Tag Archives: liberals

How Halloween can teach your children about Socialism

votenomalley2Yes, you read that correctly. Halloween may be a Pagan holiday from a long time ago but it also creates as Barack Obama likes to say a “teachable moment.” If this exercise that I’m about to give you is done correctly it should have a significant impact on your child this Halloween and will illustrate to them just how unjust and unfair Socialism can be.

A liberal’s favorite holiday must be Halloween. They get to knock on stranger’s doors and ask for free handouts. If you think I’m trying to take all the fun out of Halloween than you haven’t read anything yet. Liberals have a mindset that they should not have to work for anything and that they should be giving things that they never worked for. They have an entitlement attitude that is so nauseating my stomach is starting to hurt just writing this, but I digress.

If you have children and plan to go trick or treating with them try this exercise.

Go out and knock on all the doors you can in your neighborhood. Make your kids walk the neighborhood until their little feet are sore. Depending on their age you may only need to walk for a little more than 30 minutes. Make sure they collect a lot of candy. So much candy that they can barely carry it home by themselves. As soon as you get home dump out all the candy on the table and inspect it. Once you realize that it is all safe to eat tell your kids they did a good job collecting all the candy.

Before they can start enjoying the fruits of their labor immediately take away half of all the candy that they collected. When they complain and ask you why you took away half their candy, tell them because you didn’t have any. Their natural reaction should be to tell you that it is unfair. This is when you teach them the valuable difference between Socialism and Capitalism.

Ask them how they felt having to give up half their candy just because you wanted it but didn’t work for it? Ask them if they think it is fair that everyone must be equal regardless of their work ethic? I think you know what their answers might be. Then when they fully understand the meaning behind this exercise obviously give them back the other half of their candy. Your children will never forget this exercise, and it hopefully will help shape their views long term against the evils of Socialism.

This may seem like a cruel and unusual exercise but it is a necessary exercise that your children will thank you for doing to them later in life. This is a real life, relatable exercise that will teach your kids the absurdity of Socialism. It will also help to combat the leftist indoctrination from the Common Core loving union backed public school teachers that will spend eight hours a day teaching your children to be ashamed of their country, and to think the Constitution is an outdated document. So when your child is taught that Capitalism is evil and Socialism is good they will think back on that very important lesson they were taught one Halloween.

Jabberwonky ObamaCare Failure is the Story – October 6th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, October 6th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: What happens when the media collectively ignores a story because the president wants them to? You end up with a week full of headlines about the crazy things the government has been doing over the shutdown – not to be confused with the craziness over Sequestration. Could it be that the president doesn’t want anyone paying attention to how badly ObamaCare is failing? We’ll talk about that, and undoubtedly about music and being mean to stupid people (liberals) on social media with Shelli Eaton (@shelli_eaton) from “The Army You Have”.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge Sept. 7th

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Jason Pye from United Liberty, and Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks join Taylor to talk Syria, liberty, and more.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

The End Of Policy Revisited

us_map_flagNote from Taylor: My buddy, William K, sent me an email last week in reply to this article from Reason Magazine. I don’t 100% agree with him, especially on foreign policy where I think he’s dead wrong, but he brings up some excellent points.

Hi Taylor,

I almost agree with what he’s saying. I do agree that the GOP has an almost non-existent public policy. I disagree with the idea that the Democrat party has no public policy. It may be that there is nothing distinctly new about their policy, but I believe their policy is to chisel in the public a new dependence upon the types of central planning (efficient government or some other euphemism) which provides the essentials (food, health, transportation, even jobs). Most of the impactful parts of Obamacare have not actually been implemented and can, in theory, still be brought down. What I do agree about is the sort of dishwater leadership we currently have in both chambers and the party at large.

Furthermore, there’s nothing “wrong” with the Democrat policy agenda. It’s working as long as they can tie their failings to the nebulous “other” which is the source of all wrongs. Were it not for the “other,” we might have found the philosopher’s stone of governance. In any case, true scandals (intelligences leaks, Ambassador Stevens killed in the Islamist attack on Benghazi and the subsequent obfuscation of what happened and why, the IRS targeting conservative oriented non-profits which faced scrutiny at a rate of almost 15:1, etc.) have yet to stick or gain traction. There are three more years and no sign that any of these will actually matter.

Regardless of the legality or the propriety of their actions, what the Democrat party is doing is working, even if it is slower than what they prefer. This incremental approach works, even if it is frustrating for them. If a conservative compromises on a law over a conviction, he moves further away than where his ideals state he should be. If a liberal compromises the same way, his march is simply a little slower.

Finally, I want to point out one thing that bothers me about libertarians, especially the more fiscally conscious ones – the ones with whom I am probably the most aligned. There seems to be a streak of isolationism in them and a aversion to defense spending. While a lot of energy based problems are self-inflicted, one cannot deny that the American Navy has kept the seas safe for international commerce. Our Navy basically guarantees that the crude petroleum produced in the Levant is able to make it to America as well as the mostly free Western Europe. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. If our Navy shrinks too much, we risk conceding important trade routes and strategic seas. China has recently published a map which claims Philippine territory de facto and de jure controlled by the Philippines which is slowly being consumed by Chinese soft invasions (invasions which we are, by treaty, supposed to repel, but for which we do nothing).  Without defense spending, we have no ships, no fuel, no sailors to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. I honestly even hate the euphemism “interest” because it makes it sound like protecting commerce on the seas and protecting territorial integrity of allies is just a hobby, like knitting or bird watching. These are not pedestrian dawdlings – this is impactful for not only our way of life, but for the mostly democratic and free way of life that is genuinely threatened by the Communists in China and the Oligarchs in Russia.

Sincerely,

William K.

Are Texans Innately Conservative? Liberal? Or Libertarian?

Texas-flag-lone-star-state-300x288

Note: This was originally posted at Free Radical Network

There is going to be a big fight in Texas.  The Battleground Texas group is trying to make inroads into the state, in hopes of turning Texas either purple or blue.

They think the best strategy is ‘get out the vote’ campaigns.  Executive Director Jenn Brown told “The Dallas Morning News” she thought Texas is a “nonvoting state,” then claimed Texas wasn’t “innately conservative.”  She attributes her belief to the low voter turnout in the 2012 election, and election results that show a mere 18-percent of the voting population voted for Governor Rick Perry in 2010.  Her comments drew an unexpected response from Texas blogger/journalist Scott Braddock who said Texas was “innately libertarian.”

He was “dead serious“, and probably right.

Texas does have a very broad belief in freedom, and also in avoiding bureaucracy and a massive welfare state.  It’s not just rhetoric by Perry or others in power across the state; Texans have enjoyed rebelling against the “establishment” and striking back at what they saw as government intrusion.

The obvious example is the 2012 U.S. Senate race.  Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was seen as the odds-on favorite: he had the backing of the state party and pretty much everyone else in the Texas political machine.  Ted Cruz had a small coalition of people who supported him.  He was the upstart who talked up his libertarian leanings, speaking about actually obeying the U.S. Constitution, and seeking to keep the federal government out of Texans’ lives.  One of the chief reasons why “The Dallas Morning News” and “Houston Chronicle” supported Dewhurst was his coalition building.  While that is attractive in state politics, U.S. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their states.  Cruz understood this; Dewhurst didn’t.  “The Dallas Morning News” even supported Democrat Paul Sadler over Cruz in the 2012 General Election because he’d bring money to Texas, while Cruz would only do so if it involved “roads, freeways and ports.”  You know, Constitutional reasons.

Obviously Texans rejected both Dewhurst and Sadler by sending Cruz to DC, but it shows how the state wants the federal government to leave them alone.  They’re not interested in having DC determine what Texans do.  That’s rather libertarian.

But Texans’ desire to keep the government from taking over their lives isn’t just aimed at DC.  They’ve also pushed back against attempts by the state government from doing it.

The best example may be the Trans-Texas Corridor. In short, Perry was hoping to create a “super-highway” which would span from the southern border all the way to the Red River.  Perry praised it as something which would help shippers, reduce pollution, and fix roads.  He promised the tolls would keep taxes from having to be raised and that it would “improve the interstate concept.”

Texans revolted.  They spent hours upon hours pointing out the eminent domain issues, loss of tax revenue, how the proposal was too much like California’s Route 91, and just how poorly it was designed.  The push-back was so fierce, not only did the Trans-Texas Corridor die; but Perry ended up signing stronger laws against eminent domain in 2011.

The same can be said about the current fight in the state Legislature over transportation funding.  Perry, Dewhurst and other Republicans were hoping to get a constitutional amendment passed which would have diverted oil and gas production tax money (meant for the Rainy Day Fund) for transportation, instead.  Some House and Senate members revolted against the plan over concerns as to whether there was a “floor” provision in the bill.  That would have meant if the Rainy Day Fund reached some designated floor, 100% of oil and gas production tax money would start going into it again.  Killing the bill was probably the right move because it’s a bad bill and, as with most taxes, the money runs out at some point.

There’s more to be said about Texas’ libertarian streak. “Texas Monthy’s” Erica Grieder even wrote a book pointing out how low taxes and low services helped Texas.  In a column to “The Dallas Morning News” she wrote, “Texans don’t expect that much from the state,” and she’s absolutely right.  Many people who grew up in Texas don’t expect that.  The help ends up coming from either cities or the community in a crisis.  There are parts of Texas which are struggling, like the Rio Grande Valley, but there are charities and non-profits trying to help where they can.

Battleground Texas wants to change that by getting more Democrats elected and changing how the state operates.  They want Texas to be the next Colorado, which would be horrific.

The good news is, it’s a fight which opposition groups aren’t taking lying down.  FreedomWorks plans on $8-million in spending to fight Battleground Texas, and state Attorney General Greg Abbott calls the group “far more dangerous” than North Korea.  U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s campaign manager also said Battleground Texas is a “real threat in the years to come.”

Hopefully other freedom-loving groups, and the Texas Republican Party, will actually pay attention.

 

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 20th

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: It’s time for another Saturday Night Cigar Lounge. This time Brandon Morse visits to talk Misfit Politics and #Merica. Plus an interview with Reason’s Shikha Dalmia on Detroit.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J. West

When: Friday, July 19, 2013

Where: The Studios at Casa de Hammy

Tonight: Hammy is out of town and Stevie has taken over The broadcasting studios of Casa de Hammy. We’re talking about the #Zimmerman verdict (becuase no one else is), the huge right to life victory in Texas, and the absolute cluster of disaster the Left has wreaked upon the once great city of Detroit. Join me! (And pester @e2pilot to call into the show for awhile)

 

Liberals, Think Critically? Not Gonna Happen!



35_hateful

I was surfing the web the other day and ran across this article: "35 Hateful And Stupid Rush Limbaugh Quotes That Should Anger Everyone." One quote caught my attention: "If you feed them, if you feed the children, three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer? Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple." Limbaugh said that in December 2011.


Liberals find Limbaugh’s remark hateful and stupid. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Shazam.” This attitude illustrates just how shallow, how superficial, how "un-critical" liberal thinking is. Liberals considered only Limbaugh’s words, while avoiding the message being conveyed. To see how depraved liberals are, consider this definition of critical thinking: “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.” Liberals are not clear, rational, or open-minded. They are certainly not disciplined. They purposely ignore any and all evidence that illustrates how incorrect they are. They looked only at the words Limbaugh used,
halted their “analysis” there. Liberals did not do any critical thinking.


Had the analysis gone any further, liberals would have seen that "Rush is right." Limbaugh was referring to the fact that we taxpayers feed the children during the school year, that the children are, indeed, dependent on the state, and the state cannot (for now) feed them during the summer months. His meaning was clearly that liberals make it possible for parents to shirk their responsibilities toward the children during the school year. Tell me, liberals, what is hateful about calling attention to shirking responsibility? Is there any evidence to show that parents accept responsibility and feed children during the summer months?


As these children grow up, they know of no other life, and vote to continue to allow parents to shirk responsibility.


Come on, liberals, cite any evidence that supports your contention that Limbaugh was speaking hatefully, was speaking anything but the truth. By failure to provide any evidence that supports your position, you liberals are making fools of yourselves. I know that the logic used here is far beyond most liberals, that they can’t possibly follow this argument. Liberals subscribe to the old saying, "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bulls***!"


Here is another "hateful" statement that Limbaugh made: "The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." Of the quote, the article’s author said, "Rush Limbaugh, advocating for blowing up the world." Again, this illustrates that liberals avoid critical thinking. No discussion is ever offered of how this country can benefit, which was obviously Limbaugh’s meaning, from stopping people who want to kill us. I guess that, to liberals, being killed by enemy bullets (rather than stopping them) is the preferable way to die.


This is typical liberal “analysis.” They look only at the words, never consider how personally stupid they appear. They search only for phrases or sentences that they consider favorable to their agendas. Liberal readers of the words react exactly as desired, never pausing to think for themselves, to analyze what is actually being said. They react in a “knee-jerk” fashion.


Perhaps Limbaugh’s "problem" is that he assumes that liberals in his audience will critically think, that they will look beyond his words and perceive his message, his meaning, examine (rather than ignore) evidence. Liberals
automatically consider anything Limbaugh says as hateful and stupid. We conservatives think about what Limbaugh says, but liberals (on purpose?) don’t.


Here is another article I found while surfing, "50 Liberal Quotes Which Americans Should Remember,"


  • "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." – Robert Kennedy      A liberal offered this quote, but offered not one word about the causes of plenty and poverty. But that would have necessitated critical thinking.
  • "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." – Martin Luther King, Jr.      Not one word about personal responsibility, or the fact that if we ceased spending money on military defense (we currently spend more on social uplift), we will not have a nation, spiritual or otherwise. Nor were identified the social uplift programs our enemies will continue.
  • "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." – Hubert H. Humphrey       Not one word about how liberals support and demand abortions, about the ever rising cost of ObamaCare and the resulting scarcity of healthcare availability, or about how welfare programs, evidence shows, keep people in poverty.
  • "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." – Abraham Lincoln      I’m surprised Lincoln’s “fruit of labor” comment was included, because there is no mention that capital is the direct result of labor, that capital results from disciplined saving.


These quotes were proudly presented by a liberal. It illustrates how liberals choose to focus on words rather than on evidence, on actual deeds.


Regarding "critical thinking," Rick Shenkman, in 2008, observed that the American public is "… willing to accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought suggested they were bad for the country" [emphasis mine] and "… were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic
solutions, irrational fears, and public relations babble." Liberals have dumbed-down public school curricula (in the name of “feel good”) to the point where analysis of evidence and critical thinking are no longer possible by those “educated” in public schools. They have created a nation of "mind-numbed robots" that vote liberal every chance they get. They give no thought to the future.

They’re not called "knee-jerk liberals"
for no reason!

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Rebuttal of Kingston Reif’s and Greg Thielmann’s newest lies – about missile defense

North_Korean_missile_range

Kingston Reif – a pacifist propagandist working for the extremely-leftist “Council for a Livable World” – has shown his utter ignorance, as well as his extremely leftist beliefs and desires to disarm the US unilaterally, on quite a few occassions, and in December, I even took the time to completely refute his utter garbage calling for scrapping the nuclear triad. Since then, however, Reif has not stoppped writing his ignorant leftist garbage, and has recently (on June 4th) written a screed in the liberal Time magazine criticizing House Republicans for “all sorts of madness on nuclear weapons, missile defense, and related issues” – especially their proposal to create an East Coast missile defense site in the northeastern United States (e.g. New York state or Maine).

Reif claims that it would be “unnecessary, technically dubious, and cost-ineffective”.

Regarding the latter, he invokes CBO’s estimate that creating such a site would cost $3.6 bn over 5 years, and another by the National Academy of Sciences saying that their proposed “evolved GMD system” would cost $25.4 bn over 20 years.

But those numbers are not only small by themselves, they’re even small when put into perspective on a per year basis. Reif, to exaggerate the cost and scaremonger taxpayers, conveniently omits the “over X years” part of the price tag.

Divided over 5 years, $3.6 bn is $720 mn; that is 0.152% of the DOD’s base budget for FY2014 even under sequestration ($475 bn), or % if sequestration is cancelled (the DOD’s base budget would then be $526 bn).

Divided over 20 years, $25.4 bn is $1.27 bn, i.e. 0.276% of the DOD’s base budget for FY2014 even under sequestration.

So the cost would be tiny – a small fraction of one percent of the base defense budget even with sequestration accounted for. A fraction of 1% of the DOD’s budget is all that it would cost to build an EC missile defense site.

Reif claims it’s “unnecessary.” But the DOD and the Intelligence Community estimate Iran will have an ICBM in 2015/2016. That is just 2-3 years from now. So the US has just 2-3 years to prepare itself for a potential Iranian ICBM threat. Iran has made considerable progress  in long-range missile development, including being able to launch satellites into orbit (e.g. with the Safir space rocket).

Reif invokes the recent statement by VADM James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, that money for East Coast missile defense would not be used in the next FY. Of course, Syring was just expressing the position of the leftist Obama Administration – he can’t speak against his own president. But former Missile Defense Agency Director Henry “Trey” Obering, in a recent article, has expressed strong support for an East Coast BMD site.

In his screed, Reif totally contradicts himself, claiming, alternately, that the current ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California are either sufficient for protecting the East Coast or deficient and unreliable. He alternately claims they already offer adequate protection… or don’t work at all. So which is it, Kingston?

As for thereal experts on the issue (other than Gen. Obering), current Strategic Command leader Gen. Bob Kehler says that:

“I am confident that we can defend against a limited attack from Iran, although we are not in the most optimum posture to do that today… it doesn’t provide total defense today.”

The Commander of the Northern Command (charged with defending the US homeland and Canada), Gen. Charles Jacoby, says that the current GBI system is “sub-optimum.” This is no surprise; the interceptors in Alaska and California would be at the extreme margin of their performance envelopes if tasked with shooting down an ICBM heading for the East Coast.

A “sub-optimum” defense posture is not good enough. Not even close.

Moreover, in March, just 3 months ago, Gen. Jacoby told the Senate:

“What a third site gives me, whether it’s on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be increased battle space; that means increased opportunity for me to engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.”

Also in March, Gen. Jacoby told the House:

“I would agree that a third site, wherever the decision is to build a third site, would give me better weapons access, increased GBI inventory and allow us the battle space to more optimize our defense against future threats from Iran and North Korea.”

Doesn’t this nation owe it to the Northern Command – the one charged with protecting the homeland?

The requirement for a third site to protect against Iranian ICBMs was also stated in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, which said:

“… defense of the US homeland will be augmented by Europe-based SM-3 Block IIB interceptors, which are planned to be able to provide an early-intercept capability against potential Iranian ICBMs.”

But the SM-3 Block 2B has been cancelled now, so an EC missile defense site is needed.

Reif also claims that the proposal is “technically dubious” because GBIs supposedly don’t work. Here, he’s wrong as well. GBIs have passed most of their tests, including a recent flight test, and more tests are planned for later months. The interceptors themselves work, as do their current, first generation kill vehicles (kinetic “warhead” counterparts). Critics love to seize on the two failed intercept tests from 2010, but in those tests, it was a new generation of kill vehicles that failed – not the older kill vehicles, and not the missiles themselves. The MDA, in any case, is working to solve the problem.

And even if and when a weapon fails, this teaches us something and doesn’t mean the weapon can never work. Quite the contrary. The Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile – the first American nuclear-armed missile deployed on submarines – failed the vast majority of its tests: 17 out of 22. Yet, it passed 5, was ultimately proven to work (with President Kennedy watching), and was deployed on 41 USN ballistic missile subs – and later became the basis for the development of the Trident ballistic missile.

Reif bemoans the GBI’s low ability to distinguish real missiles and warheads from decoys. But the MDA actually had a program to solve that problem – called the Multiple Kill Vehicle, essentially a bus carrying dozens of small kill vehicles sufficient to kill all warheads and countermeasures – until April 2009, when President Obama killed the program and when General Obering had already retired. (General Obering, of course, points this out in his piece.)

So the problem of enabling GBIs to discriminate between genuine targets – like real missiles and warheads – and decoys can be solved quite easily, if the MKV program is simply revived.

Reif complains that there is “no guarantee” that this problem will ever be solved and the GBI system made highly effective. Actually, in life, there is no guarantee of anything. There is no guarantee that your car will always start (especially in winter), or that your bus, train, or flight won’t be delayed, or that even the best friends will not fail you, or that even the most reliable weapons will always work perfectly.

There is no perfect person, vehicle, weapon, plane, ship, or anything that humans make.

But if the development and improvement of ground-based interceptors is continued, and the MKV program revived, there’s a high likelihood that these interceptors will become highly effective.

Moreover, Reif and other missile defense opponents are contradicting themselves. On the one hand, they claim that US BMD systems can’t distinguish real warheads from decoys, but OTOH, they also claim that North Korea and Iran don’t know how to mate nuclear warheads to missiles.

But if they don’t know how, they also certainly don’t know how to make credible decoys (or mate them to missiles). Why? Because decoys, in order to deceive anyone, must EXACTLY match real warheads in size and flight patterns – they must look and fly exactly like the real thing. Any decoy not matching a real warhead EXACTLY in size, shape, and flight patterns will immediately be seen on radars as what it really is – a fake.

In order to make a fake of something that exactly matches that “something” in size, shape, and flight patterns, you must first be able to make the real thing. Otherwise, you don’t know how to mimic it exactly. It’s simple logic.

So simple logic alone utterly refutes the lies of missile defense opponents like Reif. It exposes their real motivation – ideological, implacable knee-jerk opposition to missile defense per se, which motivates them to make any false claims, even contradictory ones.

You can’t have it both ways, Kingston. Either North Korea and Iran  can make credible decoys and mate them with missiles – in which case they can do the same with real warheads – or they can’t.

In short, there is a clear need for the East Coast missile defense site; it would be cheap; and if the GBI system continues to be developed and improved, and if the MKV program is revived, the system can become very effective.

Like Reif, ACA’s Greg Thielmann falsely claims that an East Coast missile defense site – and deploying the now-cancelled SM-3 Block 2B missile also intended against ICBM – would be too expensive and that the Iranian ballistic missile threat hasn’t even even begun to emerge. He even claims it’s doubtful that Iran will have an ICBM by the end of this decade.

But that threat has already begun to emerge: the US intel community and the DOD estimate Iran will have an ICBM by 2015/2016, and it could simply buy one from North Korea or China. It has already (allegedly) bought Musudan-ri MRBMs (with a 4,000 km range) from North Korea and has developed its own solid-fuel Sejjil and Ashoura MRBMs with a range of 2,500 kms. Moreover, it has also launched a satellite into space, thus making a huge step towards constructing an ICBM and demonstrating the capability to mate nuclear payloads with missiles.

Again, this truth must be repeated: the technology used to install satellites on missiles is THE SAME as that used to mate warheads to missiles. Fact.

Moreover, the point of defense, including missile defense, is to stay AHEAD of the threat, not to barely keep up with it. Yet, the US intel community and the DOD project Iran to have an ICBM by 2015/2016, so the US now has only 2-3 years to build an East Coast missile defense site.

But Thielmann goes even further, falsely claiming that North Korea doesn’t have ICBMs either and that its successful December 2012 launch of a satellite on an Unha-3 (Taepodong-2) rocket, i.e. on an ICBM. Again, the technology used to marry satellites and warheads to missiles is the same.

Moreover, after that successful launch, the South Koreans retrieved the upper stages and the delivery bus of the rocket from water; TheDailyBeast investigative journalist Eli Lake was the first to report this fact. The retrieved pieces of the missile demonstrated that North Korea DOES have the ability to marry payloads to missiles. CDN’s Defense Issues Weekly duly reported the story.

North Korea’s TD-2 ICBM, capable of reaching the CONUS, was the basis for the successful space rocket. On top of that, North Korea also has the road-mobile KN-08 ICBM, whose existence and genuity were recognized by the DOD (spoken for by Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Adm. Sandy Winnefeld) in March.

Thielmann also wrongly touts the utterly false numbers given for Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals by Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris (for Russia, 466 ICBMs and SLBMs and less than 1,500 deployed warheads; for China, only 300 warheads and 50-75 ICBMs and SLBMs). This is supposed to prove that even the Russian and Chinese nuclear threat isn’t big; like other advocates of America’s disarmament, he dramatically understates the real size of China’s nuclear arsenal.

But both countries have far more weapons than that. Russia has 434 ICBMs and 224 SLBMs (16 for each of its 14 ballistic missile subs), a total of 658 intercontinental missiles, and 1,550, not 1,466, deployed strategic warheads – right at New START limits. (It has significantly built its arsenal up since New START’s ratification, while the US has had to cut its own.)

China has at least 86 ICBMs, plus at least 60 SLBMs on its five Jin class submarines (which, contrary to Thielmann’s blatant lies, ARE operational, and China has 5 of these, not merely 2), plus another 12 on its Xia class sub. And China’s real nuclear arsenal numbers at least 1,600-1,800, not 300-400, warheads.

Thielmann also falsely claims that Russia and China have many common interests that make their attacks on the US unlikely. This is also a blatant lie.

The US and China share no interests whatsoever; their national interests are diametrically opposed. The US wants to safeguard freedom of navigation at sea and in the air, freedom of trade and travel around the world, and to preserve its own and its Pacific’ allies security, as well as the international rules-based order. China wants to replace the US as the world’s top power, turn the Western Pacific into an internal Chinese lake, seize the Okinawa, the Senkakus, the Spratlys, Taiwan, and goodness knows what else, and push the US out of Asia completely.

China has behaved in a very hostile manner towards the US, whether by harassing unarmed American ships, stalking American carriers, blinding American satellites with lasers, threatening war with the US, or launching massive cyberattacks on US networks. The same is true of Russia, whose President Vladimir Putin openly vents his hatred of the US at every opportunity, while conducting an arms race against America, bullying US diplomats, launching his own cyberattacks on America, and supplying America’s enemies around the world (including Iran) with weapons and nuclear fuel.

Russia and the US share very few, if any, interests.

Lastly, Thielmann falsely claims that missile defense is impeding new arms control agreements and “additional” cuts in Russia’s arsenal. This is totally false. Since the late 2000s, Russia has not been cutting anything; under New START, it has significantly increased its nuclear arsenal.

Moreover, both Russia and China know that America’s current and planned missile defense systems are of limited scope and capability – capable enough against Iran and North Korea, but not against Russia’s and China’s much more advanced missiles, let alone the huge arsenals that Moscow and Beijing have. The idea that US missile defense systems pose any threat whatsoever to Russia’s or China’s nuclear arsenals is utterly ridiculous – like everything that Thielmann and his Arms Control Association colleagues write.

Thielmann’s ACA program is ridiculously called the “Realistic Threat Assessment Project”; in fact, it’s a Threat Dramatic Understatement Project and should be called that way.

Thus, Kingston Reif’s and Greg Thielmann’s claims have once again been exposed for what they really are – blatant lies.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor June 15th 2013

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 15th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Big, big week this week and we talk to Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks about it. Is Edward Snowden a hero, traitor or both? Is the US lying about what the NSA program goes? Are the companies allegedly tied to it doing the same thing?

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

 

 


Liberals Cheer Over Dead Oklahoma Children!!!

As bad as Democrats have been in the past I don’t think anything can top the Demomcrat Logosituation of their reaction to the Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma.  Lizz Winstead, creator of “The Daily Show” tweeted that the tornado was “ordered to target conservatives”, a comment she now says was done in jest.  How does anyone joke about anyone, and especially children, dying from a terrible natural disaster?  I wonder if she considered it just as funny when children of the same age were killed in Newtown, Ct.!!!  Other blooming idiots in the Democrat wing of the Vulture of Tyranny Party are blaming Republicans because they deny the “truth” of man-made global warming, including the venerable idiot, Barbara Boxer of California.

Is there no standard of decency at all anywhere in the Democrat Party?  Is there no one in the entire mass of the party who will stand up and say this is outrageous and unacceptable?? Apparently not!!!  Shouldn’t liberals be coming out with legislation to ban tornados since they indiscriminately kill innocent men, women, and children???  Is there no honor, no class, no soul in the party???  Is there no one to call these Neanderthals out for their lack of any kind of human decency at all????

America as a nation is lost if this is the best we can find to represent We the People in government and “media”.  Everything about them is agenda driven.  There is no feeling, no dignity, no honor, no honesty, no class, no decency anywhere in these obscene pronouncements.  These same people cheer for a professional no-name athlete “coming out” as gay and praise women who murder their unborn children, then protest the death penalty for convicted murderers as “cruel and unusual punishment”; they decry guns, inanimate objects, used by a nut to murder children in a school and cheer when children of the same age are killed by a tornado.  How does any human being do that???

These people are beyond despicable!!!  No one with this attitude should ever be allowed to sit in the seat of government, nor should anyone of this ilk be a member of the media.  Politicians swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America yet spend every breath looking for a way to destroy said document, and will use any event or any tragedy to further their control and their power over the citizens of this once-great nation.

Where are we to go if this is what We the People put in charge of our nation?  How can any nation or group of people survive if this is the kind of heartless trash that are in charge of government??  What does this say about the overall quality of American society???

This reminds me of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Democrats blamed George W. Bush despite the fact that the requests for help had to come from Democrats who were in charge of the city and state at the time.  They made as much political hay as they could from a tragedy that befell other Americans. Democrats allowed poor blacks to die rather than use available assets to save them. Conservatives didn’t gloat when most of the Katrina victims were black Democrats in New Orleans.  At that moment they were Americans beset by a tragedy they couldn’t stop, Americans that needed our help.  And help we did; with prayers, money, labor, supplies, and anything else we could do to help.

It also reminds me of the reaction in the Muslim world to Katrina. Remember the cries of joy and statements that their satanic “allah” had punished America for its evil ways?? Do you remember the earthquake a few weeks later in Pakistan/Afghanistan that killed over 200,000???   Did Americans gloat, laugh, and point fingers???  No, we jumped in to help those devastated and in need of help.  They were people in need of help and we did what we could to help because they were suffering.

America is the heartland of the world and Oklahoma is the heartland of America. Oklahomans are a resilient bunch and we will come back by the sweat of our brow and the love and help of our neighbors.  We believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that the right to cling to our faith and our guns comes from God not from government.  We believe in helping ourOklahoma map neighbors, not out of duty but out of kindness and love.  We don’t need bureaucrats and politicians to tell us how to look after those who suffer loss of property and life from any cause.  We don’t care who, what, when, where, why, or how; we are there to help in any way possible.

For anyone to make light of this tragedy and to use it for cheap political theatrics is beyond despicable.  We are either a nation or we are not.  For a group of people to gloat over the misfortune of others because their political opinions don’t match up is disgusting and perverted.

This kind of behavior, although typical of liberals, is not what our founders had in mind when they established this great nation.  They expected us to pull together and to help when help is needed, not play cheap parlor games with the pain and suffering of those we see as opponents.

Liberalism is a mental disorder highlighted by a total arrogant disdain for others, and the selfishness of an evil that lurks in the realm of Satan.  Our nation cannot survive the kind of vitriol we see in liberalism.  If this continues to be the rule rather than the exception we will lose what little bit of liberty we have left and find ourselves at the mercy of people who have no mercy in their hearts and no soul in their being.

And the ultimate insult will come Sunday May 26, 2013 when His Royal Highness King Barack I will honor us with his presence.  He will come forth from his mighty palace and say a few kind words to us “bitter clingers and Bible thumpers”.  He will pronounce the problems solved, pose for a few photographs, then jump back into his limousine or helicopter. In the meantime, all those who have been actually doing something trip over the media and Secret Service circus clowns.  We don’t need the federal government to “help”.  We don’t come with hat in hand begging for benevolence from government and We the People don’t want government here.

We don’t need Barack Obama and his henchmen in Oklahoma and we don’t want him here.  Gov. Mary Fallin should immediately stand up and tell him to stay where he is.  We have enough to do without him adding to the mess.

Barry, instead of coming to Oklahoma for a photo-op, spend your time telling the mental midgets who you call fellow Democrats that us “bitter clingers” don’t need them; and don’t Bible, flag, guns, Our rightswant them, you, or the money you so freely promise to borrow on our behalf.  We Oklahomans will cling to our God and our guns, not the “benevolence” of government bureaucrats and their red tape.  We will take care of each other and provide for the needs of those displaced by the tornado.  Keep your pathetic posturing in Washington, D C (De Cesspool) where it is appreciated because it won’t be appreciated in Oklahoma.  We don’t need, and we don’t want, your phony sympathy or your cheap promises.

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

May 23, 2013

 

« Older Entries