You may remember, folks, that last year, the University of Maryland and the extremely leftist “Center for Public Integrity” commissioned a rigged poll which claimed that 66% of Americans supported cutting defense spending to the tune of $100 bn per year. Anti-defense groups such as the misnamed, Soros-funded “Project on Government Oversight”, and anti-defense writers such as Micah Zenko falsely claimed on that basis that most Americans support deep defense spending cuts, including sequestration.

There were, however, other polls saying something completely different, including one by the National Journal and one commissioned by the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Then, earlier this year, Pew conducted a poll showing that 73% of Americans oppose any cuts to defense spending (and similar percentages oppose cutting anything else).

And most recently, Gallup has released a poll showing that 36% of Americans believe the US spends the right amount of money on defense and another 26% think the US, if anything, isn’t spending enough – so in total, 62% of Americans oppose cutting defense. According to Gallup, only 35% of Americans think the US spends too much.

Moreover, the “don’t cut defense spending” view is held even more widely among the Independent and Republican electorates. 73% of Indies and 78% of Republicans share this pro-defense view, believing the US spends the right amount or an insufficient one.

Only among the Democrats does a majority think the US spends too much – and even among them, it’s barely a majority (51%). See here for details.

Gallup’s poll’s results mean that there is NO popular demand for defense cuts today, unlike the Vietnam War years and the late 1980s. All of that despite over 40 years of uncessant anti-defense leftist propaganda (particularly intense in the last 5 years). Gallup tells us that:

• “In the late 1960s and early 1970s as the United States was fighting the Vietnam War, Americans’ dominant view was that the U.S. was spending too much on defense.
• In 1981, just after Ronald Reagan took office after making concerns about U.S. military strength in light of the Iranian hostage situation and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan a major theme of his presidential campaign, Americans shifted to the view that too little was spent on defense.
• As the Reagan administration built up military spending in the 1980s, Americans again came to believe the U.S. was spending too much in this area.
• Near the end of the Clinton administration, as the government made an effort to reduce military spending and George W. Bush’s presidential campaign questioned U.S. military strength, an increasing number of Americans said the United States was spending too little on defense.
• In the first several years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which included U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans most commonly said defense spending was “about right.”
• Over the last five years, Americans have alternated in their views between believing the U.S. spends too much and believing it spends the right amount on defense, including this year, when roughly equal percentages of Americans hold each view.”

But what Gallup doesn’t tell us is that, in addition to the 36% of Americans who think the level of defense spending is “about right”, another 26% think the US isn’t spending enough, meaning that 62% of Americans – almost two-thirds of the society – oppose defense cuts.

This debunks yet another myth being spread by the left. Not only is defense spending NOT bloated, not only would deep cuts to it severely weaken the military (as sequestration is already beginning to do), not only would such cuts utterly fail to meaningfully reduce the budget deficit or attract new voters to the GOP, but also they are very unpopular: the vast majority of Americans OPPOSE them. There is NO popular demand for such policy, unlike the Vietnam War years – the time of the “guns vs butter” debates – and the late 1980s.

Not only that, but in contrast to the Vietnam War years and the 1970s, the US military is now held by the majority of the public, including 54% of young Americans, in very high regard.

Relaxed Wisdom

Today 21 Republican Senators vote to tax Americans even more, while five Democrats voted against higher taxes.

Shame on those republicans, and applause for those five Democrats.

Those Republicans that are worthy of scorn are listed below. When they begin bragging about how wonderful they are and attempt to distract you with lies, don’t buy into their deceit. They will sell you a lot of snake oil, but in the end they will strike with venom again and again.

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)
Boozman (R-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Isakson (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Blunt (R-MO)
Cochran (R-MS)
Wicker (R-MS)
Burr (R-NC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Fischer (R-NE)
Johanns (R-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Graham (R-SC)
Thune (R-SD)
Alexander (R-TN)
Corker (R-TN)
Enzi (R-WY)

The five Democrats with a proper vote are

America is taxed enough.  Anyone with any common sense knows the federal government is one of the most wasteful organizations in the world.  Taxes should be cut until the government learns how to manage its business in a responsible manner.

I hope everyone that believes in the dignity of this nation will call their senators as many time as possible demanding better of them.

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli brandishing one of the forms he forgot to fill out.

What is it about an elected official that compels rich people to want to give him gifts? Do they look needy? Hungry? Depressed? Is there a secret gift registry of which I’m unaware? Could it be a mentoring program where plutocrats adopt a middle–class governor or attorney general and show them how capitalism has paid off? Sort of a rescue program except no Labradors are involved?

Any of those reasons are an improvement over the suspicions of my wife. She believes the gifts are given because the recipients hold high public office and it might come in handy for a rich person to have a governor or attorney general in their pocket. So she is disappointed in Ken Cuccinelli. Again. And that goes for me, too.

For those of you who don’t follow Virginia politics, Ken Cuccinelli is the Tea Party–backed Republican attorney general who filed the first court case against Obamacare. He also fought the EPA on job–killing regulations. And the AG filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the papers “global warming” guru Michael Mann used to get grants while he was at the University of Virginia.

I was first disappointed in Cuccinelli when he broke a promise to serve two terms as AG and not run for governor after his first. Details are here. Now Cuccinelli and Gov. Bob McDonnell are enmeshed within a gift controversy brought on in large part by McDonnell’s failure to use his head and Cuccinelli’s failure to use his ballpoint.

The nexus of the scandal is Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. who runs Star Scientific, a former cigarette company that has progressed from selling cancer to marketing Anatabloc a nutritional supplement made from a substance found in tobacco. Anatabloc is used to fight inflammation and its also contained in facial cream where it may help to remove wrinkles caused by smoking.

Williams is a new BFF that both Cuccinelli and McDonnell have known for about five years. (Hmmm that’s just about the time they’ve been in office, but it must surely be a coincidence.) Williams gave $15,000 to McDonnell’s daughter so she could pay the ‘Let ‘em Eat Cake’ catering bill at her wedding. Williams has also given the family free use of his vacation home at Smith Mountain Lake and let the governor drive his Ferrari back to Richmond from that same vacation spread in Western Virginia. All told William’s publicly disclosed gifts to McDonnell and his political action committee come to over $120,000.

And it’s all perfectly legal. I just hope the wedding catering smelled better than the rest of the gifts. In fact, the catering started the scandal ball rolling, because McDonnell didn’t declare the gift, since it went to his daughter. I mean, what’s out of the ordinary about some BFF you’ve known since 2009 dropping 15 gees on your daughter’s wedding? It sure beats a blender.

Now FBI agents are investigating the relationship between the governor, his wife Maureen (who has promoted Anatabloc) and Williams to see if there was a quid pro quo.

Once the media started following the foie gras the trail led to Cuccinelli. He hasn’t had any weddings recently — although with a brood his size it’s only a matter of time — but he did invest in Star Scientific stock after meeting Williams. I’m sure he thought it was a great opportunity. Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds had such great success with dietary supplements, what could possibly go wrong?

Cuccinelli also stayed at the Smith Mountain vacation home twice, accepted $6,700 worth of Anatabloc, took a flight to New York, borrowed Williams’ boat, took a trip to Kentucky, stayed at Williams’ house near Richmond, ate a Williams’ provided turkey dinner and was surprised to discover he owned over $10,000 in Star Scientific stock.

Many of these gifts and the stock were not reported promptly on disclosure forms. It’s appears Cuccinelli is a lawyer, but he’s not good with details and paperwork.

The worst part of this mess is that none of it had to happen. Conservatives were convinced Cuccinelli was different. He wouldn’t fall prey to the pitfalls of influence and influencers. But he did. And because he did, Cuccinelli is dealing with a campaign issue that never should have happened and one that sullies his reputation for ethics and honesty.

Delusional Democrats are fantasizing that the controversy may force McDonnell to resign. This is very unlikely, not the least because the events don’t rise to the level of a major scandal. But if McDonnell did resign, it would restore a disenchanted Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling’s faith in Providence. At the stroke of a pen Bolling would get to be governor without running a primary campaign, and even better he would be governor before Ken Cuccinelli!

Meanwhile I have some practical gift receiving advice for Cuccinelli and other conservative politicians who — I hope — don’t want to lose touch with the Americans that elected them:

1. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ you made after you left high school unless it comes with a receipt, preferably from Wal–Mart.
2. Don’t buy stock in a ‘friend’s’ hot company if you didn’t know him in high school.
3. Even if you knew him in high school, don’t take any gifts from a company with ‘science’ in the name that isn’t run by someone in a lab coat.
4. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ who owns a company that the SEC, FEC, IRS, FDA or the PTA is investigating.
5. Don’t hitch a ride on an airplane, yacht or submarine owned by a stranger you met after high school, unless you all chip in for gas.
6. Don’t accept free vacation housing from a ‘friend’ you met after high school, unless it’s a tent.
7. Don’t offer to valet park a ‘friend’s’ Ferrari if you have to drive it more than 200 yards.

Being generous and not including negative GDP growth that occurred during the first three quarters of Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s first reign (er, term), the GDP growth rate has been 2.12 percent, not something to crow about. The GDP growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2012, after Obama was re-elected, was a whopping 0.4 percent.

However, in July 2013, there will be a world-wide redefinition of the GDP, of what is produced. Government statistics will take into account components such as film royalties and spending on research and development. Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the GDP of the US economy. The redefinition is expected to add about three percent to the GDP growth rate. Brent Moulton, manager of national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said:

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings. At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.”

Redefinition is fine. Just remember that apples should not be compared to oranges. But that minor technicality won’t phase Obama. I’m betting that Obama and his economic team will take credit for the GDP growth increase. He and they will conveniently forget to mention the definition change, will instead trumpet their policies as the reason for the growth. And we can expect the MSM to go right along with him. There is, after all, precedent. Look at what the MSM did with unemployment numbers – particularly just before the 2012 election.

But (and there is always a “but” when Obama is involved), the GDP growth rate will be in excess of five percent, well above what economists say is the “ideal” growth rate of about 2 to 3 percent per year. Too much GDP growth causes inflation. Expect economists to change the definition of “ideal” in order to support Obama.

So, come July, when the GDP growth rate jumps due to some accounting miracle, just remember that the economy is not really heating up. Rather remember what is actually going on, that Obama’s economic policies have not changed.

H/T to Tom, who called the GDP situation to my attention.

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

While JCPenney got at least a temporary reprieve from the Martha Stewart branding debacle with Macy’s, that doesn’t come close to undoing the damage by recently ousted CEO, Ron Johnson. They can console themselves at least a little that the dismissal cost them a paltry $148,924, but in all fairness (pun intended), that number should include the 25% losses in sales, and the 50% drop in stock values. Hindsight is 20/20, and one can only wonder now why JCPenney would think that Johnson could have helped to boost their sales the same way did with Apple stores. Comparing the two is like the proverbial comparison of “apples and oranges” – Apple products enjoy a base of loyal consumers that buy products simply because they are manufactured by the electronics giant. It’s also abundantly clear that it was huge mistake to give Johnson free reign to make changes to the department store’s brick and mortar operations at will. It’s been argued that he was fixing something that wasn’t broken, and should have been focusing on online sales.

So, to rectify all of this, JCPenney may very well be making another big mistake by bringing back former CEO, Myron Ullman. Nothing says a company has learned its lesson about past mistakes like bringing back someone that failed to address problems previously, even if that person could be considered the “lesser of two evils.” Yes, the colossal mistakes made by Johnson need to be rolled back, and it probably won’t hurt the bottom line at least temporarily, to appease consumers that were annoyed with the radical changes by assuring them that it will be going back to “business as usual.” But, if the future plans don’t include a sincere effort to compete in the online market, JCPenney can’t count on a long-term recovery. And that brings us to “the apology” ad campaign:

The transcript:

It’s no secret, recently JCPenney changed. Some changes you liked and some you didn’t, but what matters from mistakes is what we learn. We learned a very simple thing, to listen to you. To hear what you need, to make your life more beautiful. Come back to JCPenney, we heard you. Now, we’d love to see you.

The commercial encourages consumers to visit the corporate Facebook page, to offer their feedback. A quick review of their interactions with the public isn’t particularly encouraging though. Visitor comments run hot and cold, with quite a few consumers making suggestions about the company returning to old practices. But, this is Facebook, and it’s likely that responses would be radically different on other social media sites. Many of the comments are from older consumers, and while they are important to consider, the reality of the situation is that building a marketing plan based on feedback from age-limited niche will be yet another disaster. Bluntly, particularly if catering to Baby Boomers, that is a recipe for short-term success followed by a precipitous drop and flat-line. It can’t be assumed that JCPenney will be smart enough to avoid this either, since they’ve opted to re-hire Ullman. Only time will tell where this all leads, but if the past is any indication, consumers will get one thing they tend to enjoy for at least a little while – going out of business sales.

It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21^st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19^th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

DEARBORN, Mich., May 1, 2013 /PRNewswire/ –

• Ford Motor Company April U.S. sales up 18 percent compared to last year – best April sales since 2007, with cars up 21 percent, utilities up 16 percent and trucks up 16 percent
• Fusion and Escape both establish April sales records, with sales increases of 24 and 52 percent respectively
• F-Series, America’s best-selling pickup for 36 years, posts a 24 percent increase, with sales of 59,030 – best April sales results since 2006
• Lincoln overall sales up 21 percent; MKZ delivers its best monthly sales performance ever – with April sales passing the 4,000 vehicle mark for the first time in MKZ history

Ford’s April sales climbed 18 percent with gains across the portfolio – with cars up 21 percent, utilities up 16 percent, and trucks up 16 percent. Retail sales were up 27 percent.

“We are working harder than ever to keep pace with record demand for our all-new, fuel-efficient Fusion and Escape – with sales growth particularly strong on the coasts,” said Ken Czubay, Ford vice president, U.S. Marketing, Sales and Service. “F-Series pickups also continue to build on their momentum as the housing and construction industries rebound.”

Fusion continues its strong sales run with best-ever April sales results of 26,722 vehicles, a 24 percent increase over record year-ago April levels. The strongest retail sales increases for Fusion continue to come from the western and southeastern U.S. – with the sales in the West doubling in April and the Southeast up 70 percent.

Escape also had its strongest April sales since its launch 13 years ago, reporting a 52 percent increase with 25,826 vehicles sold.

Sales of America’s best-selling pickup, the Ford F-Series increased 24 percent, with 59,030 pickups sold. This represents F-Series best April sales results since 2006. It also is the 21^st straight monthly sales increase for F-Series – with sales up 19 percent year to date.

In April, Lincoln sales increased 21 percent. The new Lincoln MKZ established an all-time monthly sales record, with 4,012 vehicles sold for the month – breaking the 4,000 vehicle mark for the first time ever.

SOURCE: Ford Motor Company

Earlier this month the same legislation cleared the Arizona House which leaves only Governor Jan Brewer’s signature before it becomes law.

While U.S. currency will continue to be accepted in the Grand Canyon State, the new bill allows gold and silver coins and bullion to be used beginning mid-2014.

Utah passed a similar law in 2011. Kansas, South Carolina and several other states are advancing similar bills.

While Utah and Arizona’s legislation is little more than symbolic, other states are eyeing infrastructure projects key to allowing precious metals to be used as legal tender.

Texas legislators are considering a measure to create the Texas Bullion Depository that would store about $1 Billion in gold currently held in a New York facility. The new facility would also function as a place for public deposits which would create a realistic medium for trade similar to blacksmiths’ and bankers’ handling of the precious metal in earlier times. Money could be deposited for one or more “depository notes” which could be traded for goods and services. The person receiving the notes in trade could then turn it in to the depository for gold. The notes would likely be backed by the State government and its gold holdings.

While the U.S. Constitution prevents states from coining money, it also says that states may not “make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” a phrase likely opening the door for states to pass these precious metal currency bills.

The States’ moves are seen as a response to the Federal Reserve’s constant dumping of liquidity into the American economy thereby devaluing the dollar and, as many believe, leading to the collapse of the U.S. paper money.

While some states may be taking action as a symbolic nose-thumbing at the Fed, others are clearly planning for the potential downfall of the dollar.

A Columbus, Georgia Dolly Madison plant is scheduled to be up and running by July. The reformulated Hostess Brands expects the most popular products to be back on the shelves this summer.

In a bankruptcy forced liquidation Hostess due in part to a lengthy impasse by striking workers, the brand and five of the bakeries were bought in a joint venture by two private equity companies.

The Dolly Madison plant in Columbus, Ga., will be the first to reopen. The ‘new’ bakery is inviting former workers to apply for positions. There has been no talk of unions in the new company.

In its new iteration, the company will hire 200 workers for jobs starting this summer. Another 100 jobs will follow. Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson said her town is better off with the opportunities — whether they’re union or not.

“I think we’re very happy to have the jobs back; 300 jobs is better than zero jobs,” she said.

Read more at CNN Money.

When my son was born we had a neighborhood second-hand shop where one could pick up baby clothes for a quarter the original price. My friend, who introduced me to the shop, helped me realize that babies often outgrow their clothes, sometimes even before they’ve been worn. We found many cute outfits for practically nothing.

The timing between my son and my sister’s oldest introduced me to yet another way to save as I was able to pack up many of my son’s outgrown clothes passing them on to my nephew. A few years later, when my daughter was born, sis passed back the hardly worn outfits and a cycle was born. We shared clothes until my daughter finally realized she was wearing ‘boy jeans’ which she didn’t think was appropriate.

Sporting her most popular vintage dress

Today, used clothes are considered vintage, unique and one of a kind garments. Fortunately for us, my sister switched from sharing the boys hand-me-downs to her own. As my daughter grew she regularly inherited distinctive items from my sister’s closet.  There were many pluses to these classic outfits, key among them to a teenager, that no one else would be wearing the same thing. And more exciting to her is when someone would compliment a dress; wanting to know where she found it…She loved explaining that her outfit was vintage and not available at the local store. Nothing like being a teen fashionista and knowing no one else can copy you.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the down economy but a ‘find’ from a thrift shop has become a trendy bragging point.  Rather than being uncomfortable revealing their shopping habits, family and friends are choosing to share their great deals.  Just last month visiting family divulged they had found much sought after, and generally high dollar, area sports shirts for a super bargain price at the local resale store. Another friend enthusiastically disclosed that she always searched for high dollar brand name jeans at the consignment shop first.

Recently my daughter was noting a cute outfit worn by a friend. The friend was eager to tell her that she and her mom had gone ‘thrift store shopping’ over the weekend. She got her whole coordinated look for just $12. As the friend told my daughter, “They’re not used; they’re retro.”

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial jobless claims for the week ending April 13th came in at a seasonally adjusted 352,000 which was slightly higher than expectations of 350,000 and an increase of 4,000 over last week’s numbers.

The employment market has not yet rebounded even four years into the President’s economic recovery plan that included multiple rounds of stimulus, cash-for-clunkers, the auto bailout and more.

The latest reports will likely feed into Federal Reserve considerations of whether to continue massive liquidity dumps including an $85 billion per month bond-buying program intended to keep interest rates low. The Fed has indicated that it will continue stimulus activities until the labor market recovers to acceptable levels.

With labor participation rates at 40 year lows, a recovery is likely far off.

Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

On Wednesday, April 10^th, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel unveiled the FY2014 defense budget request, to the tune of $526.6 bn for the base defense budget. It optimistically assumes – as the DOD previously did – that sequestration will be repealed. Accordingly, it is $52 bn over the budget cap set by sequestration for the DOD for FY2014: $475 bn.

Specifically, the DOD requests $137 billion for personnel, $99.3 billion for procurement, $67.5 billion for R&D, $9.5 billion for construction, and the rest for operations &maintenance, i.e. daily operations, training, the maintenance of existing equipment and bases, administration, etc.

In the budget submission, the DOD is requesting authorization for conducting crucial reforms of its personnel programs (most notably, healthcare programs that are eating the Department’s budget alive) and its base infrastructure (which is ca. 24% excess to its needs) through authorizing a BRAC round.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, personnel spending alone will consume 100% of the defense budget by FY2039, and, taken together with operations &maintenance spending, will consume all of the defense budget long before then – in FY2024, just 11 years from now. Accordingly, the DOD needs to make serious reforms in both areas. However, the Congress remains knee-jerk opposed to any such reforms, despite imposing a $1.1 trillion cut mandate on the DOD through the Budget Control Act. Congress is essentially telling the DOD “you must cut $1.1 trillion out of your budget per decade, and while doing you, you cannot touch personnel spending or bases in America.”

Excess bases cost the DOD billions of dollars per year to maintain. However, so far, parochial members of Congress have prevented BRAC from being authorized since 2005, despite past BRAC rounds now producing annual savings of $12 bn.

Critics claim that the 2005 round will not produce net savings until 2018. However, that round was not representative of BRAC, because its purpose was “transformation” and implementing Secretary Rumsfeld’s lofty visions for the military, not saving money like it was for previous four BRAC rounds. The previous four rounds achieved break-even point within 4-6 years at most, as confirmed by DOD Comptroller Robert Hale.

North Korea can target the US

An unclassified portion of a classified assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency confirms “with moderate confidence” that North Korea can miniaturize nuclear warheads and mate them to ballistic missiles, including ICBMs.

That DIA assessment was quoted by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) during an April 11^th, 2013, hearing of SECDEF Hagel and General Martin Dempsey. Both were caught off-guard.

The assessment says that North Korean missiles probably have “low reliability” for lack of advanced guidance systems as those possessed by Russia and China. However, even a missile with low accuracy can, if armed with a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead, obliterate a major city, given cities’ large area.

The DIA’s assessment is confirmed by the fact that North Korea has twice – in 1998 and 2012 – delivered satellites to the orbit. The technology required to miniaturize satellites and mate them to ballistic missiles (Taepodong missiles delivered both satellites) is the same as that used for nuclear payloads.

North Korea currently has two ICBM types: the mobile KN-08, whose range is not exactly clear, and the Taepodong-2 which, according to different sources, has a range anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 kms. The former would be enough only to reach Alaska, the latter would be enough to reach the US West Coast.

The DOD’s spokesman, George Little, later denied that North Korea has learned how to miniaturize nuclear warheads or mate them to missiles. However, his claims are belied by the above-mentioned DIA assessment and satellite launches.

It appears the Obama Administration, including the DOD, has now adopted the same policy towards North Korea as that which the US has used for many years towards Russia and China: appease them, downplay the threat they pose, and cut America’s defenses unilaterally.

For many years, successive administrations, intelligence bureaucracies, politicians, and leftist think-tanks have dramatically understated the Russian and Chinese military threat, thus providing a false justification for America’s unilateral disarmament and for the appeasement of Moscow and Beijing, a policy supported by both parties and the entire federal bureaucracy, as well as the think-tanks and most senior leaders of the US military (i.e. businessmen wearing uniforms). This policy has allowed Russia and China to build up their militaries and threaten US interests while being unchallenged and ensuring that the US will, one day, have to play catch-up.

It now appears the US has adopted the same policy towards North Korea.

Navy on track to shrink to 220 ships

A recent testimony by Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, before the HASC warned that the Navy will eventually shrink to 220 ships if more vessels are not built.

Mr Lehman blamed that only partly on inadequate shipbuilding budgets, and partly on bloated DOD bureaucracies, but mostly on the DOD’s inefficient acquisition process.

The process, Mr Lehman reminded, is what causes weapons to be developed in decades, not years or months, while technology progresses quickly, and what causes large cost overruns. Mr Lehman launched a full-scale assault on that system and on the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which largely created that system.

Mr Lehman stated that unless many more ships are built every year – compared to just 8 ships per year being built these days – the Navy will shrink to just 220 ships, a woefully inadequate number to meet its missions. (Already, the Navy can meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their needs for submarines.) He said that the Navy needs 346 ships, and to have them, it must build 15 ships annually.

Having a 313- or 300-ship Navy would require building 12 vessels every year.

Mr Lehman also fully endorsed the personnel (including healthcare and benefits) program reforms proposed by the DOD, noting that the last comprehensive reform of these occurred in the 1970s as the US was just beginning to create an All-Volunteer Force.

He also criticized the Littoral Combat Ship, which the DOD’s own testing and evaluation czar rates as not being survivable and lacking serious firepower.

Mr Lehman’s full testimony is available here.

Titled “Congress has a blind spot for Pentagon spending”, it begins by falsely claiming that defense spending is “out of control” and that even despite sequestration, the Congress has failed to rein it in.

This is such a blatant lie, it’s hard to believe such a lie has even been attempted. Congress has passed FIVE rounds of defense cuts in the last 4 years. First were the massive weapon program killings ordered by Secretary Gates in 2009 and 2010. Next was the New START unilateral arms cuts treaty. Third was the Gates Efficiencies Initiative ($178 bn), ratified by Congress in 2011. Next was the first (pre-sequestration) round of Budget Control Act-mandated defense cuts ($487 bn over a decade). Sequestration is the fifth, and it will cut another $550 bn from the defense budget over a decade.

To date, the DOD has contributed $900 bn (pre-sequestration) to deficit reduction, while no other federal agency or program has contributed anything meaningful.

The author falsely claims “smart, strategic cuts” in defense spending (she doesn’t even use the term – she calls it “Pentagon spending”, which is intended as a pejorative term) on the scale of sequestration (which is $550 bn per decade, $55 bn per year) can be made without harming national security and will actually make the nation stronger by supposedly improving its economic health.

That is a blatant lie, just like the rest of that screed. Cutting defense – no matter how deeply – would do little to reduce the budget deficit and thus improve America’s economic health. Even eliminating America’s military budget entirely would fail to even halve the annual budget deficit, which is over $1 trillion, as the below graph by the Heritage Foundation shows.

The author touts the various studies and reports written by “think-tanks across the political spectrum” as well as proposals by politicians ranging from Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) to the Congressional Progressive Caucus as supposedly proposing “smart, strategic cuts” that would allegedly not weaken the military or hurt national security. But that’s  an utterly false claims.

The majority of the cuts proposed by them, including the vast majority of the cuts proposed by POGO, “Taxpayers for Common Sense”, the pro-Russian Center for Defense Misinformation, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, PIRG, Sen. Tom Coburn (RINO-OK), the Center for American Progress, and the Congressional Progressive (read: Communist) caucus would target the muscle and bone of the US military: nuclear deterrence, missile defense, air and naval superiority, power projection, and so forth.

(Most of these organizations are funded or co-funded by George Soros, by the way.)

They would target such vital weapon systems and assets as aircraft carriers, surface combatants, submarines, missile interceptors, bombers, ICBMs, nuclear warheads, V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, air superiority fighters, and so on. They would also deeply cut the force structure (i.e. the size) of all military services, which are already (excepting the Army) too small and too overstretched. (The Navy, for example, can supply only 59% of combatant commanders’ requests for ships.)

In other words, they could cut deeply into the muscle, not the fat: the essentials, not the waste.

I have personally reviewed all of these proposals, studies, and reports. The vast majority of them target the muscle, not the fat, of the military.

Rebecca Griffin demands that spending on “outmoded” weapon systems be cut and that somehow, cutting it deeply can avert sequestration and provide the necessary savings. That is balderdash. Not only does she not specify what she means by that, other than the F-35, that claim is in any case false. Firstly, Secretaries Gates and Panetta have already killed over 50 weapon programs since 2009, and Secretary Hagel has proposed to cancel two others (PTSS and the SM-3 Block 2B).

Secondly, acquisition is a small (and increasingly smaller) item in the defense budget. Operations &maintenance (financing current equipment and bases, as well as healthcare programs, training, and daily operations) is the largest, followed by personnel spending. Together, these two categories will consume 100% of the entire defense budget by FY2024 if allowed to grow on autopilot, thus automatically crowding out weapons spending.

This means that even if no more weapon programs are killed, personnel, operations, and maintenance costs will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by FY2024 on autopilot. No, weapons programs cannot yield any big savings. That’s not where the money is.

And while the F-35 is a badly flawed airplane, the air superiority mission is hugely important. Air superiority is the sine qua non of any successful military operation. And it is and will be contested by America’s adversaries. They (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria) have advanced air defense systems (e.g. the S-300, S-400, S-500, HQ-9, and SA-11/17) as well as advanced, high quality fighters (e.g. the Flanker family, the J-10, JF-17, PAKFA, J-20, J-31, MiG-35) that outmatch every US aircraft except the F-15 and F-22.

Indeed, while Griffin falsely claims that there will never again be a war with another conventional adversary, and only small terrorist groups threaten the US, the US actually has two peer competitors (Russia and China) who are very close to matching the US in military strength, having closed most of the gaps that previously separated them from the US military and now working hard on closing the remaining gaps.

But it isn’t just Russia and China. Rogue states like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela are also growing their military power while America is cutting its own, and it’s emboldening them. North Korea now has ICBMs capable of reaching the CONUS – and can miniaturize nuclear warheads to mate them with missiles.

The “we have no conventional adversaries, so we can afford to cut defense spending deeply” claim is a blatant lie.

But while she makes light of sequestration and denies that leftist think-tanks defense cuts proposals would weaken the military, she makes apocalyptic claims about the sequester’s cut to civilian discretionary programs. She claims that poisoned food will land on your table and children will be starving if sequestration is not resolved. She furthermore claims that this is weaponmaking companies’ and their CEOs’ fault, and claims that under sequestration, American children will be starving while defense companies’ CEOs’ salaries will be protected.

This is a blatant lie. In fact, under sequestration, defense companies’ CEOs’ salaries will be cut significantly. Why? Because 100% of the sequester’s cuts will fall on weapon programs as well as operations &maintenance. Personnel spending and base infrastructure in the US are completely exempt from sequestration. So weapons spending will be cut deeply under this mechanism – and with it, the CEOs’ salaries.

And it is utterly dishonest and shameful for Rebecca Griffin to claim that the defense companies, their CEOs, or DOD weapon programs are to blame for sequestration or will cause children to starve, when these very companies and programs will actually get hardest hit by sequestration. Demonizing them is utterly dishonest and shameful. (Disclaimer: I do not, and have never worked, for any defense company.)

Griffin also falsely claims:

“As the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, cuts on the level of sequestration would amount to the smallest post-war reduction in defense spending since before the Korean War. We can make smart, strategic reductions on the level of sequestration and still be spending more than the yearly Cold War average.”

This is also utterly false. Sequestration will be the biggest cut in defense spending since the 1950s (the post-Korean-War drawdown) and also the fastest, as it is required to be implemented quickly, starting THIS fiscal year, not in a gradual manner like previous drawdowns. Furthermore, it will cut defense spending this FY to $469 bn, BELOW the annual Cold War average.

“But apparently some people still think we’re locked in a global standoff with the Soviet Union. Remembering what century we’re in provides opportunities for major reductions, such as looking at our outmoded weapons systems.”

This is also a blatant lie. I’ve already addressed the issue of supposedly “outmoded” weapons systems and of weapons spending in general, but I shall also say that the world is now more dangerous than ever since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said this is the most dangerous world he has seen throughout his 38 years of service. While the Afghan war is slowly ending, the world is not getting any safer – it’s getting more dangerous by the day. Therefore, America cannot afford to cut its defense budget.

Griffin’s screed is a litany of blatant lies. Not one claim made therein is true. Shame on the Hill magazine for publishing it, and shame on Congressman Coffman for republishing it on his website solely because it mentions him.

Unfortunately, instead of stopping there, Taylor decided to write an angry letter to the French minister of “productive redressment”, Arnaud Montebourg, where he denounced the rigid French labor code, high taxes, low working hours, and trade union influence in much stronger words than he should have, thus sparking a backlash and a new souring of Franco-American relations. Outrage was sparked across France in the media, the cafes, and the political arena. Reactions were almost universally along the lines of “Who does this arrogant American think he is? How dare he lecture us Frenchmen? How dare he tell us how to run our country?”

Montebourg shot back, and then, Taylor responded in kind in this tit-for-tat cycle. And economic reform remains completely stalled in France.

Why did Taylor fail in sparking any kind of reform? And how can one engineer it in France?

Taylor failed because, while he’s (mostly) correct on the facts – France does have a very rigid labor code, high taxes, and very influential labor unions, and all of this is stalling France’s economic growth – he tried to communicate them the wrong way: in a manner considered arrogant by the vast majority of the French media and political class writ large.

Instead of going gently and saying politely in so many words that he can’t buy the plant because it would bankrupt him – due to a rigid labor code and high taxes – he shot from the hip like a careless cowboy. That might work in the Midwest, but it won’t work in France. It will earn you more enemies than friends in the Hexagon.

To begin with, no nation on Earth, including the French, likes to be lectured on its domestic affairs by foreigners. Just go to any foreign country and try telling the locals how they should govern their own country. They’ll probably refuse to listen, even if you’re right on the facts. One of the reasons the US has utterly failed to democratize the Middle East is because the peoples of the region resent foreign meddling in their affairs. Likewise, the Chinese don’t like being lectured on human rights because foreign meddling in their country’s affairs is a very sensitive topic there.

The French are no different from other nations in this respect. Who says something makes a lot of difference. If a Frenchman or Frenchwoman makes a case for reform, they’ll listen, but if a foreigner starts lecturing them on the same subject, they’ll react very negatively. In fact, in France, foreigners participating in political demonstrations face deportation and a 3-year reentry ban.

So a foreigner should not try to tell the French how to reform their country. They’ll have to figure it out themselves. And if you really have to tell the French what reforms to implement, you must do it as gently as possible – not shoot straight from the hip.

On top of that, the French are a very proud, ancient people who are trying to defend their culture in an increasingly globalized, Americanized world. The French cherish their culture and their ways of doing things so much that they even have a state institution – L’Academie Francaise – to regulate the French language. Taylor’s kind of lecture, but especially coming from an American, was not well received in France partly for that reason. National pride is important for many nations, and again, the French are no exception.

And let’s be blunt – by speaking “bluntly” and from the hip, Taylor was impolite. That was a mistake if his goal was to convert the French to capitalism. France is not Germany or the US; shooting from the hip doesn’t work there and won’t earn you many friends, no matter how right you are.

From my experience of dealing with the French people, I know that you have to be very polite in France no matter whom you’re dealing with (unless you’re talking to street hoodlums). You have to speak and behave politely. That means not only giving people their proper titles like Madame and Monsieur, but also telling them the facts in polite words. By my experience, the more polite you are, the higher your chances of succeeding in dealing with the French.

If you’re polite towards them, they’ll reciprocate in 99% of cases. If you behave like a jerk or a shooting-from-the-hip cowboy, expect to be treated accordingly. (Did Taylor think that if he said “You Frenchmen are lazy! You work only 3 hours a day!”, the French will fawn over him and say “Oh, dear Mr Taylor, thank you for opening our eyes and allowing us to see our errors”?)

In short, Go Gently on the French. That’s the way business is done – at least in Gaul. The more polite you are, the higher your chances of succeeding. Extra marks for those foreigners who speak French. (If you don’t speak French, hire a tutor or take classes.)

So how to introduce the French to American-style laissez-faire capitalism?

Reform cannot be imposed or coaxed on them from across the Atlantic. It’ll have to be initiated and fully implemented by the French themselves.

The best and brightest among French students should be selected to attend conservative American colleges and to work for some time in conservative American think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. Then, they should return to France and pass their knowledge – everything they’ve learned – to their fellow Frenchmen/women. They should try to build majority popular consensus for capitalist reform in France: write articles and books, teach at universities and grandes ecoles, convince right-wing politicians to adopt capitalist policies, participate in debates, and do interviews with France’s toughest journalists. They – like any successful salesmen/women – need to be both knowledgeable and good at salesmanship and public relations. They need to know their product well, but also know how to sell it. And they need to do it in a friendly, polite, optimistic manner to pose a stark contrast to the arrogant Hollande administration and the negativist, warlike, impolite, dour Jean-Luc Melenchon of the far left.

In sum, capitalist reform cannot be imposed or coaxed on France from outside by anyone. The French will have to discover the truth themselves. And if reforming their economy, or giving them advice on how to do it – assuming they want such advice – it must be done very politely, as all business is done in France.