Tag Archives: Keith Ellison

Help STOP precipitous cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent

The extreme Left has not given up. Despite all the facts proving the need for continued nuclear deterrence and for a large, modern American nuclear deterrent, the extreme Left – led by Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Ed Markey (D-MA, now a Senate candidate), the left continues to work to disarm America unilaterally.

Purporting to want to solve the problem of sequestration – which would make $85 bn in spending cuts in the federal budget this year and $110 bn in each successive fiscal year through FY2022, half in the defense budget and half in nondefense discretionary spending – Ellison has introduced a bill (cosponsored by 11 other House liberals, including Markey) which would replace the sequester with even more crippling and disastrous defense cuts and with massive tax increases, while completely shielding civilian (nondefense) spending – discretionary and nondiscretionary alike – from ANY cuts.

Thus, under Ellison’s plan, the ONLY agencies that would see cuts in their budgets would be the DOD and the Department of Energy (in its nuclear weapons programs).

Under the guise of wanting to cancel sequestration, Ellison and his 11 fellow liberal Democrats have proposed a treasonous, disastrous plan to completely gut the US military, including and especially its nuclear deterrent that provides a life insurance and a security umbrella for the US as well as over 30 allies.

Never before have I seen such a disingenous, dishonest, and treasonous bill (except those sponsored by Markey) – pretending to save the military from sequestration but calling for even deeper, more crippling, cuts to it, especially (but not exclusively) to America’s nuclear deterrent.

Now, House Republicans will likely kill the bill in committee (as they should), but it’s such a dangerous and treasonous bill, and such an act of political perfidy and dishonesty, that I’d like to nonetheless explain its dangerous provisions so that the public will be warned and its sponsors will be shown for whom they really are: traitors.

What is wrong with that bill?

To start with, EVERYTHING.

It begins with so-called “Congressional findings”, where Ellison and his fellow extreme leftists inserted a number of blatant lies. They falsely claim that America can afford to dramatically and unilaterally cut its nuclear deterrent even further because “the Cold War is over, the Berlin Wall is down, and the Soviet Union is gone”. They also falsely claim that further deep cuts can be done  without damage to US national security.

But those empty slogans, which House liberals have been repeating for months, are meaningless and irrelevant to the question of how many nuclear weapons America needs. The end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall does NOT mean that the need for nuclear deterrence (and for a large American nuclear deterrent) has significantly diminished or that America can afford to cut its nuclear arsenal still further, on top of the 75% of the cuts already made since 1991.

In fact, the opposite is true: the need for nuclear deterrence, and for a large American nuclear deterrent, has only INCREASED since the Cold War’s end, as China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal (to up to 3,000 nuclear warheads now), Russia has expanded and modernized its own arsenal since 2000, and two new countries hostile to the US – Pakistan and North Korea – have joined the nuclear club, with Iran well on its way there.

Furthermore, while Russia, China, and North Korea are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies who rely on it for their security and indeed their own survival. These allies cannot afford to bet their survival on America breaking free of its disarmament kool-aid in the next 4 years. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal significantly further, they will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons – and 66.5% of South Koreans ALREADY support such a course of action. (A large majority of South Koreans also want US nuclear weapons to be reintroduced to the Peninsula as a deterrent against North Korea.)

Today, Russia alone has up to 6,800 nuclear warheads (2,800 strategic and up to 4,00 tactical warheads), all of which are immediately deliverable. Russia’s fleet of 434 ICBMs alone can, due to the multiple-warhead carriage capacity of most of these ICBMs, deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS, while Russia’s 14-strong ballistic missile submarine fleet could deliver well over 2,000. Russia’s 251 strategic bombers can deliver 7 warheads each – 6 on nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and one as a freefall bomb. For its tactical warheads, Russia has a wide range of delivery systems: torpedoes, cruise missiles, surface ships, SRBMs, tactical aircraft, artillery systems, etc.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads (most of which are immediately deliverable), as detailed here and here. On top of that, one also has to deter North Korea and Iran.

And no, a few hundred warheads would not suffice. They could destroy enemy population centers, but that would not deter the enemy – because Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian leaders do not value civilians’ lives. They care only about their military and economic assets and their tools of oppression. But to be able to target these, one needs thousands, not mere hundreds, of warheads – at minimum, the current 1,550 warheads allowed by New START, probably even more.

Deterrence means holding what the enemy REALLY values at risk. But then again, the Left rejects the entire principle of deterrence. Leftists think that military weakness guarantees safety and military strength is provocative. Ellison’s bill aims to make America as weak as possible.

No serious “analysts” or “experts” support these cuts

It also falsely claims that “many national security and arms control analysts and experts” say that the US should reduce its arsenal to “no more than 1,000 warheads.” But there aren’t any real “experts” or “analysts” calling for such cuts or such an arbitrary limit. The only people advocating that are utterly ignorant, but very opinionated advocates of unilateral disarmament, such as Tom Collina and Daryl Kimball of the ACA, Joe Cirincione of Ploughshares, Chuck Hagel of Global Zero, and the ignorant anti-nuclear hacks at the “Council for a Livable World.”

But these ignorant unilateral disarmament agitators have been calling for deep, unilateral cuts in America’s deterrent since the founding of their organizations in the 1960s and 1970s. They did not begin calling for America’s disarmament after the Berlin Wall fell, but much earlier – in the midst of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was still alive and very dangerous.

In other words, they have ALWAYS been singing the unilateral disarmament siren song – no matter what the times and circumstances were. And just as they were dead wrong during the Cold War, they’re dead wrong today.

And no serious “analyst” worth his salt, let alone an “expert”, would set an arbitrary limit on the US nuclear arsenal (“no more than X warheads”). A truly credible analyst would not set an upper limit on the nuclear deterrent and would call for however many warheads were necessary, also allowing for the possibility that he might be underestimating the need and for an increase of the arsenal should the need arise.

The pro-unilateral-disarmament hacks call for a firm upper limit (ceiling) on America’s nuclear deterrent, chosen arbitrarily at just 1,000 warheads, because they couldn’t care less about America’s security. All they care about is disarming the US unilaterally.

The bill also falsely claims that significant savings can be made by cutting the nuclear deterrent. But that’s also a blatant lie. The cost of maintaining it – the warheads, the delivery systems, and the supporting facilities – is only $32 to $36 bn per year, i.e. less than 1% of the ttoal federal budget.

Cutting it even by half – by $16-18 bn per year – wouldn’t come close to even making a dent in the federal budget deficit ($1 TRILLION every year). Eliminating the entire ICBM fleet would “save” only $1.1 bn per year; eliminating the bomber fleet, only $2.5 bn.

What does the bill call for?

So let’s see what the bill’s provisions are.

It would:

  • Prohibit any funding for maintaining the B61 and W78 warheads.
  • Require cutting the ICBM fleet from 450 to no more than 200 missiles.
  • Require retiring B-52 and B-2 bombers from nuclear deterrence and disabling their nuclear carriage capability.
  • Requiire cutting the ballistic missile submarine fleet to just 8 boats, down from 14, and procuring only 8 replacement SSBNs.
  • Prohibit the development of any replacement ICBM, even though the current fleet of ICBMs will, due to its age, retire by no later than 2030.
  • Prohibit making the F-35 nuclear-capable.
  • Prohibit the development of the urgently-needed Next Generation Bomber (the replacement for B-1s and B-52s) until FY2025, which would delay its entry into service by a decade, until FY2035 at the earliest (unless the Left decides to delay it further). For why the NGB is urgently needed and absolutely necessary, see here and here.
  • Prohibit the construction of the urgently-needed CMRR and Uranium Production Facilities (needed to produce plutonium pits for plutonium wahreads and highly-enriched uranium for uranium warheads, respectively), whose construction is REQUIRED by the Senate resolution of ratification of New START and the FY2013 NDAA.

In addition, the bill would gut America’s conventional capabilities as well:

  • It would dramatically cut F-35B and C procurement while also strictly limiting the procurement of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, often touted as an alternative for the F-35, to just a few hundred aircraft, well short of the Navy’s and the Marines’ needs (not to mention that the Super Bug cannot take off and land vertically).
  • It would permanently cut the carrier fleet to just 10 vessels by prohibiting the construction of the next USS Enterprise, CVN-80.
  • It would limit Virginia class attack submarine production to just one boat per year, thus dramatically cutting the attack submarine fleet’s size over the short and long term while also creating inefficiencies, because economies of scale (made by procuring two submarines per year) would be lost.
  • It would kill the excellent V-22 Osprey, which has performed magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and is loved by its Marine pilots, without replacement.

The bill is not about saving the military from sequestration or saving taxpayers money. The bill is about gutting the US military’s nuclear and conventional capabilities alike, particularly the nuclear deterrent, which is responsible for keeping America and over 30 of its allies secure. And besides making you and all of us much less secure, and hostages to Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals, it would also raise your (and everyone’s) taxes.

This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.

The bill must be utterly rejected and killed in committee. Furthermore, its sponsor (Keith Ellison) and cosponsors (Ed Markey and 10 other stridently liberal Democrats) must be unmaksed and outed for whom they really are: traitors.

Bachmann letter raises furor over inclusion of Muslims with extremist ties as advisors to the Department of Homeland Security

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is in the news again and under fire for her unflinching criticism of the government for its adoption of Muslims associated with terrorist affiliated Muslim Brotherhood as advisors for Homeland Security.

A scathing letter addressed to the Inspector General of the DHS specifically names three individuals used as advisors to the DHS, granting them high level security clearances as a result, who have direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Bachmann calls for the investigation of the matter as well as corrective action.

The Bachmann letter states:

 “. . . the Department of Homeland Security has utilized in a key advisory role  three individuals with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamist organizations and causes: Dalia Mogahed, Mohamed Elibiary, and Mohamed Magid.”

Bachmann doesn’t flinch, but names names and specifics in the letter, co-signed by four of her colleagues in the House Of Representatives: Trent Franks-R Arizona, Louie Gohmert-R Texas, Thomas Rooney-R Florida, Lynn Westmoreland-R Georgia.

Bachmann goes on to say: “The problematic nature of this arrangement is evident. . .” and a cause of great concern. It is of great concern, unless you are the President or his White House staff, who don’t seem to have a problem with any of this.

Bachmann notes in the letter that these members, and others, may be having undue influence on the way law enforcement and the military are trained to identify and deal with extremist Muslim terrorists organizations, noting the softening of the language in regards to such groups and the outreach to these groups that could tip off the enemies of our country before action against them can be taken.

Michele Bachmann and her colleagues in the House might as well be talking to a wall when it comes to addressing this issue to the White House, who seems not to have qualms about inviting these dangerous individuals into Washington for a sit down. But it should also serve as warning bells to those who are listening and keeping score. It should be noted that the politically correct policies regarding those sympathetic to Jihad led directly to the tragic shooting at Fort Hood, allegedly committed by trained psychiatrist and Army Major Nidal Hassan. It should also be noted that the shooter was interested in homeland security issues and attended events for the George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute during the Obama administrations initial transition into the White House.

Jerome R. Corsi makes the claim in his column for World Net Daily that alleged Fort Hood Shooter, Hassan, is listed on the event’s final report as a uniformed services participant. In his column entitled, “Shooter Advised Obama Transition: Fort Hood triggerman aided team on Homeland Security Task Force” Corsi includes a link to the very document where Major Hassan is listed as a participant as well as video of Hassan at an event. The University acknowledges to Corsi that Hassan did attend, but says it is unclear if he had any direct influence in the committee’s final report. A link to the document in question is no longer available and the document has been scrubbed from the George Washington University’s website, but I have included them here, and here.

The University says it is unclear if Hassan had an influence on a national security report. But, that’s not the point is it? The point really should be that dangerous Muslim radicals are attempting to access high levels of our government in order to influence them in favor of their Jihad against the west; and government officials seem to be unable or unwilling to vet these people properly.

The Army clearly knew about this military psychiatrist’s radical beliefs as I am sure the DHS must know of the affiliation of these radical three. But because of political correctness, or incompetence, they refuse to act to prevent these people from having influence at the highest levels. And Americans have and will suffer as a result.

Bachmann appeared early this morning on the Glenn Beck radio show to outline her reasons for the letter. Her comments can be seen on TheBlaze.com. Beck and Bachmann have been allies on the issue of Muslim extremism, leading Beck to produce a three-part video series on his flaghip Internet TV show GBTV, entitled “Rumors of War”.

Conservative Radio Host Glenn Beck

Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison

The White House isn’t the only ones who would like to ignore this issue. Minnesotan Congressman Keith Ellison piled on recently with CNN’s Anderson Cooper where he called his colleges’ concerns over Muslim extremism infiltrating the government as “nonesense”.

Ellison, the first African-American representative from Minnesota, and the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, admits in the interview that when he asked for proof of the allegations, House Representatives sent him a 16-page document. Ellison poo-pooed the document, telling Cooper, “Sixteen pages doesn’t take nothing and turn it into something, it’s still nothing, and the fact is, I would hope that we would let our saner, more courageous spirit prevail.”

We believe Muslims should have a stake in the government of the United States, provided they are properly vetted for radical Islamic or anti-American views!

Ellison’s Money Problems

Representative Keith Ellison has a problem (or 2) with money in politics.

In a recent op-ed for the Huffington Post, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus blames “big money” (aka: corporations and super PACs) for Republican Governor Scott Walker’s recall win in Wisconsin. He announced plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United which he claims allows for unfair election funding practices.

“In a state of only six million people, $60 million was poured into the race, $50 million of which went to Governor Walker. And almost half of that was spent by outside groups — most of them not based in the state of Wisconsin,” says Ellison in his op-ed.

Back in Minnesota though, Representative Ellison is raising “big money” for his own congressional campaign and it’s not all from individual citizens of Minnesota’s Fifth District.

According to a recent fundraising letter sent by Ellison’s competitor, retired marine Chris Fields, Ellison has raised and spent over one million dollars thus far on the 2012 election, with more than 80% of donations coming from outside Ellison’s district.  FEC reports show large numbers of donors from California, New York and Washington, DC.

Ellison holds a 20 to 1 fundraising advantage over his competitor due in large part to the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by Political Action Committees, some funded by the very “special interests” Ellison is pushing to silence with his amendment.

His own fundraising efforts seem to be in direct contradiction to his political rhetoric.

“The Wisconsin election shows that we will not have a government of, by and for the people as long as we have politicians who are bought and paid for by special interests,” says Ellison.

Using this rationale, are we to assume that Representative Ellison is beholden to his own special interest donations?