Category Archives: Support the Troops

Rebuttal of the Pentagon’s pro-F-35 spin

A few days ago, it was revealed that the F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” lost all of its close-range combat tests against the legacy F-16 fighter (which the former is intended to replace) when such mock engagements occurred in January of this year.

No sooner did such reports emerge than the Pentagon engaged in a heavy spin campaign to protect the F-35 at all costs, lying blatantly to the public:

“The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters,” a JPO office written statement said.

In particular, the JPO statement explained that the AF-2 test aircraft did not have the mission systems software designed to utilize the aircraft’s next-generation sensors.

In short, the F-35 is engineered with a suite of next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft recognize, detect and destroy enemy targets at longer distances — long before it can be identified by an enemy aircraft.

“While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” the JPO said.

The F-35 office also said the AF-2 test aircraft was not equipped with the F-35’s special stealth coating designed to make the aircraft invisible to enemy radar.

In addition, the JPO statement said the AF-2 “is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

The Pentagon’s spin was reported by the Military.com news website.

 

Here is our rebuttal of the Pentagon’s spin.

 

The Pentagon is essentially claiming – as it did during the 1960s, in the run-up to the F-4’s Vietnam fiasco – that maneuverability in dogfights doesn’t matter, and that long-range sensors and missiles will do the job. But the Pentagon is dead wrong.
Firstly, despite the Pentagon’s and the defense industry’s promises of super-effective long-range sensors and missiles, such promises have never been fulfilled so far. Close-range combat, i.e. dogfighting, remains the dominant type of air-to-air combat to this day – not Beyond Visual Range combat as the DOD wants us to believe. Even today’s newest long-range sensors, including radar, cannot reliably identify other aircraft and distinguish them from friend to foe; hence why, to this day, the US military does NOT allow its combat pilots to fire BVR missiles without authorization from AWACS or a higher authority. Moreover, in real-world combat, even the newest BVR missiles like the AMRAAM have demonstrated, at best, only a 25% Probability of Kill (Pk). Even in the most recent conflicts, most air-to-air kills have been with Within Visual Range weapons, including sometimes with BVR missiles fired at close range. With a multitude of decoys available on the market, and with BVR radar-guided missiles being able to do only a few Gs at best, evading BVR missiles is not difficult.
The DOD extols the F-35’s radar, but in reality, today, an aircraft’s active radar is more of a target than a shield. Once a pilot turns his radar on, he immediately becomes an easy target. Any enemy equipped with a Radar Warning Receiver can detect such aircraft – and distinguish friend from foe, because the radars of American, Russian, Chinese, and French aircraft operate at different frequencies. Hence smart fighter pilots do NOT turn their radar on – this is called Emissions Control in military parlance.
And the F-35’s AESA radar is nothing special in any case. EVERY modern fighter – including the F/A-18E/F, the Flanker family, the Rafale, the Gripen, the PAK FA, the F-22, the F-15E/SE, and even upgraded legacy F-15s and F-16s – has an AESA radar (the Eurofighter Typhoon will receive it in a few years). So even if an AESA radar were an asset rather than a liability, the F-35 offers nothing, in this regard, that other fighters don’t. As for the F-35’s EOTS and DAS, other fighters also have similar sensors, as well as the ability to receive and process information received from a variety of other (allied) sensors (aerial, naval, ground, spatial). Again, the F-35 offers NOTHING in this regard that other fighters don’t. So the F-35 is no special snowflake.
Moreover, the radars of the F-22, F-15, Rafale, PAKFA, the Flanker family, the Typhoon, and probably also the J-20 are all much more powerful and longer-ranged than the JSF’s radar. So compared to competitor (and some American) aircraft here, the F-35 is actually decisively INFERIOR.
As for “the F-35’s special stealth coating designed to make the aircraft invisible to enemy radar”, I have to inform you, Mr Osborn, that is NO aircraft “invisible to enemy radar.” The most an aircraft can achieve is to dramatically reduce, but not completely erase, its visibility to enemy radar. That feature – known as Low Observability or “stealthiness” – depends in around 95% on an aircraft’s shape, and only to about a 5% degree on coating.
If an aircraft is properly shaped (the cardinal examples being the F-22, the B-2, and the J-20), it will be very stealthy even without special coatings – which can then incrementally increase its LO. If an aircraft is badly shaped, however, the F-35 being a textbook example, it will not be very stealthy, and no coatings will be able to solve this problem. Coatings are not magical Harry-Potter-like “invisibility cloaks” that can make a badly shaped aircraft invisible to radar, contrary to what you wrote.
Because of the F-35’s deeply-sculpted belly and its donut-shaped engine exhaust nozzle, it will only be stealthy from the front – and even that only to X-, S-, and K/Ku-band radar. This type of radar, however, is steadily being supplemented and even supplanted in foreign aircraft and air defense systems (ground- and sea-based alike) by radar operating in other bands (such as the L-band) and at High, Very High, and Ultra High Frequencies (so-called “counterstealth radar”). Against these, stealthiness is useless – they can detect “stealth” aircraft from afar. At that point, an aircraft’s only “protection” is its speed. The F-22, being a supersonic aircraft, can simply deliver its deadly payload and then run away. The F-35 and the B-2 cannot, and are thus doomed to be shot down.
All of which makes mockery of the Pentagon’s utterly ridiculous claim that the F-35 can “recognize, detect and destroy enemy targets at longer distances — long before it can be identified by an enemy aircraft.” It cannot do so, as it is not truly stealthy, easy to see for counterstealth radar, and equipped with decisively inferior radar and missiles compared to adversary frontline fighters.
Making matters worse, competitor aircraft such as the PAKFA, the J-20, the J-31, the J-10, the Typhoon, and those of the Flanker family, can fly much higher (at about 65,000 feet each) than the F-35 (which can theoretically fly at 60 angels, but in practice has been tested only up to 43 angels) and are also much faster: the F-35 can do no more than Mach 1.61, while all the fighters listed above can fly at Mach 2 or more. Please note that missiles launched from a higher- and faster-flying aircraft can fly much farther than those launched from a lower- and slower-flying fighter, and that the newest Russian BVR missiles outrange the longest-ranged American one (the AIM-120D AMRAAM). Also please note that the F-35, in its “stealthy” mode, can carry only four weapons (e.g. missiles). If it takes any more, it completely loses its (already-limited) degree of stealthiness. The forementioned competitor aircraft can all carry 12 missiles (except the J-10, which can carry 11, and the Typhoon, which can carry 13). The French Rafale fighter’s C variant can carry 14. Since no missile has a 100% Pk, the fighter that can carry more missiles has a much better chance of winning.
Furthermore, the PAKFA, the Typhoon, the Rafale, and newer Flanker variants can all supercruise (i.e. fly at supersonic speeds without afterburner). So can the F-22. The F-35 cannot.
Also, the Pentagon’s claim that the F-35 has “weapons and software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target” is also demonstrably false, because, as the test pilot of whom your article speaks has experienced first-hand, the F-35’s cockpit is so small that a pilot cannot even turn his head around freely in that cockpit.
This is also a serious impairment of pilot visibility, which will prove deadly for any aircraft’s pilot – as it did for F-4 pilots in Vietnam. Please note that 80% of all fighters ever shot down went down without their pilots being aware of the attacker. Erich Hartmann, the greatest fighter ace of all time (“ace of the aces”), shot down about 80% of all his victims in this manner. When you don’t have full visibility, no amount of super-duper sensors, weapons, or other expensive and exquisite gizmos will help you.
In light of these facts, the Pentagon’s claim that the F-35 can “recognize, detect and destroy enemy targets at longer distances — long before it can be identified by an enemy aircraft” is a total joke.

Liberals Never Stop Seeking To Disarm America Unilaterally

Liberals never give up in their campaign to disarm America unilaterally. As the service lives of the components of America’s nuclear triad – the missiles, the aircraft, the submarines, and the warheads – come to an end, the Pentagon will have to replace them with new ones in the years ahead. Liberals believe this is a great opportunity for them to disarm the US unilaterally – through neglect and nonreplacement of America’s aging nuclear arms.

As the necessity to replace these aging weapons approaches, liberals are spreading blatant lies about the nuclear arsenal replacement’s costs, necessity, and the scope of the nuclear threats facing the US. In fact, liberals deny there are any nuclear threats to America’s security. This article will utterly refute their lies and state the truth on the subject.

The “director for disarmament and threat reduction” at the Arms Control Association (a far-left pro-unilateral-disarmament group funded by other far-left organizations), Kingston Reif, a pro-unilateral disarmament hack already refuted a few times here, has recently lied:

Instead of moving forward with an overly ambitious and excessively expensive modernization plan that would recapitalize a US nuclear force that is, by the Pentagon’s and the president’s own analysis, far larger than US nuclear deterrence needs require, the White House, Pentagon and Energy Department should examine common-sense options for reshaping the arsenal in ways that would save billions and still provide more than adequate nuclear deterrence capabilities. Such options exist.”

“The Pentagon’s and the president’s own analysis” that Reif invokes is Obama’s own, singular, completely baseless claim from June 2013 that America can supposedly deter Russia, China, and North Korea with just 1,000 deployed warheads, while these two states pursue a limitless nuclear buildup.

But contrary to Reif’s and Obama’s blatant lies, the size of the nuclear force planned by the Pentagon for the future (similar to today’s nuclear force) will barely be adequate – and only assuming Russia and China don’t grow their arsenals much further. If they do build their arsenals up further, the US will also have to.

Russia currently has 375 ICBMs capable of delivering over 1,000 warheads to the CONUS, 80 strategic bombers capabe of delivering 886 warheads, and 14 ballistic missile subs capable of delivering over 1,200 warheads to the CONUS.

On top of that, Russia possesses 13 attack submarines and 8 guided missile submarines capable of unexpectedly attacking the US with hundreds of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and 171 “continental” Tu-22M bombers capable of reaching the US with their payload (10 nuclear-tipped missiles each) if refueled mid-air.

In addition, Russia has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal that numbers up to 4,000 warheads. Their delivery systems range from short- and medium range Iskander and R-500 ground-launched missiles (which violate the INF treaty

Moscow is now busy replacing all of its Soviet-era systems with new weapons. It is building a fleet of new ballistic missile subs, building an additional 50 Tu-160 intercontinental bombers, and developing a new, stealthy strategic bomber as well as a hypersonic glide vehicle which, if delivered by a missile, could itself deliver a nuclear payload anywhere in the world in less than an hour. And, by 2022, all of Russia’s Soviet-era ICBMs will be replaced by new ones; what’s more, the fleet will grow to more than 400 missiles from 375 today.

Furthermore, Vladimir Putin has just announced that he’ll add over 40 new ICBM’s to Russia’s missile fleet this year alone. There is currently a dispute on th Net on whether these new missiles will be an addition to or a replacement for Russia’s current ICBMs. But even if they’re just replacing older missiles, that’s still a huge boost – this mean replacing 13% of Russia’s entire ICBM fleet in one year.

Российские разработчики создали уникальную ракетную систему Ярс

A Russian RS-24 Yars ICBM being test-launched. Russia will add 40 such ICBMs to its arsenal this year, President Putin said on June 16th. Photo credit: Sputnik News

Moreover, Russia’s new ground- and submarine-launched ballistic missiles can carry far more warheads than the old Soviet-era missiles they’re replacing. The new Yars and Rubezh missiles can carry 6-10 warheads each, unlike the old single-warhead RT-2PM Topol (SS-25 Sickle) ICBMs they’re replacing. Likewise, Russia’s new Bulava and Layner (Liner) submarine-launched missiles can carry 10 and 12 warheads, respectively, per missile; the Skiff missiles they’re replacing can only carry four. So a single Russian submarine armed with 16 such missiles can deliver 192 warheads to the CONUS; keep in mind Russia has 14 ballistic missile subs, including 9-10 operationally available at any moment.

Russian Navy's Strategic Nuclear Force to Become 2.5 Times more Effective with Modernization of SLBM Sineva

A Russian Liner submarine-launched ballistic missile being test-launched. A single such missile can carry 12 warheads. Photo credit: NavalToday.

As the UK Daily Telegraph has noted about those 40 new ICBMs Putin will deploy this year:

“The older weapons will be withdrawn and succeeded by new SS-27 missiles, each capable of delivering between four and six strategic nuclear warheads. If loaded to full capacity, these new ICBMs could deliver 240 nuclear warheads – more than Britain’s entire arsenal.”

So not only is Russia deploying more missiles and bombers, they can carry far more warheads than the missiles/bombers they’re replacing.

Deputy Secretary Work is keenly aware that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is designed to do one thing: intimidate and threaten America and its allies:

“Bob Work, deputy defense secretary, told lawmakers at the House Armed Services Committee that Russia is “literally playing with fire” through recent actions, which have seen that nation speak openly about increasing its nuclear arsenal.

“Senior Russian officials continue to make irresponsible statements regarding Russia’s nuclear forces, and we assess they are doing it to intimidate our allies and us,” Work said.”

China is likewise deploying ever more missiles capable of carrying ever more warheads. It is now deploying the DF-41 mobile ICBM capable of carrying 10 warheads, has 4-5 Jin-class ballistic missile subs deployed (12 missiles each), and its H-6K bombers’ cruise missiles can reach Hawaii. Beijing is now developing the 24-missile Tang class of submarines, hypersonic nuclear-capable glide vehicles (similar to Russia’s), and a stealthy intercontinental bomber.

China's Type 094 Jin-class submarine will adopt JL-2 ballistic missiles. (Internet photo)

A Chinese Jin-class submarine. China has 4 such boats with a fifth slated to join them soon, and each of them can carry at least 12 JL-2 missiles, which in turn can carry at least 4 warheads each. A four-boat fleet gives China a continous at-sea nuclear deterrent like France and the UK have. Photo credit: Military-Today.com.

In short, both Russia and China already have large nuclear arsenals and are building them up further; arsenals which, in the future, will be even bigger and deadlier than today.

Against this background, it would be utterly suicidal for the US to cut its arsenal any further or to neglect to modernize it.

The truth is that the US – and its 30 allies who rely on the American nuclear umbrella for their security – must have a nuclear deterrent that can survive any potential Russian or Chinese first strike not only today, but indefinitely into the future.

The US nuclear arsenal must be large enough – and survivable enough – to withstand any blow, even a huge one – by Russian and Chinese nuclear forces – not only those of today, but more importantly those of the future.

In short, we must think of the future, not just the present. The new nuclear deterrent the Pentagon plans to build must protect America against any nuclear threat well into the future.

Thus, the US will need to increase – not cut – its nuclear arsenal, and modernize it fully.

In addition, the new Long-Range Strike Bomber is absolutely necessary to perform conventional bombing campaigns as well. And if used against a nuclear power like China or North Korea, it would greatly REDUCE the threat to the US and its allies by being able to destroy enemy missile launchers BEFORE they have a chance to launch their deadly payloads. The LRSB will be a transformational weapon giving the US military new capabilities – not a mere replacement for old bombers. As Dr Robbin Laird rightly writes here:

“The B-3 is not simply going to provide more ordnance over greater distance to do strategic missions; it is about reinforcing and enabling greater capabilities for a radically different combat air force. Range and payload will be important elements of the basic platform, as will leveraging new concepts of stealth to provide low observability. But that is simply a foundation.”

And the cost?

The Pentagon says it will need to spend $18 bn on nuclear deterrent modernization starting in 2021 and ending in 2035, for a total cost of $270 bn over 15 years.

The Pentagon’s total annual budget is around $600 bn; $18 bn is 3% of that. It is utter nonsense to claim that the Pentagon cannot afford to spend a pitiful 3% of its budget on modernizing America’s nuclear umbrella that also shields over 30 allies and friends.

Liberals falsely claim that the total modernization cost will be $1 trillion over 30 years, with $348 bn over the next 10 years.

But that figure is nothing but a claim of the Monterey Institute for Strategic Studies, another liberal pro-disarmament group.

But even if that figure were correct – which it likely won’t be – $1 trillion over 30 years is just $33.3 bn per year, i.e. around 6% of the Pentagon’s total budget. Deputy Secretary Robert Work estimates it at about 7%.

A few other liberals (CSIS’s Clark Murdock, Thomas Karako, and Angela Weaver) recently (and falsely) claimed, for their part, that:

Nuclear weapons do not achieve U.S. policy objectives, dominant conventional forces do. The U.S. interest lies in seeking to minimize the importance accorded to nuclear weapons by narrowing the roles they are perceived to play. U.S. doctrine, policy, forces, and diplomacy should all be configured to support this interest. The posture described in this paper achieves just that, in contrast to postures that imagine uses of nuclear weapons that have never actually been demonstrated. After 70 years of indulging fantasies of what nuclear weapons can do, it is high time to acknowledge that they do very little and adapt U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, and forces to those facts.”

What they’re saying, though, are blatant lies, not facts. Nuclear weapons achieve three supremely important US policy objectives:

  • Preventing a nuclear, chemical, biological, or major conventional attack on the US or its treaty allies;
  • Reassuring those allies so that they don’t have to develop their nuclear arsenals, and thus limiting nuclear proliferation; and
  • Preventing wars between the world’s great powers.

And contrary to their lie that “The U.S. interest lies in seeking to minimize the importance accorded to nuclear weapons by narrowing the roles they are perceived to play”, America’s national interest actually lies in preventing WMD or major conventional attacks against America’s allies and achieving the other objectives stated above.

Fantasising about “mimizing the importance accorded to nuclear weapons by narrowing the roles they are perceied to play” will not achieve any US policy objectives. Such childish fantasizing therefore contrary to America’s national interests.

No matter how badly these liberals – and Obama admin officials – wish to minimize nuclear weapons’ role, their importance in the world is huge, and will only grow in the future, as more countries acquire these arms and as existing nuclear powers modernize and expand their arsenals.

Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan are all growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Because of their actions, the global, objective importance of atomic weapons is growing, not shrinking, no matter how much the US wishes it were otherwise.

It doesn’t matter what America wants; what matters is what the world is currently like. And the world is currently headed in the direction of MORE nuclear weapons and MORE countries armed with them, and thus, MUCH GREATER importance accorded to them.

The Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann, for his part, claims that the US should augment its “nuclear disarmament bona fides” by accelerating the nuclear arsenal cuts mandated by the New START treaty and by cutting that arsenal even further, to just 1,000 warheads.

But “nuclear disarmament bona fides” count for nothing in this world. They don’t make a country more secure – on the contrary, they only expose it to danger. Just look at Ukraine, which voluntarily gave up its nuclear arms during the 1990s in exchange for paper promises of respect for its territorial integrity and its independence. Russia brazenly violated these promises last year.

Finally, Adam Mount of the leftist Council on Foreign Relations falsely claims that there are no new nuclear threats, and that:

“It will certainly not help to worry about “new” nuclear threats where there are none. The best way to prevent a new arms race is to refuse to engage in one.”

He also falsely asserts that:

“There are already calls in the United States to fight fire with fire and add to our own nuclear forces. However, there is little reason to believe that building new nuclear capabilities or forward-deploying the ones we already have would restrain Russia. There is every reason to believe that Putin would take these steps as license to divert attention to the nuclear balance, to abrogate existing arms control treaties, to launch a new arms race, and to use his nuclear arsenal to cover aggression at lower levels—in short, to start a new Cold War.”

Like other liberals’ claims, these are also blatant lies. Russia and China have already started a new arms race against the US. At this point, the US only has a choice whether to accept the challenge (and thus develop counter-weapons it needs to defend itself) or not to respond and thus to fall behind its adversaries (which is essentially unilateral disarmament by neglect).

And contrary to his blatant lies, there are new nuclear threats to America’s security: Russia’s and China’s nuclear buildups, North Korea’s burgeoning nuclear and ballistic missile arsenals, and Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.

As for Mount’s false claim that Putin would use an American nuclear buildup as an excuse to “divert attention to the nuclear balance, to abrogate existing arms control treaties, to launch a new arms race, and to use his nuclear arsenal to cover aggression at lower levels” – he’s already doing all of that.

He has already launched an arms race against the US, is violating arms control treaties with impunity, is building up his nuclear arsenal and diverting the Russian public’s attention to it, and is using that arsenal to cover his aggression against his neighbors.

At this point, the US faces a simple choice: it will either build up its nuclear deterrent to a superior level, or it – along with all of its allies – will live under constant threat from an ever-aggressive Russia.

 

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.

Hypocrisy Only Applies to the Right!

Another week of news cycle finger-pointing goes both ways. The Left calls the Right hypocrites. The Right calls the Left hypocrites. Then comes the, “I know you are but what am I” line. Do you feel like you’re back in high school with all the drama?

I took a parenting class years ago where the person teaching the class said that kids are masters at deflecting the conversation to get out of trouble and take the heat off of themselves. They twist and tweak and throw temper tantrums until they get what they want. Enter the loons on the Left!

It started with Senator Dick Durban’s (D) statement saying that Republican Senators were going to hold up Loretta Lynch’s nomination until a vote was cast for a specific bill. Why did Republicans do that? Because Democrat Senators were playing politics with a serious sex slave and human trafficking bill. Durban stated that Republicans were relegating her to the “back of the bus” until the bill was passed. Hmmm… what possible meaning would “back of the bus” have? Why didn’t he say “back burner” or “the end of line” or something less, what am I looking for here, RACIAL! Instead, he tried to make it look like Republicans were not interested in affirming her or voting on her confirmation simply because she was black. Mr. Durbin, your medication isn’t working! Wasn’t it you who held up the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State? But I’ll bet the farm it had nothing to do with her color or her being a black woman, nor did a Republican accuse you of that.

Then there is that little matter of Democrats not getting involved with Netanyahu because it was too close to the elections in his country. As if shaking hands with our president would have assured him a win! Although if Obama’s campaign operatives were smart they might have made it happen considering a recent CNN poll showing that the majority of Israelis don’t trust Mr. Obama.

Read more at TRS

We WIN?

I for one am petrified! My prediction is that we take the Senate and keep the House. Pretty easy. Then what?

Here is my concern. As in the Middle East, we helped to defeat many regimes and get the “bad guys” out of power. We allowed the people to run themselves and look what happened. We left a void of power. A void direction. A void of leadership. And in stepped ISIS after only a few short years.

Well, let’s see… if the votes aren’t stolen, bought, or electronically altered, I see the Republicans taking/keeping both houses. They will undoubtedly act like pent up college kids who run amok after finally moving out of daddy and mommy’s house.

I don’t see any leadership. Unless the Republicans actually have a strategy, and the leadership to carry it out, we lose everything in 2016. Has anyone seen a strategy to this point? Other than knock the president and call the other guys bad, I haven’t seen one. Not that they shouldn’t call them out on bad policy and bad behavior. The president surely has fallen flat on his face and deserves the criticism. And with all the games the Dems have played, they also deserve to be ousted. But there will be a power vacuum without a game plan.

Republicans are fighting from within, he moderates vs. conservatives. Moderates are pushing hard to drop or back off the social issues while conservatives state that we need a strong stance on God, country, guns, marriage, and abortion. Conservatives say that without those things we are no better than “them” (the Dems).

John Boehner has never really pushed back on this Administration with any real foundation or backbone. Many in the Party are upset with his lack of leadership and resolve. But because of the way politics is played in DC, many will still vote for him to remain Speaker of the House because they want their cushy Committee appointments. Trey Goudy is a real contender and should be the one they pass the reins to. He has the leadership ability, backbone, and resolve to make a difference. He calls it as it is, in real time. He doesn’t allow the lies to go unchecked or unchallenged and, sadly, that’s why he probably won’t be the next Speaker. Many of the “Old Guard” would be afraid they would be scrutinized and held accountable and, Heaven forbid, be expected to produce results……………..
Read the rest at TheRealSide

He’s Free! Now What?

President Obama has stated that he had a pen and a phone and would use it if Congress didn’t act. He insinuates that they do nothing to help the American people. He seems to forget that there are over 380 bipartisan bills sitting on his top lapdog, Harry “Hindlick” Reid’s desk who refuses to bring them to the floor for a vote. Why? If they are truly bad and Reid has control of the Senate, and his minions, then there shouldn’t be an issue. Maybe he can call Reid and knock them lose? Never mind. I know his phone is dead!
The phone has to be dead, because for 214 days he was unable to make a phone call on behalf of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi to Mexican President Enrique Nieto. He also was not able to get Secretary John Kerry on the phone, nor was he able to reach California Governor Jerry Brown who hosted the Mexican president in California to discuss the issue with either of them. Interestingly, a State Department spokesman said they had visited the Sergeant several times in prison. Apparently, he was too doped up to remember.
At first I thought the president must be working behind the scenes with his staff and team like he did to secure Bowe Bergdahl’s release, right? That had to be it. After all, getting one Marine who made a wrong turn out of a Mexican prison had to be so much easier than releasing 5 terrorists who swore Jihad on Americans in exchange for one potential traitor and deserter, right? Wrong!
I believe President Obama, once again, showed his contempt for our military men and women by completely ignoring Andrew’s issue. Really, how easy would this have been? Obama calls Nieto. “Yo Nieto, help me out here. I need to get a boatload of these Dems re-elected so we can set up some more watering stations in the desert for your people to be able to make it across the border safely, that way they can work and send money home for you to steal it from them. I can’t do that if we don’t win. So send the marine home. Tell them what a great job I and my administration did to negotiate a release and I can almost guarantee open borders for all. Waddaya say?” Sounds easy enough. Or he could have suspended NAFTA with that pen of his until he was released.
All I can figure is that what the president did was to respect another country’s legal system and allow their laws to play out. I guess Mexico doesn’t have an “executive order” clause for Nieto to use whenever he feels like it.
Looking back, it was the “do-nothing” Congress, not the “do-everything-wrong-and-in-secret” Administration that got Andrew released. It was several Republican representatives, including Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce, Matt Salmon, and former Governor Bill Richardson who went to Mexico and kept applying pressure to the Mexican Attorney General. The judge didn’t release Andrew. It was the AG who dropped the charges forcing the judge to release Andrew.
One unnamed source said that when the AG was explaining how America should understand that Mexico is a “rule of law” country and allow Mexico’s legal system to run its course, the representative basically responded, “So is America, would you like us to allow our legal system to work as it pertains to illegal immigration?
Read the rest at: TheRealSide

Our Current Unknown Soldier !

At the time of this writing Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi will have been in jail six full months… 180 days. A soldier, in the United States Marine Corps. His crime? Accidently making a wrong turn into Mexico, our friends, our neighbors to the South. Yes, they claim to be our friends.

Sgt. Tahmooressi was in San Diego to get the medical treatment he needed for combat-related PTSD, among other things. He had parked on the American side while joining friends for a few drinks. Not being very familiar with the border area, he chose the wrong lane in which to turn around. When he realized his mistake he immediately told the guard what had happened and he was simply looking to get back to the US. He also immediately disclosed that he had guns in the back of the pickup, legally owned in the U.S. The guard understood the mistake called for an escort car to take the Sergeant back across the border. However, an overzealous Mexican military official decided he was not going to let this injustice happen!

He was not going to let that arrogant American soldier who dared to bring guns into Mexico get away with it and he was going to administer justice.

Is that the same military that fires on American border patrols when they are close to the Mexican border but still on the American side? YES! The same Mexican military known for taking bribes from the cartels to allow tonnage of drugs to be smuggled over the border in America? YES! Could this be the same Mexican military that can’t seem to see the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants passing through Mexico on the tops of buses and trains? The same illegals they used to shoot and abuse in times past when they crossed the southern border into Mexico with the intent of staying in Mexico, but since they are continuing on to the U.S. they are ushered along without incident? YES! The same! But they can’t seem to find an ounce of humanity towards Marine Sergeant Tahmooressi.

The Mexican government and especially their president, who decries the inhumane U.S. treatment of his people, who incidentally are running away from him because of his corrupt government’s inhumane treatment of them, are hypocrites. He is appalled that we didn’t set up water facilities in the desert for his people as they break our laws. He was upset because we deport his people who intentionally break our laws. We jail them for repeatedly breaking the law when they get past the border patrol. He wants us to welcome them in with open arms and without exception or background check. Hmmm, I’m surprised the United States of Obama hasn’t issued them weapons yet.

The Mexican president can’t even, in a gesture of good will to show how “open armed” he is, push along the Sergeant’s legal process and make sure he is safe. Maybe we should treat the Illegals coming over the border the same way they are treating the Sergeant. Let’s capture them, put them in a hot, non-air-conditioned tent or room, have them stripped down, chain them to their beds for four days with little food and water, and should they need medical treatment, deny it. That must be what he means by humane treatment because that’s how he’s treating Sgt. Tahmooressi. He couldn’t complain if we treated his law-breaking citizens illegally entering our country the same way, right?
Read more at The Real Side

Feeling the Pain of the Falling Man of September 11th

This article was originally published in a number of publications on September 11, 2002. With a slight edit to reflect our current circumstances, I present it to you as a tribute to the souls lost on September 11, 2001.

Everyone remembers the horrifying images of September 11, 2001. Anyone alive and aware on that date will live with those images the rest of their life. The scenes of havoc and panic, destruction and slaughter, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that even though the United States military is the best trained and well equipped in the world, our country remains vulnerable to the wicked.

When one accepts the fact — and it is a fact — that the free world, not just the United States, is at war with violent Islamists, this story is all the more chilling and disturbing.

The mainstream media in the United States has taken the images of September 11th, 2001 off the television and out of the newspapers, but for the obligatory image on the anniversary itself. They say that the images are too disturbing, that they incite a want for revenge rather than allow for closure. But they are wrong to do this.

The United States should not and cannot simply forgive and forget just because the our current president fallaciously insisted that al Qaeda was on the run and that the Islamic State is “jayvee.” Facts demonstrate that al Qaeda, the Taliban – and now the Islamic State and Boko Haram; violent Islamists, have been planning and preparing to implement their global campaign of terrorism — their declared war against the Western World — since before 1993, well before September 11th. Their central location for training may have been eliminated but they had prepared for that, splintering like roaches to the four corners of the world, preparing, planning and implementing their battle plans made decades before.

Make no mistake, they are a cunning adversary. They understood that the US would come after them. They planned for this event. Now they have metastasized and their threat is even greater than before September 11, 2001.

This war cannot be about “tolerance” or forgiving, or about understanding the “reasons why” someone would want to murder innocents whether it be with an airplane, a car bomb, a suicide vest or a saif. This battle has to be about freedom and the right of innocents to live their lives in liberty, free of fear from an unholy sect of genocidal totalitarians who offer only oppression, dominance and terror as their bounty.

The Progressive left and the complicit mainstream media would have us believe that it is America that is to blame for her audacity in the promotion of freedom and free markets, liberty and the vision of a world free of dictators who torture, murder and slaughter for power. To that extent, Progressives and the agenda-driven media are dangerous and a direct threat to the existence of our country, teetering on the brink of treason and sedition. They will attack these words by saying that I have intimated that they are not patriotic and un-American.

For the record, I hold the belief that anyone who believes the United States brought the attacks of September 11, 2001, onto itself IS unpatriotic and un-American. I believe that they have become toadies for our enemy and should be treated and opposed as such. While they manipulate the true meaning of the First Amendment’s free speech clause, they attempt to indoctrinate and transform our youth and the less than suspecting among us into believing in the doctrine of self-loathing, an oppressive ideology born of the less than great thinkers of Europe almost a century ago.

In its March 15, 2006 edition, The Mirror, a British publication (the American mainstream media too gutless to publish such truth), revealed the identity of a man who had to make the unimaginable decision of whether to burn to death in the raging fires of the World Trade Center on September 11th or escape the pain of hell on earth by leaping from the top of one of the world’s tallest buildings to his certain death.

The article was titled, Revealing the Identity of the Falling Man of 9/11. Jonathan Briley was “The Falling Man of 9/11.”

I would beg each of you to read the article but The Mirror, along with Esquire and a number of publications who once cared about such things, has taken the article down. You can search his name – Jonathan Briley – and look at the pictures and feel Jonathan Briley’s helplessness, his terror, and then try to imagine the split second of excruciating pain that he felt when his body hit the cement below with such force that he, a human being just seconds before, was left a bloodstain on a sidewalk, slaughtered like road kill by barbarian Islamists.

The people of the United States need to rekindle the flame of emotional anguish about the attacks of September 11th, 2001. We need to seethe. We need to employ the ingenuity and intelligence that is fostered in a free society dedicated to liberty, and scream our ire from the top of the world. Then we need to take definitive action.

If we are to wage war on terrorist; on violent Islamists, then let us be the ones who strike terror into the hearts of our enemies. Let us bring terror to those who blow-up innocents, saw the heads off hostages and threaten the world with words of annihilation and nuclear Armageddon. If we are to be in a war we did not choose to begin then in the memory of all who have fallen in the quest to provide freedom and liberty to the world, let us be the ones who act decisively to end it.

We need to embrace the undeniable truth that the free world is at war and cease pandering to those who would wake up one day in the future ruing the fact that we should have acted earlier.

A pre-emptive strike doctrine for the United States? Eradicating the world of the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram and every other Islamist organization that preaches the conquest and servitude of the “dhimmi”? You’re damn right!

My 9-11 Tribute to New York Firefighter Michael D. D’Auria

As the fifth anniversary of 9-11 approached, the blogosphere community united to express its sorrow and participate in the nation’s mourning as only the blogosphere could.

At that time over three thousand bloggers joined the online project 2996: A Tribute to the Victims of 9-11 to give each victim of that day an individual tribute in their honor. Starting as just a vision of one person, the project exploded and resulted in the largest online collaborative effort in blogging history. Each blogger was assigned a random victim to write a tribute for and all were published throughout the web in the days leading up to that particular anniversary.

From the home page of 2996: A Tribute to the Victims of 9-11:

The 2,996 Project

The idea is simple, but powerful: have a special tribute for each victim of 9/11, with each tribute being created by a different blogger. We started 2,996 Project to coordinate the creation of the tributes, and that’s what this site is all about. Here you can sign up to make a tribute yourself, on your blog (we’ll randomly assign a victim to you). You can also browse or search through either the victims that have already been assigned or those that have not — and you can get pointers to more information on all of them.

A message from the guy who started it all…

For each of us something different about 9/11 brought the tragedy into focus. For me it was the sympathy and grief that poured in from overseas.

I remember a story on CNN that showed a Volkswagen Plant in Germany, where each employee brought a candle and placed it in the factory’s entryway. I was staggered at the scenes of foreigners openly weeping. The closing visual of thousands of candles burning on the marble floor left me speechless.

The first tears I shed for 9/11 were as I watched the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace later that evening. That night the Queen had the Royal Guard play the Star Spangled Banner instead of England‘s Anthem — a huge crowd of expatriates and British wept outside the gates. That tribute — a national leader, even if for just a moment, diminishing their own national identity as a show of sympathy — was one of the bravest and most touching political acts I have witnessed. And I remember wondering, if the situation were reversed, if we would have the courage to do the same….

The variety of people who participated in the project 2296: A Tribute to the Victims of 9-11 was amazing. A wide spectrum of people from this great nation, and throughout the world, were represented. Bloggers from a wide variety of countries were asked to be included in the memorialization of the lives of the fallen and participated with their tributes. Everyone from big name bloggers to eighth graders on Myspace.com signed up and I know of at least one class that did a tribute as a class project. It was one idea that completely crossed political and ideological divides and was embraced by people of all walks of life.

I was the 1911th blogger to join the project and wrote about Michael D. D’Auria, one of the many brave New York firefighters that responded to the twin towers call and subsequently lost his life as the towers collapsed.

As I watched the many hours of 9-11 remembrances, stories, documentaries, and reports today I was drawn back to this project that I had participated in many years ago and felt that it would be appropriate to once again commemorate and reverently remember Michael D’Auria and the many others who fell that day.

I encourage you to pause on September 11th and remember the nearly three thousand souls who were killed in the ‘Pearl Harbor’ of the current War on Terror and Islamic Jihadism. Remember them for their lives, for their families, for the fact they died on American soil, and simply because they were fellow human beings who displayed thousands of individual acts of bravery and courage as they sought to help each other.

Below I give you:

2996: My 9-11 Tribute to Michael D. D’Auria

Many years have now passed since the tragic attacks on September 11th, 2001. On that day the dark hand of terror and war reached out and snatched away nearly three thousand of our fellow countrymen in an orgy of fire and wanton destruction. I distinctly remember sitting on the couch as I prepared to leave for work and watching the amazing images flash across the TV screen. In that moment I knew that the course of our nation had taken a dramatic turn and that our lives would be changed forever.

Today I honor Michael D. D’Auria, age 25.

Michael came from a strong and proud Sicilian family with a deep history of firefighters. He was known to his family and friends as “a sweet and kindhearted man,” “unusually reflective and sensitive,” “very understanding and a true and wonderful person and friend,” and “as a great guy, always funny, always smiling.” He sought to follow the family tradition of serving others and became a firefighter. He had only been a firefighter for about nine weeks when the fateful call went out to Engine 40 – Ladder 35, and sent Michael responding to only his second fire as a fireman.

Michael was also known for his culinary skills. He graduated from the New York Restaurant School, Manhattan, in 1994, and worked in various Brooklyn and Manhattan restaurants before coming to Staten Island in 1999 to work at La Fontana, Oakwood, and Giovanni’s Cafe, Eltingville. His relatives in the department jokingly advised him not to tell anyone he was a chef. But he enjoyed it very much and was so proud of his skill that he would often stay and cook for the next shift at the firehouse. One firefighter said, “When we saw Mike’s name on the board we knew we were going to eat good that night.”

No tribute or memories can compare to a mothers. Below are a few words from Michael’s mother, Nancy Marra, published shortly after 9-11 which I have taken the liberty of republishing here.

Michael D’Auria was a very warm and loving young man who had a purpose in life. It was somewhat of a struggle getting there but he knew what his goal was and he succeeded. His entire life he wanted to be a fireman.

He was sworn into the department on May 2, 2001 after receiving 100 percent on both the written and physical tests. He was so proud to be a part of the FDNY.

Mike was a chef at various restaurants in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. When he graduated from high school, he went to culinary school since he had been too young at that time to take the fire department test.

Michael loved getting tattoos, but they each had a very special meaning to him, e.g. St. Michael the Archangel on his right shoulder. He felt he was his protector. Mike began painting last year. Something he never tried before, but when he did he had such a talent that people were just amazed seeing his paintings.

Most of all, Michael was a caring, giving person. He literally would give the shirt off his back to someone in need. Michael was a hero to many people over the years, now he’s a HERO to all.

As I sit here and write, I cry because my heart aches but I know you are happy now, Michael. You knew life here was only a small part of a very big picture. Michael made a statement to his sister, Christina, several months before September 11: “I know when I die it’s going to be in a big way and it’s going to change the world.” How right you were my son.

Always and forever in our hearts.

Mom

Michael’s only crime was that he was being born in the land of the free and the home of the brave. None of the victims of that day deserved the fate that they received, but they all deserve the honor and tributes that they have received since that day. Their deaths deserve to be remembered always as the ultimate sacrifice for this nation and its people. Their memories serve as the catalyst for this nation to unite in its determination to stand against those who would seek to destroy this nation and all that it stands for.

Today I remember Michael and the sacrifice he made for the rest of us. We join in solidarity with his family and grieve with them as they daily relive his loss and remember his life. Thank you Michael for your dedication to serving your fellow citizens and for giving your life as you sought to help save the lives of others. You may be gone, but you are not forgotten.

-After this tribute was originally published I received a rather moving e-mail from his mother which I don’t believe she would mind me sharing with you.

Dear David,

It was 2am this morning and my daughter Christina came across your site with Michael’s story. I am Michael’s mother Nancy. It’s been almost six years since my son was taken from us and I still need reassurance that people will not forget about Michael and all those innocent people who died that day.

I must say thank you for reminding me that they won’t forget. My way of making sure is to volunteer down at ground zero along with the September 11 families association and the tribute center giving tours. I myself have found how very rewarding it is. I realize a bit more each time I do a tour how tourists from all over the world want to know and how they appreciate hearing from the families themselves.

I have to tell you something which my daughter and I think very ironic. Several months before 9/11 Michael’s friends had decided to open a restaurant. The restaurant was to open in mid-September 2001. Since Michael was helping them he was asked to choose a name. The restaurant was to be called “Sage.” (I blog as “Dave the Sage”).

I have attached an article written in our local newspaper in July of 2002 I thought you might like to read.

Thank you again for honoring my son by telling his story.

– Nancy Cimei

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Obama:

▪ Are you with the American people or against us?

▪ Are you sympathetic to the jihadi Islamist cause?

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

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

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

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

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

Obama: All for Some But None for Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Realities of a Community Organizer’s Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of the United States under President Barack Obama, who came to the White House with the resume of an untested community organizer, no experience in political leadership, nor an iota of insight into international relations, has moved the whole of the world to the brink of total war. Those who pay attention to only what affects their lives – those who are taken in by the false promises marketed by the Progressive political class – are partially to blame. I say this not with a viciously partisan eye, but with sadness and concern in my heart for all humanity. But the onus of responsibility for our current situation – the world’s situation – must lay at the feet of Mr. Obama and his closest advisers.

In the beginning, in his speeches to prospective voters, Mr. Obama preached the Progressive gospel of the peace movement and the demilitarization of American foreign policy. He pledged to end the Iraqi conflict expeditiously and end the Afghan conflict in a timely manner. Sadly, and to their own shame, a majority of American voters bought into the pre-packaged marketing of the idea of Obama, the “first Black president,” without realizing him as wholly unqualified for the job, and he was elected. It took him short order to keep his promises to the faithful voters who counted themselves amongst the anti-war movement; the “Bush-Lied-People-Died” chanters of so many protests around the country. In December of 2011, Mr. Obama, going so far as to supply the enemy with timelines and withdrawal dates, announced the end of the Iraq War for America’s military men and women. Of course, he failed to secure reasonable status of forces agreements and insisted that the Iraqis had “turned the corner,” and were now capable of defending their own country. This, of course, was the biggest miscalculation, with regard to foreign policy, that he has made as President of the United States.

In January of 2014, when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), a small but fiercely pious group of jihadists were making initial advances on many locations in the rural outposts in Iraq and Syria, USA Today’s James Robbins pointed out to President Obama that the flag of al Qaeda was now flying in Fallujah and many other locations in Iraq, and among an increasing number of rebel factions in Syria. He also highlighted the fact that al Qaeda aligned groups has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, as well. Amazingly, arrogantly, but almost absolutely ignorantly, Mr. Obama responded:

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant…”

Ignore Mr. Obama’s substandard 7th Grade grammar for a moment, because, after all, it is “cool” to speak like one is uneducated.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review writes that today, as Mr. Obama and his family vacation – yet again – in Martha’s Vineyard, ISIS (now simply calling themselves the Islamic State) “controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations, makes $3 million per day selling oil on the black market,” have taken “control of Iraq’s largest dam and the power supply for the city of Mosul, are spreading into Lebanon, are threatening to starve or slaughter ‘at least 40,000 members of the Yazidi sect,’ is organizing protests in the Netherlands and is stepping up its recruitment of Westerners.”

In addition to these truths, the Islamic State, which is winning on every battlefront on which they are engaged (remember, victors in war control land, not the skies), has declared the existence of an Islamic Caliphate. They have instituted strict Sharia Law in every area they control and have made the ultimatum to all non-Muslims in the “occupied territories” that they must convert to Islam, pay a jizya and live subserviently as Dhimmis, expatriate or die. In Mosul, at least for the Christians, this ultimatum is nothing more than a formality.

In an interview with CNN’s Jonathan Mann, Chaldean-American leader Mark Arabo reported that in Mosul “a Christian holocaust is in our midst…children are being beheaded, mothers are being raped and killed, and fathers are being hung.”

Mr. Arabo continued:

“They are systematically beheading children…and mothers and fathers. The world hasn’t seen an evil like this for generations.

“There’s actually a park in Mosul where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick…this is crimes against humanity. They are doing the most horrendous, the most heart-breaking crimes that you can think of.”

For the Islamic children in the ISIS “occupied territories” there only exists a future of jihad or martyrdom as ISIS jihadists execute an all-out recruiting effort throughout said “occupied territories,” recruiting children, young boys, as young as 7 years old.

This is ISIS, or the Islamic State. This is the barbarity that is being pursued in the name of the “religion of peace.” This is the savagery that has been facilitated by US foreign policy under the Obama Administration. This is the future under an Islamic Caliphate of any size, in any land, for everyone, all of the time.

Kirsten Powers, a columnist with The Daily Beast, a FOX News contributor, and usually an ardent defender of President Obama’s, lashed out at Mr. Obama over his response to ISIS’s attempt to “cleanse” the region of the “infidel”:

“He has not uttered the word ‘Christian,’ and now suddenly he throws it in with the Yazidis…We’re not doing any airdrops to the Christians, who are refugees in the Kurdish region. [Virginia Congressman Frank] Wolf has taken to the floor, I think, seven days in a row now, pleading with the administration: Please help these people. They need humanitarian aid; they need drinking water. They have nothing. They’ve lost their homes; they’ve lost everything.

“The White House has done nothing; they’ve said nothing. And then the president goes on and goes into quite a lot of detail about the Yazidis, and never really gets into the specifics about Christians. I mean, it’s really unbelievable, and he has no right to invoke humanitarianism, because he is not a humanitarian president. A humanitarian president does not sit quietly by, while hundreds of thousands of Christians in Iraq [are uprooted or killed] – forget about the rest of the Middle East – and doesn’t say a word.”

And how does Mr. Obama explain his administration’s underestimation of the savagery and barbarity of ISIS? How does he spin the issue to avoid responsibility for applying a “jayvee” foreign policy in a battle for control of first the Middle East and then the World? He blames it on “bad intelligence.” This excuse – and that’s what it is, an excuse – is inept, pathetic and infuriating. It is especially egregious in light of his unyielding criticism of the Bush Administration where skewed intelligence was concerned. And it projects to the cretinous barbarians of ISIS that they can rein down their savagery with little worry of any substantial response from the United States, sans a few drone and airstrikes.

There are many of us who fully understood the threat posed by barbarians the likes of ISIS years ago. We begged our fellow Americans and freedom loving people around the world to awaken from their self-important slumber, to question the blather of the Progressive mantra of Islam being the “religion of peace,” to realize that Muslims who follow the Quran and Hadith with fanatical devotion not only believe in their superiority to all other human beings, but believe it is their right to lord over them in the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate. We were called haters and Islamophobes by the anointed chattering classes on both sides of the aisle. And we were delivered to today’s realities.

Perhaps we should revisit, with un-manipulated eyes, Mr. Obama’s words, courtesy of Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times:

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

I wonder. Are we who were sounding the alarm bell then about jihad, Islam, caliphates and Islamic conquest seen in such a despicable light now? Are we seen as haters and Islamophobes; uneducated and enlightened in the gentle spirit of the “religion of peace”? It’s actually hard to call us fanatical when you are staring at the severed head of a child impaled on a pike at a playground in Iraq. Isn’t it?

I Told You It Wasn’t a Woman’s Health Issue !

I have been saying, to the irritant of my friends on the Left, that abortion has nothing to do with women’s health.

One of the original questions the Supreme Court had to deal with in the seventies when they approved this “slaughter law” was, when does life begin. Well, all the academics and doctors that were willing to take some money and testify said life did not start until the third trimester.

Remember, this was a time when cancer was almost always fatal. AIDS was a death sentence, and, in some cases, people still died from the flu.

Medicine has come a long way since then. And now, many agree, scientists and doctors alike, that life begins at conception or shortly thereafter.

Dr. Bill Fifer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, said, “Everything that a newborn baby does, a fetus has pretty much done already.” He went on to say “We know that a baby’s tiny heart is beating as early as 18 days after sperm-egg fusion. Brain waves are detectable by 6 weeks and babies can experience dream (REM) sleep by 17 weeks. Substantial medical and scientific evidence has demonstrated that unborn children are capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks, if not earlier.”

Not Joe Messina’s opinion, but science. This is now the understanding of many in the medical field. However, I am still perplexed. You see, the Left continually beats on Right-wing, conservative, Bible-thumping Republicans (like myself) for not believing in science but rather the fairy tales of the Bible.

But when confronted by science and facts (not theories like, let’s say, evolution) that don’t line up with their way of thinking they ignore them and tell us that we hate women (in the case of our abortion stance.) Why? Because is easier than discussing the facts.

So, if at 18 days that little blob of cells has a heartbeat, what can we call it? What will it eventually be? A canine? A fish? A tree? Nope. Simply, a human. Its only potential outcome is that it is a developing human!

Now with science we can see with sonograms and 3-D imagery what the baby looks like. We can’t run from that truth. Our youth are seeing it more and more and are changing the way they view abortion.

So then… it is a life! But what about the argument for years from the Left and the pro-abortion groups that it’s not a life? As of late, some of the abortion proponents are saying that life begins when the mother says it does, that the unborn blob of cells can be snuffed out even up to the time it’s exiting the birth canal. Wow! That’s a stretch!

But wait! Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief of RH Reality Check, a Reproductive and Sexual Health and Justice blog says it was never when life beings because “life begins at conception.” Huh?

OMG! Wasn’t the abortion debate all about women having access to clean safe medical facilities so that when they were seeking this “medical procedure” the mother’s health would not be at risk? The fetus, or as it’s been called “blob of cells,” needed to be removed to save the mother.

You were duped!


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/08/i-told-you-it-wasnt-a-womans-health-issue/#L9t6j1vAXCU2XaUl.99

Are You a Racist?

Are you a racist? Yes, you are. Good, I have your attention. I just wanted to see if I could get your attention by calling you a racist, since it’s what everyone else does. Today the word hardly holds any meaning. One group uses it to try to make another group feel bad or to get the attention of others that might come to help pile on. In some cases they use it simply because they’ve got nothing else to debate with!

Webster says racism is:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine  cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Well, the first misnomer is the word “race.” We are all part of the same race… the human race! We are made up of many ethnicities and cultures, but, last I checked, scientists still call all of us the human race.

Many of those on the Left consistently call Conservatives, Christians, religious, Republicans and other “non black” people racists. Why? Because we are one of the 4 labels previously listed. And to add frosting to that cake… we aren’t Democrats.

According to “them” I am a racist because I think the current president is a loser. That he can’t govern. He treats his job as if he is the president of a country club and all he has to do to get what he wants is raise membership dues. Why does that make me racist? Because he is black and I am white. Not because I am expressing my own opinion about his job performance (or lack thereof) but because of my color that they brought into the conversation.

Yet none of that fits the true term or even comes close to the definition of racism

According to “them” I am a racist because I think the flood at the border, prompted by this administration, by people who stay here illegally is a problem and I want the border and the American Laws protected and adhered to. How does that make me a racist? Again, I can’t find a connection between the real meaning of racist and me simply wanting the rules followed.

Remember, over 80% of the people who arrive here illegally, are processed, and given a notice to appear within 15 to 20 days in court never show up. They never had an intention to show up. If you support that kind of action then you support breaking the law and from my point of view you are not a racist but an accomplice to the crime and should be punished accordingly.


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/07/are-you-a-racist/#djKd13BB6FHVgJwY.99

« Older Entries