The ACA falsely claims that the East Coast missile defense site, proposed by Congressional Republicans, the Institute of Defense Analyses, and the National Research Council, is unneeded and “makes little sense”. They falsely claim that

“This was a bad idea when the House proposed it this summer, and it’s a bad idea now.”

But they’re completely wrong. It was a good idea when the House proposed it this past summer, and it’s a good idea now. More to the point, it’s a NECESSARY policy. It’s necessary to protect the East Coast from future Iranian ICBMs, which Iran may have as early as 2015, according to US intel and DOD reports on Iran. Tehran has already demonstrated the capability to launch satellites into space; developing an ICBM is a logical next step. The US intelligence community and the DOD say that Iran will have an ICBM later in this decade and may have it as early as 2015 – just 3 years from now.

Concurrently, Iran, despite leftist organizations’ (such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ and Arms Control Wonk blog’s) pious denials, is working on nuclear weapons, as evidenced by its development of uranium deuteride, a type of a neutron initiator. A neutron initiator has NO civilian applications. Its only usage is as a trigger for nuclear weapons.

Studying possible sites for interceptors, radars, and a command center, making the Environmental Impact Statements, getting funding for such sites passed by the Congress, and building such sites will take many years, so it is necessary to start the work on an East Coast missile defense site NOW, before it’s too late – before Iran obtains an ICBM.

But for the extremely leftist, treasonous ACA, protecting America by any means – whether by missile defense or with a nuclear deterrent – is “a bad idea” and “makes little sense”. They categorically oppose (and have long opposed) any kind of missile defense for the United States (but don’t oppose Russian and Chinese programs on the same subject) and they want America to deeply and unilaterally cut its own nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems while other countries (Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan) continue to rapidly build up and modernize their nuclear arsenals. The ACA’s response? The US should just hope that Russia would be nice enough to cancel its nuclear buildup and modernization in reward for America’s unilateral disarmament.

The extremely leftist ACA ridiculously cites a recent (September) National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences report as supposed evidence that an East Coast missile defense site is unneeded, but the NRC/NAS report actually proves that such a site is necessary and explicitly calls for the construction of such a site (in lieu of the 4th phase of the Obama Admin’s European Phased Adaptive Approach, i.e. the SM-3 Block 2B missile). The NRC says that an East Coast missile defense site should be located in Maine or New York state and would be far more effective and at intercepting ICBMs than any site or any missile in Europe. Here’s what the report says (p. 5-27):

“In addition to FGA and VAFB, new sites, including a northeastern United States site such as Fort Drum, New York, or northern Maine; a far western site on Shemya, Alaska; and a European site in Poland, were studied. All of these new interceptor sites were assumed to be populated with the new GMD-E high-performance interceptors, as previously described, with communication links to the BMC2 system. In this regard, the first step in a deployment evolution (using GMD-E interceptors) would be a committee-recommended site for 30 interceptors in upstate New York or northern New England. The next step in the evolution would be a phased upgrade of the current interceptors at FGA and VAFB, with the new GMD-E interceptors. In addition, an Aegis system would be used to defend Hawaii (either a ship positioned near Kauai, Hawaii, or Aegis ashore on Kauai with an additional GBX radar and THAAD battery for second shot).”

I repeat: the NRC/NAS report recognizes the need for, and explicitly CALLS for the construction of, an East Coast missile defense site.[1]

The ACA also falsely claims that:

“Instead of Sen. Ayotte’s premature proposal to study possible deployment locations for missile defense sites on the East Coast, Congress needs to take a deep breath, look at how little the nation got for over $30 billion invested on the West Coast, and ask: ‘Haven’t I seen this movie before?’”

That is also a blatant lie. The nation has realized a huge benefit for the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense: 30 anti-ICBM interceptors in Alaska and California capable of and ready to intercept any ICBMs from North Korea (and even a small number of Chinese ICBMs). These interceptors are accompanied by radars and command/control centers. If North Korea launches an ICBM, and if this North Korean ICBM makes it close to the US this time, America will be able to shoot it down, thanks to the GBIs on the West Coast and the $30 bn invested in West Coast missile defense.

Had the ACA had its way, the entire West Coast would’ve been completely unprotected and defenseless and North Korea would’ve been able to blackmail the US with a missile attack on the West Coast.

Think about it, folks: The ACA has been wrong everytime it has opened its mouth. It has been wrong everytime it has commented on something. It was wrong about North Korea and the West Coast, and had it had its way, the West Coast would’ve been completely defenseless. But now, ACA says “trust us, we’re be right this time, there’s no need for an East Coast missile defense site.”

But they’re wrong again, as always.

Also think about this, folks: ACA is an extremely leftist organization which seeks America’s unilateral disarmament and ideologically opposes any kind of missile defense (and has opposed it for a long time; they’ve said that the US should not deploy any kind of missile defense systems even if they prove themselves to work as intended).

They have an incentive to lie. They have an incentive to deny or understate threats to US security and to deny the effectiveness and usefulness of missile defense systems. They are not credible and cannot be trusted.

On a positive note, the Senate has adopted an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven which (and this will irk the ACA and other treasonous organizations) states that the Senate believes that the US needs to continue to maintain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SSBNs, and strategic bombers. The amendment states:

“It is the sense of the Senate that 1) the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems; and 2) the United States is committed to modernizing the component weapons and delivery systems of that triad.”

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121129/DEFREG02/311290006/U-S-Senate-Leaves-East-Coast-Shield-8217-s-Fate-Conference-Panel?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[1] Donald Montague [ed.], Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, National Academies Press, Washington DC 2012, p. 5-27.

WASHINGTON, September 13—Sen. Sessions joined Sens. John Thune, John McCain, and Kelly Ayotte today on the Senate floor today to discuss several items that the Senate’s Democrat majority has yet to address as Congress prepares to recess ahead of the November elections.

Among the outstanding items are: automatic sequestration cuts scheduled to take effect on January 2, any budget or appropriations bills, and the defense authorization bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the chamber is unlikely to take up any individual spending bills this year (the House of Representatives has passed 7 so far), and this year will mark the first time in over 50 years that the Senate has failed to pass a defense authorization bill to lay out the spending and priorities of the Defense Department.

Meanwhile, it has been 1,233 days since the Senate’s Democrat majority has adopted any budget plan at all.

Not only did all Senate Democrats vote this resolution down, but the progressive puppets of the Republican party also joined in to allow the EPA to ignore our Congress and pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat. The vote failed by a tally of 56-41, with Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; Scott Brown of Massachusetts; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine; Mark Kirk of Illinois; and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee all voted against Paul’s resolution. If your Senator is on this list, give them a call and ask them just why they chose to allow the EPA to bypass Congress and once again illegally pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat?

Whether you agree with the new regulations or not, the U.S. Constitution declares that it is Congress, and only Congress, who is authorized to pass laws onto the people. Check out How a bill become law. In it we see the following facts:

Under the chairmanship of George Washington, the Constitutional Convention established a strong federal government in 1871. Lawmaking powers were vested in a national congress.

Article I of the Constitution gave “all legislative powers” to Congress, and specified that laws could originate either in the House or the Senate. The only exception was revenue bills, which had to originate in the House. ( emphasis mine)

The conservative grassroots movement that elected the likes of Scott Brown and Kelly Ayotte to the U.S. Senate in the 2010 elections apparently did not help to get conservatives into office, but instead elected Progressive Republicans – a great example of how politicians will say anything to get elected today, and when they get a whiff of power, they turn their backs on the very people whom elected them. Brown and Ayotte campaigned on a platform of government that obeys the U.S. Constitution, yet they vote to allow the EPA to trample that very same constitutional law that says only Congress will pass laws in this country.

The new Cross-State Air Pollution law that will be forced onto Americans in 2012, resulting in Barack Obama’s promised “skyrocketing electricity prices” surely must apply to every state in the country right? It is based on air pollution blowing across state lines, so it must apply to all states. Not quite, as the following map shows us. Is your state on that map?

When looking at the above map of states whom will see skyrocketing electricity prices next year, we must use common sense in asking two very simple questions:

First, why isn’t the smog capital of the United States being put under these new illegal cap and trade laws? That’s right,the Liberal Obama-supporting state of California isn’t getting slapped with these new pollution regulations. Are we so ignorant as to not see the problem with that fact here today? The new laws are based on pollution blowing from one state to another. Does the EPA expect us to believe that California’s world famous smog will stay in California and somehow not blow into, say Arizona?

Secondly, what about Mexico’s pollution blowing into Texas? Are the wizards of the EPA telling us that they can control that too?

Lastly, let’s move on to the blatant false propaganda that the EPA website contains about the massive costs to the American people that this law will create. Senator Paul’s above-linked informative site says this:

These new regulations will cost over $2 billion and over a course of a decade or more may well exceed $100 billion. We add these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations already on the books.

To which the EPA tries to deny with false and very impossible-to-prove statistics about supposed savings in healthcare that will result form the CSAPR in the following chart:

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provides cleaner air and healthier lives for millions of Americans

“Estimated Annual Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the Proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

Health Effect Number of Cases Avoided Premature mortality 13,000 to 34,000 ( between 13k and 34k? Talk about guesswork there)    Non-fatal heart attacks15,000     Hospital and emergency department visits19,000    Acute bronchitis19,000    Upper and lower respiratory symptoms420,000    Aggravated asthma400,000    Days when people miss work or school1.8 million (yes, I took the liberty to correct the spelling mistakes the geniuses of the EPA have on their info-site)

So, we are being led to believe that this new EPA law will save between 13,000 and 34,00 lives by 2014, simply by supposedly regulating state to state air pollution.  What happens if a hurricane blows into the U.S from South America and brings all that pollution with it from countries who basically have no pollution laws? What happens to those false numbers then? What happens if the Gulf of Mexico winds blow all of their pollution into Texas for say, 10 straight months? How many lives will this farce of a stealth cap and trade law save then? Yes , as we see right here, the CSAPR is all built upon one massive cap and trade lie, period. There are no concrete, proven savings that can be counted from this scam. The one thing that all Americans that live in the EPA cherry-picked states that this new law applies to next year can count on is fewer jobs and skyrocketing electricity prices. Look at the bright side, there’s one promise Obama has kept.  

Get ready folks, the man who says he will not tax the middle class and poor just did just that, and it is coming in two short months in the form of skyrocketing electricity costs, thanks to the U.S. Senate Progressives of both parties allowing the EPA to pass this cap and trade law illegally.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough !