal is less survivable and more liable to an enemy’s disarming first strike. Fewer warheads, submarines, and missiles on your side make fewer targets for the enemy to destroy.

By making the utterly farcical claim that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent will make America safer, the Left has turned the “peace through strength” method on its head – they essentially claim that weakness makes one secure and the weaker America is, the safer she is!

Of course, common sense alone tells us that this is utter garbage. The actual national security record of “arms control” (read: disarmament) treaties in recent decades has been even more dismal.

Although President Obama has announced his intention to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and is disarming the US unilaterally, NO ONE – no other country – is following America’s lead. Obama’s claim that America must “lead by example” has been exposed as an utter farce. Even Britain and France are (understandably) unwilling to disarm themselves unilaterally or in concert with the US while Russia, China, and others retain their nuclear arsenals.

Meanwhile, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all utterly refuse to cut their nuclear arsenals by even one warhead or delivery system and, in fact, are EXPANDING their nuclear arsenals – North Korea even publicly announced its intention to do so a few months ago. Russia claims that it’s nuclear arsenal is “sacred.”

In fact, Moscow has, since 2010, been steadily expanding its nuclear arsenal, and plans to continue doing so, as it is allowed to do so by New START. China now has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads (per General Viktor Yesin and Professor Philip Karber, respectively),  enough fissile material for 3,600, and over 3,000 miles of tunnels in which to hide these warheads and their delivery systems. And of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon status.

This, by the way, utterly refutes the Left’s promises that if America were just nice enough to cut its nuclear arsenal, other countries would follow suit, and Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

But it isn’t just America’s enemies who are refusing to disarm and growing their arsenals. Many of America’s allies are capable of going nuclear in several months, and willing to do so if the US continues to cut its nuclear umbrella. They know they can’t afford to bet their security and their very existence on America breaking free of its “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kool-aid by 2016, especially since the US couldn’t do that in 2012 and foolishly reelected Obama.

For example, according to a recent poll, 66.5% of South Koreans believe their country should acquire its own nuclear weapons, and 70% support the reintroduction of US tactical nukes to the peninsula. Japan could go nuclear in months and has recently opened a nuclear fuel processing plant which would allow it to produce 2,000 nuclear warheads per year, as reported by the Center for Security Policy.

Thus, America’s nuclear deterrent is crucial not just for the protection of America and its allies, but also for preventing nuclear proliferation – a problem which will become much worse if that deterrent is cut further.

Over 20 years of deeply cutting that deterrent, usually unilaterally, has done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to improve US national security. It has only undermined it. It has made America much weaker and much less secure, while undermining allies’ confidence in the deterrent, emboldening America’s enemies, and encouraging rather than nuclear proliferation. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal does NOTHING to stop proliferation – it only encourages it.

As the Center for Security Policy rightly says, it is time to stop pursuing that suicidal policy and completely reverse course. For that to happen, however, the Republican Party will have to win back the White House and the Senate.

US air dominance is coming to an end – and fast.


American ground troops have not come under air attack since 1953 – for 60 years. This is because, with the partial exception of the Vietnam War, the US has always held air superiority, thus providing air cover for its ground troops and enabling offensive air strikes on its enemies. This era is now coming quickly to an end, unless the DOD and the Congress act quickly.

There are basically two kinds of threats to US air superiority, on which the entire US military is predicated and depends and without which it cannot function: enemy air defense systems and fighters.

Efforts to address these threats are greatly hampered by the mistaken, delusional belief held by many in the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill, and in the think-tank world that Russian and Chinese air defense systems and fighters (and other weapons) are obsolete and decisively inferior to their American counterparts and weapons intended to counter them. This fallacious belief could not be further from the truth; it is built on decades-old assumptions that ceased to be true a long time ago (if they were ever true).

Let’s review these two kinds of threats.

Air defense systems consist of surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft-artillery (AAA) batteries. There are also mixed systems (such as the Tunguska (SA-19 Grison), Tor-M1, and Pantsir-S1) which consist of short-range missiles and guns. The latter are usually used to defend small areas around key assets (structures, military equipment, etc.) from missiles and bombs; the former are used to defend entire areas from air attack.

The Russians and the Chinese have now fielded and widely exported potent systems of all three classes.

Even legacy Cold War era Soviet air defense systems such as the SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa, SA-4 Gopher, SA-5 Gammon, and SA-6 Gainful can, if competently operated and sufficiently upgraded with modern technology, be very deadly to nonstealthy aircraft. An example of this was the massive attrition imposed by the North Vietnamese with primitive (by today’s standards) SA-2 systems on US aircraft fleets during the Vietnam War, when the US lost 8400 aircraft, including hundreds of F-4s, F-105s, and A-4s, and 17 B-52 bombers. This despite a massive use of jammers and AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation “SAM-killer” missiles – most of which failed to kill anything.

While US data cites SAMs as shooting down only 35% of US aircraft lost in that war and AAA being the lead cause of the losses, the fact is that Vietnamese SAM systems were indirectly responsible for these losses too – because they forced US pilots to fly at low altitudes and thus expose themselves to AAA. Had these SAMs been absent from the theater, US aircraft would’ve simply flown at high altitudes, outside AAA’s kill envelope.

By using both SAMs and AAA, in line with the Soviet air defense doctrine, North Vietnam created a dense, robust air defense systems whose components had different and complementary capabilities and kill envelopes. This presented US pilots and air campaign planners with a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” choice. Moreover, even though the SA-2 is not a very mobile system, the Vietnamese nevertheless tried to relocate it as often as possible, even though it took several hours a time.

Soviet air defense systems also took a deadly toll on Israel in the War of Attrition (1968-1970) and the Yom Kippur war – especially the latter. The Soviets, in fact, deployed an entire division of their anti-air defense troops in Egypt in the late 1960s, equipped with the newest Soviet AD systems: the SA-3, SA-4, SA-6, and SA-8. In line with Soviet doctrine, these systems were employed in a “hide, shoot, and scoot” manner – hiding in ambush, firing at unsuspecting Israeli pilots, and then immediately fleeing. These systems were manned by experienced, well-trained Soviet personnel, and inflicted high casualties on the IAF in both wars.

Israel had much better success against Syrian-operated Soviet AD systems in 1982. The same systems were used, yet Israel trashed them. Why? It wasn’t actually the quality of Israeli aircraft, jammers, or pilots; after all, they were massacred by the Soviets and the Egyptians in 1973.

The difference was the manner in which the Syrians used their systems: in a totally static manner. The Syrians never tried to hide, shoot, and scoot, which made their batteries easy targets. And there wasn’t much to relocate, because the SA-2, SA-5, and some variants of the SA-3 are static, not mobile. Thus, Israeli intelligence had many months to pinpoint their exact locations, including those of the radars. In warfare, if you’re static and seen, you’re a dead duck. Half of the difficulty of killing you is finding you, and only 50% (or less) is actually having the physical means to take you out once you’re located.

The Iraqis made the same mistake in 1991 and 2003, employing their obsolete air defense systems in a completely static manner.

Another factor was the low technological proficiency of Syrian and Iraqi ADS crews. The old Soviet systems they used require a good technical education and high proficiency to be used effectively. Modern Russian and Chinese ADSes do not, because they’re digital and highly automated.

But even when equipped with now-obsolete Soviet legacy systems, a country can frustrate the US. Serbia did that in 1999. The Serbians trained their SAM crews well, enforced discipline and teamwork, and and relocated these systems ceaselessly. Because of this, the vast majority of them survived the war and even inflicted some embarrassing losses on the US, shooting down an F-16 and an F-117 and damaging another F-117. NATO F-16s, EA-6Bs, and Tornados spent the entire OAF campaign trying to hunt down Serbian SAM systems, and NATO expended over 740 HARM anti-SAM-system missiles – largely to no avail.

If this is what an enemy equipped with even legacy ADSes can do, how much more can a competent enemy equipped with the world’s most modern ADSes (S-300, S-400, S-500, HQ-9) do if he hides, shoots, and scoots! Russia operates the first two systems, is developing the third, and has widely exported the first – to China, Venezuela, Belarus, Slovakia, Cyprus, and now also Syria. It has offered to export it to more countries, including Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. It has  recently decided to export the S-400 to China – which also operates the S-300 and its indigenous modern ADS, the HQ-9.

All four systems have very long detection and missile ranges, high power radar and control system aperture, a high degree of digitalization and automation, and are very resistant (nigh proof) to jamming and highly mobile. They, and even the legacy late 1970s’ Soviet SA-11/17, can shoot just 5 minutes after stopping and flee just 5 minutes after shooting. They are, like the SA-6 and SA-8, designed from the start for “hide, shoot, and scoot” tactics.

This means that the US can no longer rely on a small fleet of stealthy aircraft to “punch holes” in enemy AD network and allow nonstealthy aircraft to operate. If a single enemy SAM battery is taken out, another one can quickly replace it; and besides, enemy ADSes will not be employed in a static manner standing always in the same position. They will relocate quickly – they’ll hide, shoot, and scoot.

Any airspace protected with the S-300/400/500, the HQ-9, or even upgraded mobile legacy systems like the SA-3, SA-4, SA-6, and SA-11/17, manned by competent crews employing hide-shoot-scoot tactics, is firmly closed to all nonstealthy and “economy stealth” aircraft, including the B-52, B-1, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EA-6, EA-18, AV-8, F-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen, and the Dassault Rafale. 

The second threat to US air supremacy consists of the advanced 4+ and 5th generation fighters of Russia and China. The best known is the Flanker family (Su-27/30/33/35/J-11) of long-range fighters. These fully digital, high-speed, high-altitude, well-armed and very agile fighters is superior to all American fighters except the F-22 and the F-15, the latter barely holding parity with them.

Specs for the different models on both sides vary, and this writer has written extensively on the subject already. Suffice to say that the F-22 and F-15 can fly somewhat higher and faster (65,000 ft, Mach 2.35-2.5) and are slightly more agile (wing loadings of 375 and 358 kg/sq m, respectively), but the Flankers have better electronic attack capabilities, an IRST (which these fighters lack, although it could be installed), a better (30 mm) gun, and are almost equal in thrust/weight ratio while also carrying more and longer-ranged missiles. The Flankers are also much younger than the F-15, cheaper than the F-22, and exported widely around the world to China, Belarus, Venezuela, Vietnam, and many others. Furthermore, the Su-35 and the F-22 have supercruise capability; the F-15 does not.

Basically, the latest Flanker (the Su-35) is significantly better than the latest F-15, although still inferior to the F-22.

Russia’s response to the latter is the PAKFA 5th generation stealthy fighter, AKA the Raptorski. With thrust-vector control and supercruise capability and a powerful Irbis-E radar (which the Su-35 also has), but much better aerodynamic and kinematic capability than the Su-35 (a T/W ratio of 1.19:1, a ceiling of 65,000 ft, and a WL of 330 kg/sq m). Most importantly, the PAKFA is highly stealthy, in the -30 dBSM class, making it a Raptor peer and far superior to the F-35.

Like previous Russian fighters, it will likely be widely exported. India plans to buy hundreds; Vietnam will likely be the next customer.

China is developing two 5th generation stealthy fighters. Little is known about the smaller Shenyang J-31, but more is known about the larger Chengdu J-20. It is highly stealthy from all aspects and is larger than the F-22. It probably has a large enough fuel tank to operate unrefueled across the WestPac from Japan to Indonesia and the Philippines, and certainly has a large weapons bay. It will likely be powered by the same engines as the PAKFA – the AL-31F117 supercruise- and thrust-vectoring-capable engines (which Russia has already sold to China), enabling both aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds without resorting to fuel-gulping afterburners. No US aircraft except the F-22 has that capability.

The J-20 and the PAKFA have as much power as they weigh; fighting them in the vertical is a death sentence.

Any notion that legacy US aircraft (partially excepting the F-15) and the heavy, sluggish, “economy stealth” F-35 can defend the US and its allies against such fighters, let alone penetrate airspace defended by them and by the forementioned air defense systems, is quite absurd prima facie, based on an overwhelming amount of evidence. US legacy aircraft are now hopelessly obsolete, impotent, irrelevant, and useless. The F-35 is also obsolete and useless – already now, before it has entered service.

The emergence of the forementioned air defense systems and fighters has imposed an obsolescence on legacy US aircraft and the “economy stealth” F-35 in the same manner as that in which the battleship HMS Dreadnought, launched in 1906, imposed on all previous battleships.

The only Western (not just American, but WESTERN) aircraft which can penetrate airspace defended by such systems are the B-2 bomber and the F-22 fighter, of which the US has only 20 and 183, respectively. This is nowhere close to enough to defeat anyone except the smallest and most primitive enemy.

The only Western fighter that can defeat all forementioned Russian and Chinese fighters is the F-22 Raptor, or to be more precise, evolved and enhanced variants of this aircraft.

The F-15, Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen can (if sufficiently upgraded) compete with the Flanker family but not with the PAKFA, J-20, or J-31.

The Super Bug is totally outclassed even by the oldest Flanker variants and the J-10 Sinocanard, as well as the legacy MiG-29.

The F-35 will be similarly so outclassed… assuming, of course, that this utterly failed project even progresses to any kind of large-scale production.

All other legacy Western aircraft and air defense systems will be outclassed and outperformed in like manner, and will be even more ineffective against the PAKFA, J-20, and J-31 than they are against the Flankers and the J-10.

Bottom line: America’s air supremacy monopoly is coming quickly to an end, unless the DOD and the Congress act quickly to reverse this trend.

Republicans voting for cloture on Hagel MUST be voted out of office

By the time of this writing (Feb. 22nd), several RINO Senators – Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John McCain-Feingold of Arizona, Lindsey Gramnesty of South Carolina, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, intend to vote for cloture (i.e. breaking the filibuster) on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for SECDEF, thus allowing it to proceed to the floor, where it is sure to pass as the Democrats have 55 votes.

If these RINO traitors vote for cloture and thus vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel along party lines (which, BTW, would be a first for a SECDEF nominee), we must vote them out of office. All of them. No ifs, no buts.

We must primary all of them (including the pseudo-conservative Deb Fischer) and, if they somehow survive the primary, support their general election opponents.

No forgiveness, no ifs or buts, and no get-outta-jail-free-cards for McCain.

But first: why should Hagel’s nomination be filibustered?

As myself and many other conservative writers have chronicled in great detail over the past several weeks, Chuck Hagel is a strident leftist (despite being a nominal Republican) who is implacably hostile to Israel (and to Jews in general), friendly to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (which has endorsed him), supports the gutting of America’s defense and deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, and is totally unqualified to be SECDEF due to his lack of high-level executive experience, ignorance of defense issues, and inability to perform well even before the Senate (as his confirmation hearing proved).

And yet, despite all of these facts, and despite more Americans opposing than supporting Hagel, Senate Democrats, pressured by the Obama Administration, are marching in partisan lockstep with each other and with the White House and all intend to vote to confirm Hagel.

And they have 55 seats in the Senate – enough to confirm Hagel.

Make no mistake: if the filibuster is ended (i.e. if cloture is invoked) on Hagel’s nomination, the Dems will be able to confirm him along party lines with their 55 votes.

A vote to end the filibuster (i.e. invote cloture) on Hagel’s nomination is therefore a vote to confirm Hagel as SECDEF. There is no material difference between the two.

Those Republicans who intend to vote to end the filibuster thus essentially plan to vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel.

These Republican traitors must NOT be allowed to hide behind a meaningless final, nominal vote against Hagel’s confirmation, when it will be too late to stop his nomination as the Democrats have the votes to confirm him.

Make no mistake: a vote to invoke cloture on Hagel is a vote to confirm Hagel.

So what can we do?

Niceties won’t work with these worthless RINOs. Nor will reason and facts. They are immune to reason and facts.

The only thing they understand and fear is a credible threat of losing their seats – because the only thing Washington politicians – including newcomers – care about is getting reelected. And if a credible threat to vote them out of office is made, they usually DO really start voting against Democratic proposals.

So you MUST call or write to both of your Senators (especially if one of your Senators is one of the worthless RINOs listed above, i.e. if you live in Arizona, SC, Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Maine, or Mississippi) and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination, and that you will not be fooled by a meaningless final vote against Hagel’s confirmation when it will already be a done deal.

Tell them that if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel, you will wholeheartedly support primary challengers against them and if they somehow survive their primaries you will support their general election opponents.

And if these worthless RINOs nonetheless ignore this warning, we must follow it through and throw each one of them out of the Senate. No ifs, no buts.

Johanns is retiring in 2014, so we can’t hold him accountable, but we can hold the rest of these RINOs accountable.

Worthless RINO Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Bush-Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Cap-And-Trade-My-Good-Friend-Ted-Kennedy’s-Amnesty-John-McCain-Feingold must be voted out of office, no matter what the National Establishment Review says. We must support whoever his primary challenger will be, and if he somehow survives the primary, we must support his general election opponent. By 2016, Republicans should have a secure Senate majority, so if need be, we can afford to sacrifice this one seat.

The same must also apply to all other RINOs listed above. McCain and Murkowski are up for reelection in 2016. But Lindsey Gramnasty and Susan Collins are up for reelection next year. Not in 2016, not in 2018, but next year – in 2014!

We must make it unmistakably clear to them that BOTH of them (and the other RINOs listed above) will be voted out of office if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel.

Already, there is talk about primarying Gramnasty, and his endorsement of the McCain-Schumer amnesty proposal will certainly not endear him anyone. We must join hands with those who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (among whom I count myself) to oust Gramnasty and McCain out of office.

And remember: with the sole exception of Maine, all of the states which these RINOs represent are solidly-red, Republican states. It is totally unacceptable that these states are represented by RINOs. Whoever wins the Republican nomination there – unless it’s a Todd Akin clone – should be able to easily win the general election there as well. This is not Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Delaware that we’re talking about, this is the red-hot states of Arizona, South Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, Alaska, and Alabama.

Politicians must be held accountable for EVERY vote they cast. And the only way to hold them accountable is to vote them out of office. Which is what must happen to the worthless RINOs listed above.

Why Chuck Hagel’s nomination MUST be stopped

Last week, the Senate failed to confirm Chuck Hagel for Secretary of State, but for the wrong reasons: because some Republican senators, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have demanded more information on last year’s terrorist attack on Benghazi and are holding up Hagel’s nomination until they get that information. Sen. John Cornyn, for his part, is holding up the nomination until the Obama Administration makes another worthless promise to “consider” supplying F-16C/D jets to Taiwan.

The American people do deserve the full truth on Benghazi, and F-16C/D jets should be supplied to Taiwan, but Chuck Hagel must NOT be confirmed for secretary of defense under any circumstances. His nomination must be rejected on its own merit.

This writer and many others – from AmSpec’s Quin Hillyer and Aaron Goldstein, to CSP President Frank Gaffney, to Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin, to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, to the American Thinker’s J. Robert Smith – have already and repeatedly made the case why Hagel must be rejected. But none have made this case as well as Heritage Foundation expert James Jay Carafano recently has.

Dr. Carafano sums up the arguments against Hagel in two terms.

Firstly, Hagel holds extreme, out-of-mainstream views. He’s a board member of two extremely leftist, anti-nuclear organizations – Global Zero and Ploughshares – which advocate deep, unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, including the elimination of all ICBMs – the cheapest and most ready leg of the triad. He signed a Global Zero “study” calling for such deep unilateral cuts. He has repeatedly slandered Israel (WFB reporters have recently uncovered more of Hagel’s anti-Israel diatribes, including “Israel is becoming an apartheid state”; more on that here, here, and here).

Hagel also believes the US and Israel should begin unconditional, direct talks with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, all of which has sworn the destruction of Israel, and by his own admission, advocates “containment” of Iran. He also supports deep cuts in America’s defense budget. On Arab TV networks, he has also agreed with callers saying that Israel is guilty of war crimes and that America is “the world’s bully”. (Sen. Tez Cruz provided the video evidence of that during Hagel’s confirmation hearing.)

Hagel’s friend MJ Rosenberg (a self-admitted “self-loathing Jew”) has said that Hagel is now lying about being a friend of Israel in order to get confirmed.

How can the Senate confirm a guy who is LYING to get confirmed? Won’t that open the door to others who will blatantly lie to the Senate just to get into high office?

Secondly, as Dr. Carafano points out, Hagel has little executive experience – and none that would qualify him for SECDEF. He has never led any large organization in the business world, the academia, the government, or the military. His ability to act as the DOD’s chief executive is completely untested.

Yet, if confirmed (God forbid), he would be put in charge of a Department with a $600 bn+ annual budget, 2 million military, and 800,000 civilian employees and operations on almost all continents. Says Dr. Carafano:

“The Department of Defense has been called one of the largest, most complex “corporations” in the world. To give anyone the helm of this organization with few—if any—executive skills is the height of folly. The Secretary must be a consummate leader, manager, and multi-tasker. Hagel’s resume betrays a lack of executive experience, and his inability to perform under pressure was on prominent display in his hearing. He could not adequately stand up to questions from his former colleagues—how will he stand up to the pressures of our national defense? His Senate career evidenced a conspicuous lack of key leadership/executive skills. He simply is ill-qualified for this job. His laudable service as a young sergeant in Vietnam neither exempts him from criticism nor gives him a pass on his lack of skills. We have hundreds of thousands of honorable veterans who are not qualified to be Secretary of Defense, and Hagel is one of them.”

Also, during his Senate tenure, Chuck Hagel was such an easy-to-anger, heavy-handed boss that people didn’t want to work with him and he had the second-highest staff turnover rate of any Senator, trailing only George Allen (R-VA).

There are many people, including several Democrats (such as current Deputy SECDEF Ashton Carter and former Undersecretary of Defense Policy Michele Flournoy) who are far more qualified for Secretary of Defense than Hagel. In fact, given that Leon Panetta is gone (he has already quit the job), Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter is already the de facto Secretary of Defense, with all the resulting responsibilities squarely on his shoulders and his alone. And he’s bravely carrying out those responsibilities at the most difficult time in DOD history.

America cannot afford a totally inexperienced and unqualified leftist activist (nominally Republican) as Secretary of Defense. It needs a competent, experienced manager who can also seamlessly work with the Joint Chiefs (and with all sorts of people) – such as Dr Carter or Mrs Flournoy, both of whom know the DOD inside and out and can manage it easily.

(Both of them were under Obama’s consideration – but eventually he decided to poke Republicans and Israel by nominating Hagel.)

We MUST stop Hagel’s nomination dead in its tracks. We must sustain the filibuster and force Obama to withdraw Hagel’s nomination (as Republicans forced Clinton to withdraw Daryl Jones’s nomination for Secretary of the Air Force) and replace him with a competent, mainstream official.

YOU can help us do it. Your voice matters. A lot.

Please call and/or write to both of your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they vote for cloture on Hagel’s nomination and/or to confirm Chuck Hagel. Tell them that regardless of whether they’re Republicans or Democrats.

If your Senators are Democrats, tell them they will pay dearly at the ballot box if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel. Stress that point especially when you write to Mark Begich (D-AK), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Kay Hagan (D-NC). These Democrats are all up for reelection next year, all of them except Shaheen in Red, Republican states, and they are at high risk of losing their seats next year. Tell them that they WILL lose their seats – if they vote to confirm Hagel.

If one or both your Senators are Republicans (especially if you live in Arizona, SC, Nebraska, Texas, Maine, or Alaska)  that voting against Hagel on his final confirmation vote – which he’ll pass due to Democrats controlling the Senate – is not enough, that it will not stop Hagel’s confirmation, that he does NOT deserve a floor vote, and that you expect them to FILIBUSTER Hagel’s nomination until the President withdraws it and replaces this vile anti-Semite with someone else.

Tell them that if they fail to support the filibuster of Hagel’s nomination, they WILL be primaried at the next opportunity and if they somehow survive the primary we will support their general election opponents, even if it means sacrificing a few seats.

And last, but not least, if one of your Senators is a conservative stalwart who supports the filibuster, like Jim Inhofe and Ted Cruz, please also write them to thank them and to encourage them to continue this good fight until we WIN IT.

A summary of Chuck Hagel’s record

As the Senate Armed Services Committee considers Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense (which should be rejected), here’s a summary of Hagel’s record – of what he has said and done – on several important issues.

1) Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah

  • In 2008, Hagel told Aaron David Miller (a former Clinton advisor on Middle Eastern issues) that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here [in the US Senate – ZM].”
  • He has advocated that the US talk to Hamas and Hezbollah.
  • He has refused to sign a number of letters supporting Israel and a letter urging the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
  • In 1999, he was the only Senator refusing to sign a letter urging then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to act against anti-Semitism in Russia.
  • In 2006, during Israel’s action against Hezbollah, he called what Israel was doing a mindless “slaughter”.
  • His friend, self-admitted “self-loathing Jew” MJ Rosenberg (Twitter handle: @MJayRosenberg) (fired by Media Matters for his anti-Israeli rants) says that he knows Hagel is “lying” to the SASC now to win confirmation.
  • In 2003, Hagel accused Israel of keeping the Palestinians “caged like animals”.
  • Hagel has been endorsed for SECDEF by virtually all critics of US support for Israel, including Stephen Walt of Harvard University.

2) Iran

  • Hagel has claimed that a strike on Iran is not a “viable, responsible” option.
  • In 2007, he voted against designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization at the same time that the IRGC was killing American troops in Iraq.
  • As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he voted to kill certain sanctions against Iran in committee, as he has admitted to SASC member Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
  • Hagel is a board member of the Deutsche Bank, which is under investigation for violating sanctions against Iran. He has also received rewards and emoluments from groups that oppose sanctions (let alone a military strike) against Iran.

3) Nuclear deterrence

  • Hagel is a proud board member of two extremely leftist groups which support deep unilateral cuts to, and the unilateral elimination of, the US nuclear deterrent – a policy which would not only invite but virtually guarantee a Russian nuclear first strike on the US and its allies. These two extremely leftist groups are Global Zero and the Ploughshares Fund (the latter also opposes any military strike against Iran as well as the US missile defense program).
  • Hagel has been endorsed for SECDEF by all pro-disarmament organizations in the US, including Global Zero, the Ploughshares Fund, and the so-called “Council for a Livable World”. He’s also supported by many individual proponents of unilateral nuclear disarmmament, such as Bruce Blair of Global Zero and Stephen Walt of Harvard University.
  • As a member of a 5-man Global Zero panel, Hagel co-authored and co-signed a report calling for deep, unilateral, and fast reductions to America’s nuclear deterrent, including the scrapping of all US ICBMs, tactical nuclear weapons, and nuclear-tipped missiles; deep cuts to the nuclear modernization program; cutting the SSBN fleet from 14 to just 10 boats and the retirement of all B-52s and B-2s or converting them to purely conventional roles, as well as cutting the total US nuclear arsenal to just 450 active and 450 inactive warheads – and under Hagel’s and Global Zero’s proposals, even the 450 “active” warheads could not be used until 72 hours after a potential first strike on the US. The report called for all of these cuts to be completed in 10 years, by 2022. That report was roundly (and rightly) rejected by the commander of STRATCOM, Gen. Bob Kehler, and by the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz.
  • In 2009, Hagel claimed that the US does not have the credibility to demand that North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states renounce nuclear weapons while the US itself retains nuclear arms – despite the fact that North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states couldn’t care less about America’s “credibility” or “moral leadership” and were pursuing nuclear weapons based on their perception of their own interests, not based on America’s actions. He also ignored the then-18 years of incessant cuts to America’s nuclear arsenal that had passed since 1991, and the failure of such cuts to make any impression on Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states. By making that statement, he also suggested moral equivalence between the US and its allies on one hand and America’s potential adversaries (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran) on the other hand.
  • Also in 2009, and many times since, Hagel expressed his support for total nuclear disarmament and the fantasy of a “world without nuclear weapons”, a fantasy that will never again exist but did exist before 1945 – and brought about the carnage of two World Wars, as there was nothing sufficiently deadly to restrain the world’s great powers.

4) The defense budget

  • In 2011, Hagel falsely claimed that the defense budget is “bloated in many ways” and needs to be “pared down”, ignoring the fact that the total military budget amounts to just 4.2% of America’s GDP, less than 18% of the total federal budget, and is not bloated at all considering the gravity and wide array of security threats America is confronting today, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to name just a few.
  • Hagel has been endorsed for Secretary of Defense by organizations seeking deep cuts in America’s defense budget, capabilities, and force structure, such as the Ploushares Fund, the “Council for a Livable World”, and the George-Soros-funded CATO Institute.
  • The New York Times has said, citing unnamed Obama Administration officials, that Obama wants to cut the defense budget and “kill some major Cold War era weapon systems” (without specifying what these supposed “Cold War era weapon systems are”), and that “for that, Mr Hagel (…) is needed” – in other words, the reason why Obama has nominated Hagel is because he wants Hagel to gut the US military.

Ask yourselves, Dear Readers: is this the kind of Secretary of Defense you want and America deserves?

If not, please call both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel. Also please contact Republican Senators and ask them to filibuster Hagel’s nomination. Republicans can and should do this to spare the nation from an extremely leftist and unqualified SECDEF nominee whom Obama has nominated for purely political reasons, and whom Obama’s lackeys in the US Senate have utterly failed to properly vet and will back solely for political reasons (out of blind deference to Barack Obama).

We cannot afford to lose this fight. We cannot be content with Republicans merely voting against Hagel but letting the Dems use their Senate majority to confirm Hagel. We cannot be complacent with merely opposing a bad and unqualified nominee: we must stop him, in his tracks BEFORE he can get to the DOD and do any damage. We must  hold Republicans’ feet to the fire and make sure they BLOCK Hagel’s nomination by filibuster.

We must also contact AIPAC and urge them to pressure all Senators to vote against Hagel as well as to pressure the White House to withdraw Hagel’s nomination. AIPAC prides itself in being America’s chief pro-Israel organization, but recent media reports indicate AIPAC does not want to get into a fight it believes it would lose.

We must convince AIPAC to jettison that ridiculous defeatism and to join the fight to BLOCK Hagel’s nomination – for America’s sake as well as that of America’s closest ally, Israel.

Rebuttal of’s blatant lies

On January 14th, the liberal website published an editorial titled “Hagel for Secretary of Defense”, which called on the Senate to confirm the liberal RINO ex-Senator Chuck Hagel and tried to refute the charges made against him.

But this attempt to refute these charges has utterly failed, because DefenseNews staff (which wrote the editorial) utterly failed to refute these (factually correct) accusations against Hagel (which are based on Hagel’s own words and actions) with any facts. Instead of invoking the facts – which are unfavorable for Hagel – made a number of utterly false claims in his defense.

The three accusations it specifically tried (and failed) to refute were that:

1) Hagel is so pacifist that he doesn’t want the US to strike Iran even if (or rather when) this proves necessary;

2) The former Nebraska Senator is hostile (or at least, unfriendly) to Israel; and

3) That he advocates deep, crippling defense budget cuts.

As to the first charge, claims that Hagel is merely very wary of bombing Iran, or indeed of any new military interventions anywhere. But that’s not what Hagel himself has said. What Hagel has said is that a military option WRT to Iran “is not a feasible option, is not a responsible option.” Those are his words, not mine. In other words, he effectively stated that he’s completely opposed to the idea and believes it would be a bad option under any circumstances. He effectively stated that it should be completely ruled out (what would you do with a nonfeasible, irresponsible option, if not rule it out?). is simply lying to whitewash Hagel.

On Israel, admits that it’s a “very important” friend, but simoultaneously claims that “this doesn’t mean that Israel should be allowed to dictate” US policy or that it should be allowed to take “actions which are not in the best long-term interests of Israel”.

Thus, not only do they falsely claim that Israel dictates US policies, they claim THEY know better than Israelis themselves what is in the best long-term interests of Israel!

Such unbrindled arrogance is very rare.

Only the Israelis themselves know what’s best for Israel in the long term. editors are simply pretending to be friends of Israel when they’re not. They have invented a figleaf to cover themselves and Chuck Hagel.

In any way, again, this is not what Hagel’s anti-Israel diatribes were about. Hagel falsely claimed that there is a “Jewish lobby” which “intimidates a lot of people up here [in the Senate]”; he voted against designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization; he refused to sign a letter calling on the EU to apply the same designation to Hezbollah; he has called for direct talks with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran; and in 1999, he was the SOLE US Senator refusing to sign a letter calling on the President of Russia to act against anti-Semitism in Russia.

This is not about allowing Israel to “dictate US policy”. This is about Hagel’s strident opposition to apply even the most lenient punishment to Islamic terrorist organizations and to fighting anti-Semitism.

On the third charge, again blatantly lied to whitewash Hagel, and in so doing, it effectively confirmed the veracity of the charge. falsely claims that “The truth is, the DOD is bloated.” No, it’s not “the truth”, it’s their claim – and it’s utterly false. The military budget is not bloated – at $633 bn (per the FY2013 NDAA) it amounts to only 4.2% of America’s GDP ($15.29 trillion per the CIA World Factbook) and less than 18% of the total federal budget. This includes the Afghan war and spending on defense-related programs outside the DOD. The base defense budget, $525 bn, amounts to only 3.5% of GDP and less than 14% of the total federal budget.

Judged against the gravity of the threats America is facing, the defense budget is not bloated, either – far from it. If anything, it’s barely adequate considering the security threats America is facing, especially the huge nuclear arsenals and military buildups of Russia and China, North Korea’s nascent nuclear/ICBM arsenal and large conventional army, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

I have written about the capabilities of America’s enemies, and especially those of China and Russia, numerous times on my website and here; my most recent detailed analysis of the subject appeared here and my analysis of the defense budget’s size is here. These analyses describe the capabitilies of America’s adversaries in detail and thus document that America cannot afford further defense cuts, because to disarm in the face of such threats would be suicidal.

I repeat: this is an analysis of America’s defense spending in comparison to the threats it is facing, not based on any percentages of GDP or of the federal budget. falsely claims that “Hagel knows that cuts and reforms are necessary to fielding a leaner, but still capable force.” That is also a blatant lie. Firstly, defense budget cuts are not necessary to fielding such a “force” (and please don’t call it a “force”; call it properly a MILITARY); if anything, they would impair such an effort, because if defense is underfunded (i.e. if there isn’t enough money for a properly sized military, for training, the maintenance of existing equipment and bases, or for the development and acquisition of new equipment), the military will not be “capable” – it will be gutted.

Furthermore, it’s not enough for the US military to be “capable” – it needs to be THE most capable and THE strongest in the world. But it won’t be if further significant defense cuts are made – contrary to what the proponents of these cuts (all of whom are hostile to the military and to the idea of a strong defense) may tell you.

Budget cuts are not necessary to make the DOD leaner (as in more efficient) – if anything, they will impair that effort, because as history has shown, the DOD is actually most efficient when it has a sizeable budget (as during the Reagan years) and most inefficient when its budget is actually deeply cut – because deep budget cuts lead to deep cuts in readiness programs (which lead to an unready military that can function only on paper), acquisition programs (leading to deep cuts in orders and long delays, and thus to huge cost overruns for a lack of economies of scale – weapons are cheaper to buy by the dozen) and research programs.

Furthermore, again, “fielding a leaner but still capable force” is not what Hagel has talked about. What he HAS talked about is simply cutting the defense budget deeply and mindlessly.

Moreover, a “leaner” (as in smaller) military will be able to go to far fewer places, do far fewer things, and deter far fewer enemies. WRT China, it might not be able to deter Beijing at all, due to insufficient numbers – as the Chinese, who have always valued numerical strength, know very well. The US Navy, for example, is already too small: it can supply only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their requests for submarines.

Also, falsely claimed that “waste there [in the DOD] saps resources from more important priorities”, while not identifying what it believes to be those higher priorities. In any case, they’re dead wrong. They got it backwards. Under the Constitution, DEFENSE is to be the highest priority for the federal government – not education, healthcare, or the infrastructure. In fact, the US military is the ONLY significant federal expenditure authorized by the Constitution. The Big Three entitlement programs, the Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, HHS, and HUD, the EPA, and subsidies for businesses are completely unconstitutional as they are outside the scope of the federal government’s Constitutional powers. Such programs and agencies exist only because the federal government continues to violate the Constitution.

But what was most remarkable was what chose not to address at all.

Firstly, that leftist website’s editors chose to be mute over Hagel’s utterly disqualifying “Global Zero” plan to dramatically and unilaterally slash America’s nuclear deterrent (including completely scrapping all 450 USAF ICBMs, the cheapest and most ready leg of the nuclear triad) while Russia and China both retain huge nuclear arsenals (Russia alone has 2,800 strategic and 2,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads, all of them deliverable at any moment; China has at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 nuclear warheads according to Professor Philip Karber and former Russian missile force chief of staff Gen. Viktor Yesin).

Secondly, DefenseNews editors completely avoided any mention of Hagel’s utter lack of the experience and skills required of a Defense Secretary. Hagel has never managed any large organization – whether in the business world, the academia, the government, or the military. He has never run any large business, any university, any military division/Air Force Wing/Fleet, or any government agency. Nor has he done any analysis of the defense issues facing America, written anything remarkable in his book, or scored any significant legislative accomplishment when he was a Senator. His ability to act as the DOD’s chief executive is completely untested.

He’s the least qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense since at least Melvin Laird. His immediate three predecessors – Panetta, Gates, and Rumsfeld – were all far more qualified than him. It’s interesting and indeed outrageous that Obama (himself completely green when he was elected President) chose Hagel over other, far more qualified candidates such as Deputy SECDEF Ashton Carter and former DOD #3 official Michele Flournoy.

It is the Senate’s constitutional power, and indeed it’s constitutional DUTY, to reject unqualified nominees for high office. And if there ever was an unqualified nominee, Hagel is that person.;

Iran Gets Missile Shield

Barack Obama’s administration, despite all the blood and treasure America spent in Iraq, somehow managed to fail in reaching a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government.  That means that the United States, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and ahmadinejad-shaking-hands-with-bho-nuke-explosianfreeing a country uniquely located on the most strategically important piece of real estate in the Middle East does not have strategic residual forces within Iraq.

That failure has allowed Iran to fly freely over Iraqi airspace, prolonging the Syrian civil war by delivering arms to Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad.  Month after month, nothing has been done by the Obama administration to help the people of Syria while Assad has butchered them.

Could it be that the plan all along has been to enable Iran’s assistance of Syria so Iran could get their hands on a sophisticated, mobile missile defense shield, thereby tipping the balance of power in the region away from Israel towards Iran?

That Israel is destined to strike at the existential threat posed to them by a nuclear armed Iran demands the question: Has the Obama administration been actively working on behalf of Iran’s Islamofascist regime, enabling them to obtain the tools needed to ensure an Israeli attack is incapable of eliminating their nuclear capabilities?

Is this part of Obama being “more flexible” on missile defense now that the election is over?

Just a little something to think about next time you hear Obama and/or whichever weak, dishonest  enabler he names as Secretary of State to replace “Hillary-the disaster going someplace to happen” (read: John Kerry) bragging about how through the UN, America has imposed “crippling economic sanctions” on Iran.

Love. Early American Style.


Calls for “restraint” have begun. Yes, restraint. After months of hundreds of missiles raining down on Israeli heads – murdering, injuring and destroying – Israel finally decided to do something serious. They killed a top Hamas terrorist, best known for orchestrating the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. Oh, it was then that the world decided to finally take notice of Israel’s “aggression”.

Rather than cheering on the Israelis and complementing them on a job well done – we hear calls for Israeli restraint, even from the United States.

Obama said Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas’ missile attacks from Gaza. But he urged Israel not to launch a ground assault in Gaza, saying it would put Israeli soldiers, as well as Palestinian citizens, at greater risk and hamper an already vexing peace process.

“If we see a further escalation of the situation in Gaza, the likelihood of us getting back on any kind of peace track that leads to a two-state solution is going to be pushed off way into the future,” Obama said.

I wonder what message this sends to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza – the world won’t say a word about the hundreds of rockets targeting school buses and innocents trying to live their lives – but when the world is made a safer place by the assassination of a chief murderer – “restraint” is called for. The message is clear: Jewish blood is cheap.

Not only is Jewish blood cheap – we’ll even reward these attacks by more “peace” talks, more talk of another terrorist state on Israel’s border. A second “Palestinian” state – since Gaza is State #1. Don’t escalate this war, the President warns Israel, we’re trying to have “peace” talks with these terrorists – never mind that they don’t have an interest in peace – just in seeing Israel and her citizens in pieces.

No other nation in the world would tolerate even a single missile entering their airspace. Not the French, and especially not the Germans. Imagine the United States allowing such a thing to happen without an overwhelming response. But the world calls for “restraint” from Israel even after they’ve shown restraint – allowing hundreds of rockets to rain terror on her civilians without complaint.

Jewish blood is cheap and the Arab world knows it. They know the world doesn’t care about the Jews…go ahead, feel free to send the rockets.

Calls for “restraint”? What a joke.

Benjamin Netanyahu: Leader of the Free World

There has been much talk of late about America’s “fiscal cliff.” As troubling as our impending (Obama-spurred) economic collapse may be – and it is more troubling than even our most pessimistic economists are willing to admit – I’m even more concerned about fast-mounting tensions worldwide. 

As the world government ship of fools drifts unmanned amid a sea of unparalleled global volatility, we, her passengers, behold – brewing on the horizon – an economic and foreign relations “perfect storm.” 

As so often is the case, the hurricane swirls around the Middle East. 

Historically, the president of the United States has captained the ship. He has, heretofore, been duly regarded “leader of the free world.”

Not now. Not with Gilligan reaching for the helm. 

Indeed, the current occupant of the Oval Office spends more time with his feet on JFK’s Resolute desk than he does leading from behind it.

But “leading from behind” he does. 

More commonly known as “following,” President Obama’s follow-the-leader strategy in the Middle East represents, in my view, either inherent weakness on his part, sympathy toward the Islamic cause or both. 

I suspect both.

Indeed, during his first term, Mr. Obama betrayed both weakness personified and sympathy toward the goals of Islamic fundamentalism with his ongoing embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This extremist group, with Obama’s help, now controls much of the Arab world. It has sworn, in its own words, to “destroy” our “Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and God’s religion (Islam) is made victorious over all other religions.” 

Not surprisingly, today the Brotherhood rushes to the aid of both the terrorist group Hamas and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. This, as terrorists ramp-up decades-long rocket attacks and suicide bombings against innocent Israeli women and children. 

Nonetheless – and clearly stemming from a cynical political calculus – Mr. Obama persists in paying shallow lip service to support for Israel. All the while he continues to play footsie with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Recall that, just last year, the president touted the “Arab Spring” – which any high school history buff could have predicted would devolve into the utter chaos it has – as “an extraordinary change taking place,” wherein, “Square by square, town by town, country by country, the [Muslim] people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.” (You know, like the Quran-given right for Muslim men to beat or kill women and homosexuals with impunity; or like the human right for both Iran and the Palestinian Authority to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth.”) 

Whether due to naiveté, foolishness or pure dishonesty, President Obama’s bungling of the Middle East crisis – let alone his unprecedented attacks on our constitutional freedoms stateside – has disqualified him to lead the free world. 

And so, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stepped forward to answer the call. He has become de facto leader of the free world – chief defender of Western civilization.

As America’s light fades under the Obama regime, Israel has become – for now at least – “the shining city on the hill.”

With a nuclear Iran perhaps only months away, Western civilization needs defending now more than ever. Israel needs defending now more than ever. Consider these words from top Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita: “Annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine.” 

Thus, Israel defends herself. Israel defends the free world. 

To be sure, the worldwide Islamic juggernaut has become emboldened by the actions – by the inaction – of a sympathetic, do-nothing U.S. president. Muslim terrorists have, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recently noted, “turned Gaza into a frontal base for Iran, terrorizing residents of Israel and forcing them to live under unbearable circumstances.” 

Yet, inexplicably, many in the West – people Vladimir Lenin might have called “useful idiots” (i.e., “progressives,” mainstream media and moderate American Muslims) – willfully suspend disbelief. They play directly into the blood-soaked hands of these terrorist cowards. 

Having time and again demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their own innocent people (consider child suicide bombers), these monsters today both deliberately target Israeli neighborhoods with rockets and intentionally place their own military launch sites and terrorist headquarters next to mosques, playgrounds, factories and the like. 

This, as intended, has created a propagandist boon. Much of the world blames Israel when these human shields are tragically killed during pinpoint military strikes. Who needs missile defense when you have women and children to hide behind? 

To both the Israeli and the Arab victims of radical Islam, I say this: You are in our thoughts and our prayers. Our hearts break for you. We pray that God will cover and protect you during these dark days and nights. 

To Benjamin Netanyahu I pledge this: Mr. Prime Minister, Christian America thanks you for your bold leadership. We thank you for being the lone voice of freedom in the Middle East.

Sir, you, too, are in our thoughts and our prayers.

America stands with Israel.

We demand our president do the same.


Hamas’ Claims: True or False?

Hamas makes wild claims of success against Israel probably in an effort to entice Islamist groups and nations to continue to send weapons and money. Watch the video and check their claims for yourself.

(h/t @galtsgirl)

One of the top comments on illustrates the compassion and frustration Israelis have for Palestinians. If Hamas would stop attacking Israel from Gaza, Israel would have no reason to strike back:

I guess you don’t know that that israeli is holding back..

if we WEREN’T holding back, believe me, and i can sign my life for it, you would be dead by now.


but we don’t do that, why? becuase we CARE about civilians, unlike you the terrorist which the only target their looking for is harming people, no matter who they are.

we keep shipping you food, water, electricity, and many more things that keep you alive.

Video of large number of Palestinian rockets heading for Israel

Imagine being in your home, hearing those sirens and looking out your windows to see a massive rocket artillery barrage coming towards your home. That is what Israelis have been contending with as Hamas has escalated rocket attacks over the past several weeks. Also notice the multiple mid-air explosions as Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system engages the huge volley of Hamas-fired rockets. {also read: Egypt offers support to Hamas}

Egypt latest launching point for artillery strikes on Israel

Egypt has become the latest launching point for rocket and artillery strikes against Israel joining the Gaza Strip and Syria in unprovoked attacks on the Jewish state.

The Jerusalem Post reported on Friday that rockets were fired from the Sinai Peninsula towards an Isreali village on the southern border. No injuries were reported.

These latest attacks come after President Obama spoke with Egypt’s President Morsi on Wednesday and Egypt’s Prime Minister Hesham Qandil visited Gaza to show solidarity with Hamas on Thursday.

Egyptian President calls for takeover of JerusalemSpeaking in Cairo on Thursday, President Morsi said that in his conversation with Obama, he told the U.S. President that Israel’s offensive must stop while calling Israel’s defensive actions “unacceptable aggression.” President Mohammed Morsi pledged Egypt’s support of Hamas as he said that Cairo “would not leave Gaza on its own.”

The Egyptian government’s actions are no surprise. Since the rise to power of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab Spring, Egypt’s interest in peace with Israel has steadily lessened. It is unlikely that President Obama will be able to affect the situation as the U.S.’s influence in the region has significantly weakened over the last four years. In a separate statement, President Morsi said that “Egypt today is not the Egypt of yesterday, and Arabs today are not the Arabs of yesterday” heightening fears that Egypt is no longer a diplomatic partner in the region.

In sending the leader of the Egyptian government to Gaza in a friendly gesture to Hamas, Egypt is openly partnering with a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Union and Israel. There is some concern that some of the more than $2 Billion in annual U.S. military and economic aid to Egypt may be funneled to Hamas.

The current crisis began as Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel were joined by Syrian artillery positions firing on the Israeli region known as the Golan Heights. Israel returned fire against the Syrian artillery.

In order to defend itself, Israel began Operation “Pillar of Defence” during which it killed the military commander of Hammas and struck numerous rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip.

News reports offer confusing timelines often tuned to show Israel as the first aggressor. These reports often ignore the continual and escalating rocket attacks that pre-dated the Isreali offensive. Isreali President Shimon Peres briefed the U.S. President informing him that the current operation was in response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza.  During a visit to an Israeli border town, Peres said “”Israel is not interested in stoking the flames, but for the past five days there has been constant missile fire at Israel and mothers and children cannot sleep quietly at night.”

In response to reporting and editorials tilted against Israel, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham H. Foxman submitted a letter to the editor at the New York Times in which he pointed out some unfair editorialization on the conflict and how a failure to condemn Hamas’ constant attacks on Israel may have missed opportunities to prevent the escalation of hostilities.

Real understanding would be shown in discussion about how Israel is being surrounded by states and entities controlled by Islamic extremists, either the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah, all committed to Israel’s destruction.

Real recognition of the problem would have been articulated by words calling on the international community to condemn Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians long before it came to this.

Three Israelis were killed and 18 injured by rockets fired from Gaza and 19 Palestinians were killed as Israel counter-attacked in defense of herself. 75,000 Israeli reservists have been called up for duty following the Palestinian attacks and resulting tensions.

Hamas is heavily supported by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, all vocal adversaries of the Jewish state. Armaments are steadily streaming into Gaza from Africa through smuggling tunnels in Egypt. The latest Hamas attacks included the Iranian Fajr-5 medium range guided missiles which can strike anywhere in Israel. These more dangerous Iranian arms are credited as the real reason for the Israeli counter-attack.

Gargoyle Joe Is Your Debate Firewall?

Biden’s new debate coach is not an improvement over John Kerry.

What does it say about a campaign when its hope for putting a stop to a precipitous decline in the polls is Joe Biden? Last night fireman Joe was at his pompous, bloviating best in the Vice President Debate with Cong. Paul Ryan. The most memorable line in his paper thin, fact–free rebuttals came when Biden looked directly at the camera and asked viewers, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Earlier in the week Obama staffers were trying to pin the blame for the current President’s poor showing on John Kerry’s debate preparation, but I don’t think replacing Kerry with the Cheshire Cat was much of an improvement. In the split–screen shots Biden looked like a dirty old man staring at an elementary school swing set as he leered and grinned during Ryan’s answers.

When he wasn’t interrupting and talking over Ryan, Biden was muttering and chuckling to himself like Gollum in the underground lake. I suggest that whoever posts these clips on YouTube use Aqualung as the background music.

The only time I had any sympathy for “Good Old Joe” was when the camera showed a view of the back of his head and you could see where even his hair implants were thinning.

Believe it or not Biden took a full six days off the campaign trail just to prepare for the debate. To put this in perspective, Jesus didn’t require six days to prepare for the crucifixion.

Presumably the first three days of preparation were devoted to words Joe wasn’t supposed to say including but not limited to: gay, marriage, chains, crushed, taxes, jobs, 7/11, Slurpee, f–ing, deal, articulate, bright and clean. And the last three days to words he should say. In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Joe was programmed with hand–me–down one–liners that Obama refused to use on Romney.

Fortunately, since the debate was held before a mixed audience, Biden did not have to adopt with the black dialect Obama affects when he’s speaking exclusively to minorities. Biden got to keep all his ‘g’s and was not be required to use “folks.”

The process wasn’t brainwashing per se, but it required at least a light rinse.

And somewhere during all this preparation Joe found time to rent a floor polisher so he could buff his teeth.

This focus on Biden brings back memories doesn’t it? Joe was added to the team for his “extensive foreign policy experience” and his “long term Washington expertise.” Yes, 69–year–old Joe was cashing a government paycheck and sticking his foot in his mouth at time when the 42–year­–old Ryan had to be content with his thumb.

This is why conservative columnists hav alwayse been grateful Biden is the white guy.

Last night while showing off his expertise, Biden claimed the US is Israel’s best friend and that Obama and Netanyahu have personally met 12 times. Both are lies: Obama pledged to create some distance from Israel and the two have met nine times.

“Foreign Policy” Joe stated emphatically that the consulate in Libya had not asked for additional security, intelligence experts did not warn of an attack and that he knows from security briefings that Iran is a long way from getting an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately Ryan failed to point out that Thursday’s Washington Post had printed the emails asking for additional security at the consulate and he failed to ask Biden if the “intelligence experts” who assured him Iran is a long way from the bomb are the same ones who promised him the Libyan consulate was in no danger.

After Romney won the first debate so decisively, one would have thought MSM coverage of the VP event would be reality–based. But that’s not so, the media remains an Obama co–conspirator. CNN reported its own poll of debate watchers “a draw.”

Yet the graph clearly shows Ryan won 48 percent to 44 percent. What’s more, 28 percent of viewers said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney compared to the 21 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Obama. And Ryan was judged more likeable than both “Public Trough” Joe & Big Bird by 53 percent to 43 percent, both of the latter being outside the margin of error.

And a pathetic AP reporter by the name of Jocelyn Noveck claimed, “the vice president also came up with the two catchiest phrases of the night – “bunch of malarkey” and “bunch of stuff.” Both of which are trite and ancient.

Fortunately, participants in a Luntz debate focus group that — was not on the MSM or Obama campaign payroll — felt Biden was “arrogant.” Personally, I thought that if Joe had a few feathers he could play Foghorn Leghorn.

The best part about the debate was viewers now realize to their horror that a lying boastful buffoon is a heartbeat away from a President that is helpless without a teleprompter.

Or as Barbara Schribner wrote: Now we can put a set of teeth on the empty chair.



« Older Entries Recent Entries »