When: Tuesday, May 21st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Oklahoma City, the White House, Susan Rice, and James Rosen – so all the scandals are in play. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11^th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.

President Obama will visit a school, a dredging manufacturing plant and a worker re-training center on this trip.

Obama is continuing his “Middle Class Jobs & Opportunity Tour” which started last week in Austin, Texas.

Just this week the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced troubling statistics. First time jobless claims surged up to 360,000.

During his Texas tour stop, the President told attendees that America needed to become a better magnet for good jobs, government needed to help people earn the skills they need and that “we’ve got to make sure people’s hard work is rewarded so that they can make a decent living doing those jobs.”

During his first five years in the White House, President Obama has been criticized for a lack of action on the economy and jobs.

The President ignored and then disbanded his jobs council, has delayed the Keystone XL pipeline, targeted coal mining companies, dumped millions into failing green energy companies and dumped tons of money into ineffective stimulus programs like cash for clunkers all while getting Obamacare passed, pushing a failed attempt at a gun grab and hosting several star-studded parties.

In the last week, a series of government scandals involving the IRS, Department of State and Department of Justice have flooded the news.

Obama pivoted, then had a laser-like focus, then re-pivoted and is now pivoting again  to that which Americans have cared about most: jobs and the economy.

From The White House:

Presidential Proclamation — National Day of Prayer, 2013

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2013

- – - – - – -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Americans have long turned to prayer both in times of joy and times of sorrow. On their voyage to the New World, the earliest settlers prayed that they would “rejoice together, mourn together, labor, and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work.” From that day forward, Americans have prayed as a means of uniting, guiding, and healing. In times of hardship and tragedy, and in periods of peace and prosperity, prayer has provided reassurance, sustenance, and affirmation of common purpose.

Prayer brings communities together and can be a wellspring of strength and support. In the aftermath of senseless acts of violence, the prayers of countless Americans signal to grieving families and a suffering community that they are not alone. Their pain is a shared pain, and their hope a shared hope. Regardless of religion or creed, Americans reflect on the sacredness of life and express their sympathy for the wounded, offering comfort and holding up a light in an hour of darkness.

All of us have the freedom to pray and exercise our faiths openly. Our laws protect these God-given liberties, and rightly so. Today and every day, prayers will be offered in houses of worship, at community gatherings, in our homes, and in neighborhoods all across our country. Let us give thanks for the freedom to practice our faith as we see fit, whether individually or in fellowship.

On this day, let us remember in our thoughts and prayers all those affected by recent events, such as the Boston Marathon bombings, the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, and the explosion in West, Texas. Let us pray for the police officers, firefighters, and other first responders who put themselves in harm’s way to protect their fellow Americans. Let us also pray for the safety of our brave men and women in uniform and their families who serve and sacrifice for our country. Let us come together to pray for peace and goodwill today and in the days ahead as we work to meet the great challenges of our time.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2, 2013, as a National Day of Prayer. I join the citizens of our Nation in giving thanks, in accordance with our own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

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.

What really surprised me was to hear Bill Maher agree with me.  To me, Bill Maher has always been a left-wing pompous jerk, with no semblance of reality apparent in anything he had to say.  When I saw this video clip I was astonished to say the least.  Bill Maher saying the same things I have been saying???  Maher must have lost his marbles or my ears were playing tricks on me!!!  But as I watched the clip I began to see something in him that changed my perspective.

I saw Maher stick to his guns when he got pushback, undeniably on shaky ground but pushback none the less, from those trying to dismiss his premise.  I was also surprised that Maher actually got some support from a member of the panel.  The lady, Anna Smith, was right there with him and rightly pointed out that much of this has been happening for a long time, although on a smaller scale, such as the “stop and frisk” she mentioned.  Not being from New York, I was not aware that this was a common practice.  It is wrong and should be stopped.

What didn’t surprise me was Robert Traynham from MSNBC supporting the police state.  Obama is at the top of the police state command and gets the support of an MSNBC liberal, no surprise there.  As a side note, I wonder if Traynham would be so supportive if George W. Bush was in charge right now and a brown-skinned Muslim was the target of this manhunt.  Maher, also a liberal through and through, was adamant about his point and showed pictures and a video of the state of a militarized police force that is not designed to write a traffic ticket.

This makes me wonder about Maher.  With his stand on this police state issue he brings a rationale that is normally missing from his “I hate everything about America” shtick.  The one thing I have learned over the years is that liberals, the true “died in the wool” liberals, have a utopian view of the world in general and in America in particular.  Maher appears to be one of these.  I have never thought of him as even remotely patriotic, or even a true American, but this gives me a different perspective on him.

The true liberal looks to an idealistic utopia that is impossible to obtain, but they have that goal and believe down deep in their hearts that it can be accomplished.  All that is needed is the right group of people to make it happen.  It seems Maher is one of those utopian true believers.  From this video I believe he really thinks his view of America can become a reality.  It can’t ever work because mankind is terribly flawed and those like Obama are beyond flawed, flawed to the point of being downright evil.  I believe Maher originally saw Obama as the person that could pull off the utopia he envisioned but is now seeing what Obama’s agenda entails, and it frightens him. He said this is “very troubling” to him.  It is beyond troubling to me but I get his point.

Many people make the mistake of looking at Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Napolitano, Holder, and their ilk as liberals.  They aren’t liberals, they are Marxists, and in Obama’s case a Muslim Marxist.  They aren’t looking for some kind of utopia where everyone benefits equally and contributes equally.  They are looking to establish a Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia style dictatorship with them in charge and everyone else bowing to them.  I believe this is the reality that Maher has finally seen for what it is.  I saw and heard disappointment and shock in Maher’s expression and voice.  He seems to have come to a realization that what he thought Obama would do isn’t what Obama is doing.

Maher made the same case I have been making, but didn’t get the same kind of backlash I have received, at least not yet.  He made point after point about the actions of the police and stayed the course when others tried to intimidate him into accepting the necessity of what they did in Boston.  I heard liberals defending a police state atmosphere and telling Maher that the police state tactic is for our own good.  Hearing liberals defend a dictatorship astounds me and Maher rightly rejected their premise outright.

He rightly pointed out the case of the gunfire aimed at the boat Tsarnaev was hiding in.  He commented that they wanted him alive yet fired a sustained volley of bullets in their zeal to “take this kid alive” so they could question him.  If they wanted him alive why did they fire so many shots, and how did they manage to miss him with that many shots fired?  Trigger happy cops seem to be the normal thing these days.  I have written about that also, pointing out the number of innocent civilians who have been killed by the police without just cause, with the explanation of “oh, it was a mistake”.  That isn’t very comforting that I could be killed “by mistake” and those who kill me go right on out to do it again without any concerns about their actions.  Maher also pointed out that Tsanraev was given his Miranda rights way too early, thereby losing valuable information that could lead to the arrest of co-conspirators.

He agreed Miranda rights should be given but the law says 48 hours and the Obama regime jumped right in to make sure no information would be forthcoming.  Maher found this to be irresponsible and dangerous.  Again, Bill and Bob are on the same page.

I found myself watching this clip and seeing myself sitting in Bill Maher’s chair, saying the exact same words and making the exact same case.  As scary as that is, I find it refreshing at the same time.  Maher is ultra-liberal and I am ultra-conservative.  I have always seen he and I as polar opposites politically yet we see this situation from exactly the same perspective.  That is frightening yet encouraging on a level that goes far beyond liberal/conservative ideology.  When two people as diametrically opposite as Maher and myself agree totally something is terribly wrong, or something is very right, in our nation.

If someone would have told me a week ago that I would be in agreement with Bill Maher I would have told them, “when that happens you will know Hell has frozen over”.  Well, I guess it must be cold in Hell today because I find myself standing side-by-side with Bill Maher on this Boston bombing situation.  As frightening as that is it gives me hope that America just might survive.  When two people like Maher and myself see what is happening and come to the exact same conclusion I know that I am not as far out in “tin foil hat” country as some would like to convince me I am.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility give to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

May 1, 2013

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.

That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.

On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.

Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.

It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.

Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.

No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.

Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.

The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.

Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.

Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.

And on the FAA, and Congress:

Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.

But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.

And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.

The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.

Joe Dan Gorman nails it yet again, with his in-depth analysis of leftist propaganda on Jihadists, phobias, abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Janet Napolitano. In case you’re wondering, Napolitano has no clue how to do her job, except the part where she spews disjointed jargon in Congressional hearings. And the new inconvenient truth – successful terrorist attacks in four years under Obama is FIVE, and in seven years after 9/11 under Bush is ZERO.

George W. Bush: I’m retired from politics – happily so, I might add, but not from public service. We’ll use our influence to help more children start life with a quality education, to help more Americans find jobs and economic opportunity. To help more countries overcome poverty, and disease. To help more people in every part of the world live in freedom. We’ll work to empower women around the world to transform their countries. Stand behind the courageous men and women, who have stepped forward to wear the uniform of the United States, to defend our flag, and our freedoms here at home. Ultimately the success of a nation depends on the character of its citizens. Mr. President, I had the privilege to see that character up close. I saw it in the first responders who charged up the stairs, into the flames, to save people’s lives from burning towers. I saw it in a Virginia Tech professor who barricaded his classroom door with his body, until his students escaped to safety. I saw it in the people of New Orleans, who made homemade boats to rescue their neighbors from the floods. I saw it in our service members, who laid down their lives to keep our nation safe, and to make other nations free. Franklin D. Roosevelt once described the dedication of a library as an act of faith. I dedicate this library with an unshakeable faith in the future of our country. It was the honor of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the United States. Whatever challenges come before us, I will always believe our nation’s best days lie ahead.

Yesterday I wrote about government dictating how illegal aliens are going to be legalized by the “Gang of 8” scheme.  It matters not to Congress or the regime what We the People or the Constitution say.  They will decide how it is going to be and We the People will just have to accept it because it is “fair”.  Today I write about gun control and how government intends to impose their will on We the People, disregarding the Constitution and the rights of said People.  How does fairness and public safety figure into the latest dictates on firearms?

Gun control is being handled exactly the same way they have handled the illegal alien problem.  A nut goes out and shoots some people, so they pass laws to stop it from happening again.  Except that it happened again because they haven’t enforced the “new” laws they passed the last time this came up.  Gun control has been such a raging success everywhere it has been tried hasn’t it?  Gang violence with firearms is rampant in the major gun free zones in our nation.  Sen. Ted Cruz recently gave out 2010 figures  that show 15,700 attempts by criminals to legally access firearms, in one year: 2010.  They were caught by the background check system in effect right now.  The Obama regime has prosecuted 44.  Clintonesque isn’t it???

So, the Obama regime prosecuted just 44 out of 15,700 background check cases that the current law caught, in one year, and we need more restrictions on firearms???  You have got to be kidding me, AGAIN!!  Chicago is a stellar case for gun free zones.  Is it fair that Chicago’s “gun free zone” is more dangerous to poor black children than Afghanistan is to our soldiers?  And the gun free Mecca of Washington D. C. (De Cesspool) is right on Chicago’s heels.

Is it fair to the law abiding citizen who reads the Constitution and sees “shall not be infringed” being infringed by both political parties; “for our own well-being and safety”, of course?  Is it fair to the homeowner who hears a group of armed thugs kicking in his door or smashing a window to rob the home in the middle of the night?  The old saying goes, “when seconds count the police are minutes away”!!!  That is not a slap at the police by any stretch.  I salute their dedication and understand their frustration at arresting criminals, only to see the same criminals walking the street before the ink is dry on the arrest report.

Is it fair to the 6 year old murdered in a Chicago gang shooting because she happened to be sitting on the front steps with her sister???  Is it fair to the family that loses a child who has nothing to do with gangs but can neither move out of the neighborhood nor possess a firearm to defend themselves from the gang member?  You know, the gang member who has been arrested a dozen times for gun law violations but is out on bail or parole; the same gang member who finds a full automatic weapon that no law abiding citizen will ever possess???  And he didn’t buy it through any “gun show loophole”!!!

So, do they really need to pass “new” restrictions on the 2^nd Amendment to solve the problems that have been created by not enforcing the “new” restrictions they passed the last time this came up?  “Pass something quick and we can fill in the details later” is the order of the day in government.  Kind of like “we have to pass it so we can find out what is in it”, isn’t it??

Is anyone seeing a pattern here?  There is a problem, any problem; illegal aliens, poverty, murder, gang violence, drug trafficking, terrorism, etc.  The problem has been addressed countless times in the past and new laws and regulations have been passed but not enforced each time, not enforced because those laws will be “unfair” to those breaking the law.   The answer of politicians is always more control over those who actually follow the laws.  Everyone knows, and politicians admit, that absolutely nothing in the current crop of new legislation would do anything to solve the problem of gun violence, or prevent another Sandy Hook from happening.

These last two articles are but two examples of many that show a total disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the well-being and liberty of We the People.  The politicians and the bureaucrats spend all of their time thinking up ways to further restrict the rights of citizens when they should be focusing on enforcing the last set of “new” laws, rules, and regulations they passed.  They admit the new laws won’t matter, yet demand that those of us who do obey the law give up our rights anyway.  They need to pass this idea for a possible outline quick before anyone can look at it.    “We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it”, AGAIN!!!

The political class is destroying our nation.  They never fix anything!!!  They continually put restrictions on what legal citizens can do without so much as a thought of what the Constitution provides for.  That “old and outdated” document means nothing to either political party.

There are a few in the Senate and a few in the House who are fighting the establishments of both parties on behalf of We the People.  They are being beaten down by those who control both political parties and their minions in the media.  The People’s voices are not welcomed by Republicans or Democrats.  They know best and will “debate and tell us where they stand”.  From my reading and studying of the Constitution I thought they were supposed to decide based on the Constitution first and the will of We the People second.

Now on the heels of Boston they want to force background checks before We the People can buy gunpowder, pressure cookers, and ham hocks!!!!!  Never mind that the entire problem is Muslim murderers who have no conscience, and their government enablers who “never let a good crisis go to waste”.  There isn’t any sense in securing our borders or deporting known terrorist sympathizers!!!  The only thing that makes sense to those dictators in Washington is to further restrict the liberty of decent law abiding citizens.

They have their dictatorial oligarchy established and will not turn loose of it easily.  The statists who control both parties are seeing We the People stand up to their treachery and they don’t like it.  They want to get things jammed through as quickly as possible, knowing that time is not on their side.  We the people are fed up, standing up, and demanding they govern by the Constitution first and the will of the people second.  The disarming of We the People and the arming of DHS is government saying; ”NO We will NOT obey the Constitution, YOU will obey us“!!!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

April 22, 2013

The Washington Post

The Tax Policy Center study found that Anericans earning less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes despite the President’s 2008 pledge to the middle class unequivocally stating that they would see absolutely no increase in taxation. The result will be less disposable income and a hit to charitable giving.

The tax increases come in three forms: an increase to tobacco taxes, changes in personal exemptions and a recalculation of inflation.

As more low-income earners smoke than higher-earners, the increase in taxes on cigarettes will be necessarily regressive – hitting the poor much more than anyone else. Obama’s budget nearly double the federal tax from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack.

Exemptions will diminish in value each year as a new inflation calculation formula forces middle-income earners into higher tax brackets each year.

Being forced into a higher tax bracket will leave less disposable income for those of moderate incomes. With more money being funneled to an inefficient federal government, middle class families will have fewer dollars to spend how they see fit.

As more earners get pushed into higher tax brackets, the amount they can claim for charitable giving diminishes. Combined with fewer dollars left after taxes, charities are likely to see more funds going to government programs that used to be directed to them by willing citizens.

The President’s budget reflects a core ideal: the government can take care of people better than private charities. As more government programs, like the Obamaphone give-away, are shown to be wasteful, taxpayers should question the redirection of money that would otherwise have likely gone to charities.

This is the second increase in taxes the middle class has seen from the President in recent months. Earlier this year, most Americans saw their paychecks shrink as the President discontinued the Bush tax cuts.

The hardest hit in Obama’s budget are those making more than $200,000. The same group the President targeted in his January tax increase.