The minor Russian advantage in strategic nuclear weapons comes despite the incredible asymmetry in both countries’ commitments to global security and despite Russia’s 10-to-one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons systems in the European theatre. The U.S. guarantees nuclear security to about 30 nations around the world. Russia is a threat to many nations but does not extend its security guarantees to anyone else.
President Barack Obama’s 2010 nuclear strategy assumes that Russia is no longer an adversary and that the potential for conflict with Moscow is low. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Moscow’s increasing aggressiveness toward its neighbors and countries in Eastern Europe have proven these assumptions wrong.
The State Department data exchange shows that Russia is deploying its weapons in the most destabilizing manner possible: It is increasing the number of nuclear warheads on each of its delivery systems.
The optics of Russia having more actively deployed nuclear warheads than the U.S. gives Vladimir Putin an important propaganda victory—a victory brought about by the Obama Administration’s ineptitude and wrong assumptions about Russia’s behavior and intentions.
Additionally, Russia has violated its arms control obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It is unclear what the implications of these violations are for European security. Russia’s extensive nuclear weapons modernization program stands in pale contrast to the U.S.’s limited efforts to keep its nuclear weapons safe, secure, and reliable. The Administration’s limited modernization efforts are being hampered by sequestration, and the consensus that the U.S. had following New START ratification has broken down.
To reaffirm U.S. commitment to its allies and international security, the U.S.should withdraw from New START and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, modernize its nuclear forces and infrastructure (which have been underfunded for decades), develop and deploy a comprehensive layered missile defense system that would be capable of addressing Russia’s ballistic missile threat, and re-evaluate its strategic posture. U.S. and allied security and stability in the European theatre depend on these steps being taken.
COMMENTARY BY Michaela Dodge, as published in the Daily Signal 10/2/14
October 8, 2014
A number of our social problems and political divisions come from the inability of people to formulate and conform to a national identity. Minorities fail to assimilate properly because they’re not taught what it means to be an American. Even non-immigrant students are sometimes confused about what is right with America, what is wrong about our history, and whether or not they should be proud of their country.
Cold shoulders from Liberals on the school board and berating from our local press are but a few of the reactions to the excellent idea a friend of mine has for using “The 5000 Year Leap” as a textbook in our local high school Civics classes. The friend, who is a member of the local school board, has introduced a plan to bring the Constitution of the United States back into classrooms by replacing inaccurate and left-leaning text books with those that more fully teach the history and context of our founding.
His enthusiasm has been met with skepticism and resistance from the entrenched lefties on the board, but little do the Liberals realize that until we return the fundamentals of Americanism to the public school system, the viability of that school system, and the children who come through it, are in doubt. I’ll happily fight alongside my friend despite rejection and barrages of berating to bring Constitutional curricula back to our local classrooms.
Proper education in the founding principles provides relatively simple answers to a plethora of questions that beset our nation. A number of our social problems and political divisions come from the inability of people to formulate and conform to a national identity. Minorities fail to assimilate properly because they’re not taught what it means to be an American. Even non-immigrant students are sometimes confused about what is right with America, what is wrong about our history, and whether or not they should be proud of their country. Too often pupils in our public schools lack the background knowledge needed to be active and conscientious citizens. Our young people are struggling with their identities as Americans because they are not educated about what America is, and where it came from. Proper education about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has the potential to end America’s prolonged identity crisis. The genius of our Founding Documents lies in the scaffolding they provide for people to understand their relationship to God.
Yes, the Founding Documents serve as the groundwork for a secular government, but they are based upon, and their success is determined by, our ability to identify with our Creator. The archetypal American identity is a godly identity, and carries with it responsibilities that were once considered sacred. The key observance that in the past secured American youngsters’ national identity suffered a disabling blow when, in 1962, religious prayer in public schools was found unconstitutional and no longer allowed. Over the following decades the quality of Western Civilization, American History, and Civics education was eroded by revisionism, Multiculturalism, the commingling of Socialist and Atheist doctrines, and the shocking omission of key political figures and events. America’s public schools are suffering from identity confusion which has resulted in estrangement from the rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, and moral certainty of our pioneer forbears.
A poor, or distorted concept of Americanism has lead learners to view the government as the primary source of wisdom, physical support, and rights, and has given them an identity that is more bound to the collective than it is to God. The first principles of our Founding Documents place the responsibility for the life, liberty, and the property of the citizen squarely upon the shoulders of the citizen. The idea that man is free–a moral agent to act or be acted upon–responsible for his own success or failure, is the basis of American philosophy. Americanism is the idea that man is given his rights by God, and to maintain those rights he must live a godly and moral life.
The founding of America served as the beginning of the end of monarchical dictates that arbitrated the relationship between God and man. The American identity is intimately associated with the moral traits of honor, accountability, and equality under the law. As God and the Founding Principles of America have been jettisoned from public education, the ties between students and their unique and great nation have been nearly severed. The loss of national pride contributes to much of the social dissipation and depression that vexes our families and culture. Human identity is at the core of hope, happiness, and meaning. When people lose their connection with God, either by conforming to degraded stereotypes belched into living rooms and movie theaters, or because they have lost the sense that they have power over their lives, achievements, and their futures, there is little left but self-absorption, groveling, and despair.
The loss of American identity leaves a void that can be easily filled with counterfeits like European-style Socialism and cultural moral relativism (the idea that all cultures are equally good). High-quality Constitutional education will not only enhance the historical knowledge and civics savvy of American public school students, it has enormous potential to benefit the culture. A moral framework is central to the healthy emotional and social development of children, and our founding documents provide such a framework. Though irreligious, they are of the mind of God. Civilization will only be redeemed through the kind of moral revolution that reasserts individual agency, worth, and godly identity. Our economic, mental, and cultural health are doomed without such a revolution. The best weapon in this peaceful revolution is credible education in what it means to be an American, and why to be so is such an expansive and unequaled blessing.
The Constitutional education books currently recommended to the Mesa County School Board for consideration:
The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen
Our Constitution Rocks by Juliette Turner
What Would the Founding Fathers Think by David Bowman
1776 by David McCullough
Seven Miracles that Saved America by Chris Stewart
The Real George Washington by Jay A. Perry and Andrew M. Allison
by Marjorie Haun 10/8/14
October 7, 2014
“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property…no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.” ~ from Cato’s Letters
There is no right to marriage. Rights are those broad, enforceable concepts which can defended in word and in fact, by law; life, liberty, property. Heterosexual men and women have no right to be married. If a single man in a country demographically short on eligible women because of decades of sex-selection abortions, such as India, asserts the right to be married, and yet lacks a consenting partner who agrees to enter into the covenant of marriage with him, who will enforce his right? Is it the role of government to initiate force upon an unwilling woman, removing ALL of her rights to self-determination, in order to enforce his right to marriage? No. It’s absurd.
Marriage between one man and one woman as designed by God and exemplified by Adam and Eve, is the crowning privilege of humanity. One must qualify for this privilege by entering into a covenant with a willing and suitable member of the opposite sex, and by making promises enforceable by law (that is until “no-fault” divorce became the norm). One must obtain a license to marry, often presenting evidence they are free of certain communicable diseases. Marriage is an institution designed to perpetuate the human family. The sexual aspect is important in marriage, but sexual attraction by itself is insufficient to qualify as marriage. Like the chemical composition of water, marriage is fixed. You cannot change its composition and still call it marriage. There is no right to marriage, and gay and lesbian sexual arrangements do not constitute marriage.
The failure of the Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill last week illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of rights vs. privileges in our time. It is also an example of how the homosexual lobby, which has failed to make its own case to Christians and other religious traditionalists, uses the perversion of law and the force of government to further its ends.
I don’t judge an individual by whose genitalia they prefer. I judge people by their efficacy in the workplace, their decency— the content of their character. I don’t care about what people do in their sex lives. I makes no difference in how I regard a personal acquaintance or colleague. It’s not my business to know and it’s not my job to advocate for a certain sexual proclivity. Nor is it the role of government to carve out favors and exceptions, and create special status to normalize homosexuality, or to attempt to make it equivalent to marriage as designed and sanctioned by God.
“In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” ~Madison, Federalist Papers Chapter 16
In order for government to impose the normalization of homosexuality on those who believe in the supremacy of God’s Word, it must do so with force, infringing upon individual’s rights to the property of their faith and actions; turning those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds into servants of the very thing they find morally repugnant. By employing the force of government in the courts, administrative agencies, and legislation, to crush the freedom of Christians, Orthodox Jews, and other scriptural traditionalists who wish to think, worship, and act according to the dictates of their own consciences, the homosexual movement has created for itself a human shield of individuals, battered by Political Correctness and false shame, who must comply with its wishes, or risk losing everything.
It is not an attack on anyone when those of use who believe in the unchanging Word of God witness that He ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman as the proper structure for rearing children, and the optimum institution for human progress and increase. The Christian/Traditionalist defense of the Word of God, nuclear Family, God-sanctioned Marriage, and all timeless moral principles, is an attack on no one. But in twisting civil law and perverting the definition of rights, the homosexual lobby and its Leftist masters will punish dissenters as a thought criminals, robbing them of their rights, and making them examples of the fearsome power of the government to destroy those who disagree.
By the same token, it is not discrimination for a business to turn away a customer on the grounds they don’t want to provide a product or service they find morally disagreeable. There is no right to a service or a product from a specified business. In the free market we should be free to choose with whom we do business. Customers cannot lay claim upon the skills and property of an unwilling business without fundamentally offending the rights of the business owner. The Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill did not pave the way for open discrimination against homosexuals, but sought to discourage discrimination against those business owners who, as a matter of conscience, wish not to participate in a transaction that furthers something they find immoral.
I challenge the LGBTQ community to make its own case outside of the courts, without the force of government, through persuasion, by presenting evidence that homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender-ism, “questioning or queer,” are in and of themselves virtues that deserve a place in civil society aside the timeless institution of marriage. I challenge those who want to equate homosexual pairings with marriage to bring forth a reality-based, logical argument that will withstand all rhetorical questioning, to show religious Americans why these things are good for the rearing of children and how they will perpetuate happiness.
MAKE YOUR CASE! Make your case the same way Believers do, by persuasion and love unfeigned, one person at a time. God Himself was so offended by theocracy that He inspired a nation to be brought forth where no single religion ruled, but rather a secular law. The First Amendment bars the establishment of a state religion. Has homosexuality effectively become a state religion, where non-believers are punished and coerced by threats, fines, and imprisonment, to convert?
The case for civil rights was made, and eventually a vast and irresistible majority of Americans were persuaded, that all men and women are created equal regardless of skin color, nationality, dialect, faith, or station. Here is a truth that is self-evident; that each life has intrinsic value, and sovereignty–the right to be free and to access all blessings offered by the condition of being free. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable, and based upon Natural Law.
No matter how much public shaming or name calling, fines or imprisonment is brought to bear on those who live their lives and run their businesses according to the dictates of conscience, no one can conquer the Christian world, and no one one can alter the composition of marriage to suit individual tastes. I urge the LGBTQ community to turn away from group identity and mob think. Be individuals, bring your own cases before the public. IF YOUR LIFESTYLES ARE VIRTUOUS, LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AS DO THE REST OF US, Christian and non-Christian alike. If the LGBTQ community cannot make its own case, and must force others to conform against their will, the result with be an increasingly militarized government which targets its own citizens as enemies of the state.
by Marjorie Haun 10/7/14
October 5, 2014
This article was originally published in American Thinker.
Helen Qiang Raleigh has given us a powerful moral argument for Capitalism with a simple recounting of the human tragedies made possible by its absence.
by Marjorie Haun
Book review of “Confucius Never Said,” by Helen Raleigh (2014)
“An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger.” ~Confucius
Helen Raleigh’s cleverly titled book, “Confucius Never Said,” is an instructional primer in Randian Capitalism contrasted against a bleak mural of Communist ingress. Raleigh, a first-generation American whose great-grandfather, in the 1940s, was persecuted by the communists, and whose father, in the 1950s, escaped the oppression of his home village, has given us a powerful moral argument for Capitalism in a simple recounting of the human tragedies made possible by its absence.
The power of “Confucius Never Said” comes from Helen Raleigh’s binding of generations of family memory; the wisdom gained through experiencing the conditions of life prior to and during China’s Communist Era, with her own experiences as a free woman in America. Ayn Rand would be pleased with Raleigh’s approach to Capitalist thought; a cautionary tale documenting the creeping tolerance of Collectivism by an easily manipulated population.
A straightforward personal history, Raleigh’s first book begins with the story of her great-grandfather who, at the turn of the last Century was born in Shandong Province, the ancestral home of the venerated Chinese philosopher, Confucius. The author sets the philosophical stage for 20th Century radical Socialism by detailing the principals taught by Confucius. Confucianism sets forth strict rules of order and social conduct, which historically provided a point of reference for Chinese culture. Absent the “all men created equal” and “government by the people” ideals of the United States, Confucius nevertheless encouraged respect for citizens by rulers, respect for the rulers by citizens, and respect for the individual duties given to each man to regulate his own actions, thus promoting peace and order for all. One might refer to Confucianism as a sort of benevolent Collectivism which, tragically, may have made the Communist victory in China easier than it would have been in a western Democracy.
The Communist takeover of China began with a reordering of class structure; what modern Progressives would refer to as “leveling the playing field.” But in Raleigh’s account of her family’s personal experiences, we see how “collective progress” incrementally strips away class, wealth, property, freedom, and eventually life in its inexorable march to totalitarian government.
Chapter 1 describes how, in the late 1940s, Communists used “Land Reform” efforts to set the land-owner and peasant classes in conflict with one another. Following the Soviet model, villages were controlled by Communist Party members, and land was confiscated from landlords and redistributed among the poor. This subversion of agrarian traditions required a campaign of propaganda which exploited the grievances of the “working class,” thus making hatred, aggression and theft directed at landowners more palatable; what modern Progressives would call “social justice.” It’s believed that during this campaign between 1949 and 1953, at least one million landowners were rounded up and executed.
Raleigh’s great-grandfather, a landowner whose modest holdings were acquired through years of toil, was denounced by the Communists and dispossessed of his private property, but his life, unlike many others, was spared. In the following chapters, the story of Helen Raleigh’s father, the “Landlord’s Grandson,” is traced from his early life before communist rule, through his teenage years during the devastating Chinese famine of the 1950s, which debilitated national morale and left millions dead.
Through a number of fortunate turns, Raleigh’s father was able to escape the hopelessness of his village, and become educated as an engineer in Beijing. The author uses these lucid memories to illustrate how the Chinese Communists supplanted family traditions with state identity. Oral and written genealogy was discouraged. The family structure was weakened through classism and displacement, and the traditional Chinese veneration of Ancestors was replaced with fear and obedience to village leaders and the state they represented. Using Marxist devices, familial bonds to past and present generations were obliterated, making the state the ultimate and only authority. Though Raleigh’s father “chose to do whatever it took to change his fate,” she sums up the net effect of China’s experiment in Socialism:
The kind of poverty and subsistence living that my father and millions of other Chinese people grew up with was a direct result of the poor policies driven by the government’s overzealous push for economic equality through command and control. Yet the only thing Chinese people equally shared was misery. (pg. 21, “Food for Thought”)
Each chapter of “Confucius Never Said” ends with a short postlude which Raleigh calls “Food for Thought.” As the chronologically-ordered chapters relate the author’s family saga, her “Food for Thought” summaries connect the dots between historical events and Marxist principles, as expressed in Chinese social policy, Communist party machinations, and the punishing government force of the time. Raleigh also draws unpleasant parallels with 21st Century American Progressivism, and the alarming inroads made by Marxists following the election of Barack Obama, whose path to power was paved by the work and philosophies of avowed Communists, from Frank Marshall Davis to Van Jones.
Raleigh confronts the illusory, yet seductive, idea of “fairness,” used universally by Socialists to justify state theft of private property from those who earn to be redistributed to those who do not:
Many people who grow up in this environment don’t realize that government assistance comes with two notable costs: the unfair cost to those whose wealth is confiscated to support the government programs and the cost to those on the receiving end who pay by giving up freedom and dignity. (pg. 21 “Food for Thought”)
Chapter 3, devoted to Mao Tse-tung’s insurgence between 1949 and 1959, describes not only the misery, starvation, and displacement of millions, but the manipulation of information by state propagandists as well. Few were aware of the full scale of the unfolding Communist disaster. Intended treachery and violence were renamed or simply hidden, but inscrutable policies, such as that which lead the government to increase grain exports while its own people starved during China’s worst famine in memory, were never elucidated in any meaningful way. “In China, official archives about the Famine are still largely sealed by the government and difficult to access. We can only estimate that the death toll of the Chinese Famine ranges between thirty and sixty million.” (pg. 31) In that chapter’s summary Raleigh exposes the way state propagandists successfully hid the horrendous crimes of Chinese Communism, and still do, to this day:
If you google “China’s Famine,” you will see a lot of gruesome images. Yet in China, the Great Famine remains a taboo subject. Some people in China claim that Mao had good intentions. They believe that Mao merely misstepped in his implementation. The government hid official records of the Famine from the majority of Chinese people in order to preserve Mao’s “savior of China” image. (pg. 33 “Food for Thought”)
Raleigh’s sternest warnings follow the chapters recalling the bloody horrors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
Tolerance for ever-growing government power:
Mao’s Cultural Revolution might be an extreme case in world history, but that doesn’t mean it won’t reemerge in various degrees, shapes, and forms in other countries. The lesson from the Cultural Revolution has universal implications. Are your forging your own chain right now? (pg. 67 “Food for Thought”)
Dissolution of the traditional family:
It concerns me deeply that one of the most obvious unintended consequences of the welfare policies in the U.S. in the collapse of marriages and families…No one can be truly free if he or she is chained to the welfare system. (pg. 79 “Food for Thought”)
Loss of privacy:
Why do communists hate privacy? Because they want absolute control, and the only way to do that is to control people’s intimate thoughts and behaviors. The totalitarian government in China showed no regard for people’s right to privacy because there is no “individual in communism. (pg. 94 “Food for Thought”)
It is disturbing how much the socialist ideology emphasizes the virtue of self-sacrifice. Mao promoted selflessness and self-sacrifice through a mass campaign of the make-believe example of Lei Feng. But the real motive of his campaign was selfish, because communism was founded upon the belief that an individual must sacrifice for the collective in order to achieve the common good. Government requirements always took precedence over individual preference. (pg. 103 “Food for Thought”)
Rays of light from the West broke through the fog of communist misinformation with Chinese attempts at economic reform in the 1980s. This was largely due the exposure of images and stories of western wealth and personal freedom to Chinese citizens. The communist government was weakened as people recognized that there was a better way of life, and people in free countries were living it.
Confucius Never Said, like a shadow cast on the American conscience, reminds us that life can be much worse, and is for people in countries where freedom is limited. And it cautions us that a similar fate looms for us if we don’t change our national trajectory now. Despite all of its gentle wisdom for harmonious living, Confucianism lacks the strong individualism of western traditions. America’s fate does not have to be tied to China’s past, present, or future. The belief that solutions are found with individuals, not the collective, is still America’s defining characteristic.
Confucius Never Said is at once a paean to the morality of genuinely Free Markets and the free exchange of wealth and ideas, as well as an alarm bell. Chinese Communism is again on the move. Once confined by its own stubborn adherence to a rigid state economy, Communist China, thorough corporatism and “economic reforms,” now stretches its arms of influence beyond its own borders and deeply into western economies. China’s allies include sworn enemies of America, and Communist China has never lost its appetite for control of world markets and vast swaths of resource-rich lands. This is why Helen Raleigh’s new book, a cautionary tale of the rise of Communism in 20th Century China, is more important today than ever before.
September 29, 2014
October 3, 2014
This is the latest in the series of memories and musings by Vietnam veteran, author, and friend, Forrest L. Gomez.
MEMORIES OF DAYS GONE BY:
I wish to bring attention to our female military veterans. My case in point is a veteran named Tony Gail Martin. She was an intelligent young woman, and was getting good grades at a California university in 1966. But she ran out of money to stay in school, so she joined the Women’s Army Corps (WACs), back when the WAC was a separate branch of the Army, and women were only allowed certain jobs. Tony was honor graduate in her basic training company at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and went on to be first in her classes in X-ray Technology and Dental Assistant. While going to school in Fort Sam Houston, Texas, she met and married an outstanding young man named Grant Lee Martin, a Green Beret.
At this time, the Vietnam War was in full swing. Tony and Grant enjoyed their lives together, but the inevitable orders came for Grant to go to Nam. While he was there, he earned the Distinguished Service Cross in the battles around Loc Ninh during the fierce fighting of 1968. Back home in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Tony used much of her time, before and after she left the Army in 1969, driving the families of Green Berets in Nam, and wounded Green Berets, to appointments and shopping in her yellow Volkswagen bug. The Green Berets at Fort Bragg gave her the nickname “The Green Beret Lady Bug Angel.” I have been told there is a plaque with her name on it somewhere at Fort Bragg.
Nobody knew much about PTSD in those days, and Grant was not able to settle quietly into their marriage after getting back from Nam. Consequently, the marriage of Tony and Grant did not survive. Tony moved back out to California after the divorce, then worked for, and eventually married Doctor Robert Borris. Tony and Bob were married happily for many years, until Bob passed away from cancer in 2004. Unfortunately, Tony Martin also passed away from liver failure nine months after Bob Borris.
Bob’s and Tony’s remains are interred in a Catholic cemetery in Hayward, California. The staff at the cemetery revealed several years ago that Green Berets and former Green Berets sometimes scale the cemetery walls at night, when the cemetery is locked up, and leave Special Forces memorabilia by Tony’s vault.
Long and short, Tony Martin left quite a legacy, and is still remembered as The Green Beret Lady Bug Angel, almost ten years after her passing. I miss her a lot. You see, Tony was my big sister. I chose her name for this tribute because she is the female veteran I know best. I pray that she is in the hands of Almighty God.
Pray for our veterans, and pray for one another, brothers and sisters. A lot of good folks gave years of their lives, and some their very lives, so that we can be free.
God be with you, one and all!
Posted with permission of the author by Reagangirl.com 10/3/14
October 2, 2014
Progressives and their Fracking Myths
- “I know of people whose kids leave their lights on and they’re not even in the house.”
- “People are getting asthma and COPD.”
- “Sick! People are just getting…sick!”
- “More people are getting Autism. Why are you laughing?”
- “I am offended by the language in the resolution.”
- “You need to take CO2 levels in the atmosphere seriously.”
- “When the last drop of oil runs out, you’ll be sorry.”
- “I don’t trust the scientific studies you cited.”
No, these are not the notes from a group therapy session with chronically depressed people. These are recorded testimonies from past County Commission hearings in Mesa County, Colorado, on the development of shale oil, Natural Gas, and other fossil fuels. Such mother fracking brainaics base their opposition on the solid science that…well…er…it just isn’t good for people or the earth or children or anything for that matter, and it causes Autism and asthma.
So what the frack is fracking and why is it scarier than Godzilla? Fracking, or Hydraulic Fracturing for you egg heads, is another process that takes place way down deep under the earth where no one can contract Autism or have an asthma attack. Pressurized water, or a similar fluid like Coke Zero, is forced into rocks which contain natural gas or oil, fracturing the “source rocks” so the fossil fuel can then travel to “reservoir rocks” where it is then pumped to the surface. Getting fracked sounds dramatic, but on the surface what you feel it is the equivalent of a cow fart, or a flea slipping on Jared Leto’s hair.
So why the frack do people line up at the Colorado Legislature to whine about how fossil fuel exploration and development causes Autism, and makes people sick, and causes kids to leave the lights on? Because they think oil derricks and natural gas well heads and oil shale operations are ugly. It is the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome on steroids. IDIOT (I Deem It Obnoxious, so There) is the syndrome suffered by these Western Liberals who hate any kind of development. They don’t like ugly things cluttering up their view. The funny thing is, all these boobs that lined up to whine at the Capitol drive ugly-arse, gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting, planet killing, polar bear murdering, habitat raping cars to get to there. I can say unequivocally that a natural gas well head, an oil derrick, and an oil shale slurpee machine are all a heck of a lot easier on the eyes than any Liberal’s “COEXIST” bumper sticker covered abomination.
Granted, the Oil Shale nut has not been as neatly cracked as Natural Gas and regular Oil. Granted, it is tricky to extract oil from rock-hard muck hundreds of feet underground. But it wasn’t easy to get to the moon either, and we did that 45 years ago. And nobody got Autism because we went to the moon. Oil Shale is an evolving industry, but the rock-hard muck has been recovered and used as a fuel as long ago as the 10th Century, way before Dustin Hoffman won his Oscar for Rainman. Oil Shale exploration and recovery is going great guns in Wyoming, Utah and far countries which never put a man on the moon. Oil Shale is extracted through drilling in a process that heats the shale in situ, which means way down under the earth where nobody can see the muck and no one will contract Autism. The process called “retorting” is not the art of being a smart ass, it is where the fossil fuel trapped within the shale separates from the rock hard stuff and is then pumped to the surface–sort of like the last agonizing swig of your Slurpee where your suck really really hard just to get the last little drop of blue raspberry diabetes potion down your gullet. Same idea, only you can’t make synthetic oil from blue raspberry Slurpee like you can from oil shale.
It has been said by reasonably sane people that “Western Colorado is the Saudi Arabia of Oil Shale.” Except for the bloated guys with greasy beards wearing night gowns and wedding veils who eat all day and herd harems of put-upon wives at night. There is a century’s worth of oil soaked rock-hard muck right under my tidy size eight stilettos. In fact, there is a couple century’s worth of Natural Gas in the Mountain West. And you know what else, there is more oil out here in America than anybody ever dreamed of. We are the Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and Jared Leto’s hair of oil in the 21st Century.
Let’s get serious for a minute about environmental impact. I love the earth. It is one of God’s crowning creations. I love children, I have a brood. I love animals, on a spit. I love blue sky and tall trees and a healthy ecosystem and big fat elk. Renewable energy such as solar, if developed to the point that it actually made a large scale difference, would destroy major swaths of the earth. For New York City to be electrified by solar energy would require an area the size of Arizona to be covered with solar arrays. Wind turbines are killing bats and some species of endangered birds in alarming numbers. Who on the left whines about wind farms murdering animals? How do they know that solar panels don’t cause Autism in bats, or asthma in Golden Eagles? Where’s the outcry? And you talk about ugly! The environmental footprints of solar and wind farms are like Godzilla; huge, ugly, and deadly! The environmental footprint of a natural gas well head is about the same as your patio. An oil derrick takes up about a Wawa’s worth of vertical space, and a Weinerschnitzel’s worth of square footage on the surface. And because the Energy Sector is largely Capitalistic and Conservative, they clean up after themselves and take their stuff when they leave.
So what, really, is all the bellyaching about coming from the Environmental curmudgeon army? They are people who simply aren’t happy. There always has to be a crisis. There always has to be a victim. There always has to be a transmitter of learning disabilities and illnesses to the helpless. And, they drive ugly cars.
In my opinion there are few things more beautiful than an oil rig, happily swaying up and down like a Drinking Dippy Bird, bringing up from deep in the Autism-free zone of the earth, the wonderful substance that can hurl my 1,500 lb car over three mountain passes to Denver and back, nearly 500 miles, on little more than a fill up. And I am a happy person. I enjoy my freedom, and the best standard of living the world has ever know in Capitalist America. And if certain bitter curmudgeons, Commie pinkos, and Enviro-Nazis will back off and let the brilliant energy sector do its job, we will all be more free and more happy.
By Marjorie Haun 10/2/14
September 30, 2014
Protect and Defend the U.S. from EMP Threat
From The Daily Signal, first published August 24, 2011
The United States could find itself in a precarious position much worse than the recent D.C. earthquake if attacked by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. An EMP would cause current and voltage surges and burn out the semi-conductor chips of all electronic devices within the line of sight. A single nuclear weapon detonated at a high altitude has the potential to instantly send the United States back to the 19th century. The Heritage Foundation recently devoted one of its public events to this important issue. As James Carafano, Baker Spring, and Richard Weitz argue, despite the EMP Commission’s 2004 and 2008 recommendations, hardly any progress has been made in protecting the country from the consequences of an EMP attack.
A long-range ballistic missile shot from Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea could deliver a nuclear payload to an altitude high enough to cause an EMP blast. Less technologically challenging short-range nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, launched from vessels such as freighters, tankers, or container ships off U.S. shores, could cause an EMP effect.
The best way to address the EMP threat is to build a robust missile defense system, comprised primarily of Aegis ballistic missile defense capable ships;Aegis Ashore, a land-based missile defense component; and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle capabilities. So far, the Obama Administration’s record is questionable. It has made massive cuts to the U.S. missile defense program and cancelled some of the most promising programs.
An EMP could be inflicted without an organized group behind it. With the right equipment, a lone terrorist could cause a blackout of a city—and he would not even need a nuclear weapon. The EMP effect can also be created during an electromagnetic solar storm—known as a Carrington effect—and could impact the grid the same way as a nuclear weapon.
It is imperative for the United States to prepare for an EMP attack. For about $200 million, the United States can harden the major transformers associated with major metropolitan areas. This relatively minor investment could save millions of American lives.
September 30, 2014
- The Tea Party App: This app links to the social networks of 2.7 million Tea Party, 9/12, Liberty, Patriot, Militia, Civitarian, Libertarian, and other groups throughout the country. Very popular with activists and operatives, through the instantaneous sharing of information the Tea Party App helps you find the closest rally, protest, public hearing, council meeting, townhall, or other function where you can join other like-minded folks by the thousands and scare the hell out of politicians who think it’s still 2008.
- The Gadsden Flag App: projects a holographic image of a waving Gadsden Flag. It is designed to be used along with the Tea Party App when you arrive at a rally or protest, and didn’t have time to grab the real thing.
- The Hayek App: It beeps an alarm signal when you have gone too far down the road to serfdom.
- The von Mises App: is a speech recognition app able to discern the difference between “Classical Liberal” rhetoric, and “Radical Leftist Liberal” rhetoric. The von Mises App is recommended for users who get confused about which school of Liberalism is the topic of political discussion. If the rhetoric is Classic Liberalism, “Human action is purposeful behavior,” for example, it will play a soothing harp tune. If the app detects Radical Leftist Liberal rhetoric, “I got me Obama phone,” for example, it will sound an alarm reminiscent of WWII-era Air Raid sirens.
- The Ronald Reagan App: Captures biofeedback and when it senses the onset of negative emotions sends a text message with an encouraging Reagan quote such as, “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free,” or “I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.”
- The John Wayne App: Offers support when you have a question about an important decision. You enter information about the situation followed by the hashtag #WWJWD and it offers up 3 suggestions for “What Would John Wayne Do?” in a given circumstance. THIS APP IS ESPECIALLY HELPFUL IN ARMED CONFRONTATIONS AND BAR FIGHTS.
- The American Flag App: Projects an image of the American flag waving in the breeze on any flat surface such as a wall. To be used in places where commie pinkos refuse to display the American flag.
- The “Make My Day” App: With the touch of a button this app makes the beautiful sound you hear when a twelve-gauge pump-action shotgun is being cocked. Very useful in dark places full of unruly Democrats.
- The Chris Kyle App: uses GPS and laser-assisted triangulation to help you increase your accuracy on the range. Used in conjunction with a high-powered sniper rifle, the Chris Kyle App is particularly helpful when your target over 1 mile away and is about the size of a human head.
- The Bill Clinton App: Use the settings in this app to protect all the women in your life. Using GPS technology it sends a customized alarm tone accompanied by a text message saying. “Watch your backside!” whenever former President Bill Clinton comes within one hundred yards of a woman’s vicinity.
- The “Ugly Liberal Women” App: This favorite among men is a simple application which accesses a cloud database of images of all ugly liberal women of the last 60 years. It’s very useful when your liberal friends ask why such a nice guy could be a conservative. Just open this app and they will clam up for months.
- The “Weak, Pencilneck Liberal Men” App: Works the same as the “Ugly Liberal Women” app, to be used to remind your lib gal friends that their men–if they have men–are pussies.
- The “Lower Education” App: uses a cloud database of all the “in the name of Heaven, don’t send your kid there” Stalinist-infiltrated, crazy commie pinko pervert colleges and universities in the country. It’s easy to use. Just enter the name of an institution and it will give a rundown of all administrators, faculty, and other staffers that belong to the Communist Party of America, Socialist Party of America, North American Man-Boy Love Association, New Domestic Subversives Brigade, and others. This app is a little buggy because of the need for almost daily updates due to the increasing number of American colleges being run by former KGB agents.
- The Patton App: This application is used exclusively by men in combat. It works to boost morale and incite courage during the heat of battle. The app projects a holographic image of General George S. Patton in his field uniform saying the following words, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
- The R. Lee Ermey App: Simpy sync this app with all your Internet media accounts and with the touch of an icon you can leave an R. Lee Ermey-generated comment on any blog, newspaper, and even Facebook and Twitter. The following comments generated by the R. Lee Ermey App were found on Huffpo and Think Progress websites: “What the hell is wrong with you people? Were you born ugly, or did your mama use your face as a meat tenderizer?” and, “You sniveling bawl-babies make me puke. Like dumb shits you spew your Commie Pinko lies like there was no tomorrow. You disgust me!” and the favorite, “Drop and kiss the ground you spineless, witless piece of flea crap! Fifty push-ups now, if you wanna live you pathetic maggot!”
Stay tuned when next month we churn out the NextGen of Conservative Smart Phone apps.
by Marjorie Haun 7/19/14
September 27, 2014
Rebuttal of NYT’s and arms control advocates’ lies
Originally posted by author, Zbigniew Mazurak on September 26, 2014
The advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament are at it again. They’ve launched yet another attack on the US nuclear arsenal – the only thing that is deterring Russia, China, and North Korea from attacking the US with nuclear weapons.
But fear not, Dear Reader. The pro-disarmament-crowd’s latest media attack on the US nuke deterrent is yet another litany of blatant lies that don’t even pass the laugh test. They are the same old tired lies that the treasonous pro-disarmament crowd has been peddling for many years. Evidently, like their intellectual godfather, Joseph Goebbels, they believe that repeating a lie a hundred times makes it true.
But it doesn’t.
The New York Times ran a story this week about the Defense Department’s nuclear arsenal modernization plan. America’s current ballistic missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and associated nuclear warheads – built during the 1970s and 1980s – are aging out and will need to be replaced soon.
Not wanting to miss an opportunity to disarm America unilaterally, the anti-nuclear Left – led by the NYT and pro-unilateral-disarmament groups – is conducting a propaganda campaign falsely claiming that the modernization/replacement effort will cost $1 trillion, that nuclear weapons are supposedly useless, that this conflicts with Barack Obama’s pledge to seek a “world without nuclear weapons”, etc.
Needless to say, all of their claims are blatant lies.
The Cost Of Nuclear Modernization
Firstly, the $1 trillion figure comes from an anti-nuclear propaganda pamphlet cooked up at the extremely-leftist, anti-nuclear Monterrey Institute for International Studies and was personally rigged by well-known anti-nuclear hacks such as Jeffrey Lewis (who has been proven wrong on many issues, including the range of China’s ballistic missiles and the size of China’s nuclear arsenal).
To say it very politely, Lewis is not an authority on nuclear weapons or defense spending.
Wildly exaggerating the costs of nuclear modernization is an old tactic of unilateral disarmament advocates, dating back decades. It’s nothing new. The anti-nuclear Ploughshares Fund has been caught doing so. It’s no surprise the liberal MIIS is now lying so blatantly as well.
And even if the $1 trillion figure were correct – which it isn’t – it refers to planned spending on nuclear modernization over the span of THREE DECADES. That is, MIIS claims the US will spend $1 trillion over a span of 30 years on nuclear modernization.
Simple math tells us that $1 trillion divided by thirty is around $33 bn per year. That works out to around 5-6% of the DOD’s annual budget (around $600 bn per year).
It is ridiculous to claim that a Department that has an annual budget of around $600 bn – larger than the GDP of most countries in the world – can’t afford to spend a meagre 5-6% of its budget on modernizing and preserving America’s nuclear deterrent.
Therefore, the claims of dinosaur politicians like former Clinton Defense Sec. William Perry and anti-nuclear hacks such as ex-Gen. James Cartwright (Obama’s “favorite general”) that the Obama administration’s modernization plans are “unaffordable” are completely false prima facie.
In fact, over the next 30 years, the DOD is poised to spend $20 trillion on all sorts of military things. $1 trillion is a tiny fraction (5%) out of that figure.
Moreover, if the DOD’s nuclear modernization plans are “unaffordable” (which they are not), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to develop and procure 2,443 short range fighters is even more so unaffordable, with a price tag of $400 bn to develop and procure and an additional $1 trillion to operate over 50 years! $1.4 trillion for a fleet of far less capable systems!
Compared to this, nuclear weapons are cheap.
Anti-nuclear hacks such as those on the “National Defense Panel” also falsely claim that also falsely claim that nuclear modernization spending will siphon lots of money from America’s conventional forces.
But that is also a blatant lie. As stated above, nuclear modernization will cost only 5% of the DOD budget over the next 30 years.
Moreover, nuclear modernization programs aren’t the costliest ones in the DOD’s budget plans. Not even close. A recently released “Weapon Systems Factbook” by the CSBA documents this.
CSBA’s “Factbook” says the DOD will need to invest $73 bn to develop and build 100 stealthy bombers and $90 bn to build replacements for America’s current, obsolete, noisy, and ageing ballistic missile subs (SSBNs). (The bomber program will, in fact, cost only $55 bn, not the $73 bn that the CSBA claims.)
That’s $163 bn in total, per the CSBA “Factbook.”
By far the most expensive weapon program in the DOD’s current plans, and indeed in US history, is the conventional F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, aiming to develop an aircraft that can do everything from air superiority to close air support, but which in reality will produce an aircraft mediocre at every task.
This program will in fact develop and procure a fleet of partially stealthy, short-ranged, slow, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, poorly armed, useless “strike fighters” designed for strikes against massive Soviet tank armies in Germany – a threat that no longer exists. It is now intended by the USAF to fight enemy aircraft and go into airspace protected by modern SAM systems – missions it is utterly incapable of performing.
The F-35 is also short-ranged, with a combat radius of about 1,800-1,900 kms at most, meaning that, like other US fighters, it would need to use bases close to potential adversary countries – bases that are well within the range of enemy medium range ballistic and cruise missiles. As Congressmen Randy Forbes and Chris Stewart explain here, cutting spending on bombers to protect short-range fighters would be a grave mistake.
Per CSBA’s Factbook, the F-35 has already cost taxpayers $100 bn and will cost another $251.3 bn in the coming years to complete the program.
That is $88.3 bn more than the cost of the long-range strike bomber and new ballistic missile submarine programs COMBINED! And that is using the CSBA’s grossly exaggerated estimate of the bomber program’s cost!
In other words, if the DOD cancelled the useless F-35 Junk Strike Fighter, it could pay the entire cost of both the new bomber and the new ballistic missile sub programs COMBINED and still make a saving of $88.3 bn!
“Oh, but other dastardly nuclear weapon programs will siphon more money”, anti-nuclear propagandists will claim.
No, they won’t. The other nuclear weapon programs the DOD has in store, the Trident II missile and the B61 nuclear bomb toolkit, will cost $5.6 bn and $1.2 bn, respectively, a total of $6.8 bn. Paying for them from savings generated by F-35 cancellation would still leave the DOD with a saving of $81.7 bn!
In fact, if the DOD simply cancelled the F-35 program, it could pay for upgrading F-15s and F-16s, prolonging their service lives by decades, building all the planned 100 stealthy long range bombers and 12 replacements for Ohio class submarines, for the Trident missile, for B61 modernization, for the KC-46 tanker, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia class of attack submarines, and dozens of other weapon programs – and still have healthy savings left.
(Speaking of the V-22 Osprey, can’t the CH-46 do the job? Some naval aviators, such as Jack McCain, believe it can.)
So contrary to anti-nuke propagandists’ claims, no, the Long Range Strike Bomber and the Ohio class replacement will NOT crush conventional weapon programs. The F-35 Junk Strike Fighter will.
The proverbial elephant in the room is the F-35.
Moreover, the Long Range Strike Bomber will be as much a conventional weapon platform as a nuclear one. It is needed for both conventional and (if need be) nuclear strike. It is needed because America’s potential foes (Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and even Iran and North Korea) possess such sophisticated air defense systems (especially the first three countries) that America’s nonstealthy bombers (B-52s and B-1s) can’t go into their airspace, and B-2’s stealth technology is 1980s vintage. Moreover, the USAF has only 20 B-2s – way too little for any effective campaign against even a mid-sized adversary.
Unsurprisingly, the National Defense Panel, which the NY Slimes quotes so approvingly, strongly supports the Long Range Strike Bomber (p. 45):
“Whether the aircraft is designed to be manned, unmanned, or “optionally manned,” the need to bring such an aircraft into service by the mid-2020s, when modern air defenses will put the B-2 bomber increasingly at risk, is compelling. We are concerned that continued budget cuts and the resulting programmatic instability would jeopardize this critical investment.”
The need for the LRSB has been irrefutably proven time and again.
The Need For Nuclear Modernization
Anti-nuclear hacks such as the CLW’s Kingston Reif – who has been proven wrong on every issue he’s written about – protest, however, that nuclear weapons are “useless” for countering any threats to US national security, so it doesn’t matter if they cost little. In a recent screed published by DefenseOne, Reif and his fellow CLW hack Angela Canterbury falsely claim:
“But the most explosive (literally) power tool has neither prevented nor will be useful in addressing any of today’s international security issues: nuclear weapons. The current U.S. arsenal of approximately 4,800 nuclear warheads is a Cold War anachronism. (…) The current modernization plan is geared towards building nuclear weapons that we don’t need and can’t afford.”
They also falsely call the new National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund “a nuclear submarine slush fund”.
In another screed for DefenseOne, Rep. Mike Quigley, a liberal Democrat from Illinois, falsely claimed that:
“not every element of NATO’s power is useful in combating the Russian threat to European security. NATO’s nuclear weapons strategy in Europe is no longer relevant… (…) The nuclear weapons we deployed for the Cold War, which ended two decades ago, are simply not the same weapons we need for the “hot” war threat that our eastern NATO allies, and Ukraine, face today.”
But they are dead wrong, because nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to countering threats to America’s security. The gravest of these threats are the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iran’s ambition to develop its own atomic weapons.
ONLY nuclear weapons can protect the US and its allies from these grave threats.
The nation’s second most senior military officer, Adm. James Winnefeld, understands this, which is why he said earlier this year at the Atlantic Council:
“If we consider that at the top of our list of national security interests is probably the survival of our nation, then at the top of the list of threats to that interest is a massive nuclear attack from Russia.”
Indeed, the Russian nuclear threat is the gravest of all. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is huge, numbering anywhere between 6,800 (per the FAS) and 8,000 (per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) nuclear weapons, deployed and nondeployed.
In early September, while NATO leaders were gathered in Wales for a NATO summit, Russian nuclear-armed bombers simulated (for the upteenth time since 2012) a nuclear strike on the US! Shortly thereafter, they tested the air defenses of northern European countries, again carrying deadly nuclear payloads… then practiced a strike on the US again, but the much-maligned F-22 Raptors intercepted them.
Russia’s nuclear triad numbers over 400 ICBMs (capable of delivering over 1,600 nukes to the continental US), 13 ballistic missile subs (boomers) capable of delivering over 2,000 warheads to America’s shores, and 251 strategic bombers capable of delivering another 1,400 nuclear warheads to the US. The Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads.
On top of that, Russia’s attack and cruise missile submarines can deliver further over 1,000 atomic warheads to the US on their cruise missiles.
And as Russia replaces older, single- or low-number-warhead missiles (like the Topol) with newer ones (e.g. Yars, Bulava, and Liner), capable of carrying more warheads, Russia’s nuclear arsenal will only grow.
So Russia’s nuclear arsenal will grow STILL FURTHER, with new, “offensive” nukes aimed against the US and NATO.
Even larger is Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal, estimated at 4,000 warheads and deliverable by a wide range of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, surface ships, tactical aircraft, artillery pieces, and other systems.
China also has a large nuclear arsenal, estimated at between 1,600 (per General Viktor Yesin) and 3,000 (per Dr Philip Karber, the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist under President Reagan) warheads and the means to deliver many of them. It currently has at least 75 (and likely many more) ICBMs capable of reaching the US, including at least 55 multiple-warhead ICBMs (DF-5s, DF-31s, DF-41s) capable of striking the Continental US.
Both Russia and China are rapidly growing, not cutting, their atomic arsenal. In these circumstances, it would be utterly suicidal for the US to cut – or neglect to modernize – its own nuclear deterrent. It would be an invitation of a nuclear first strike by Russia or China.
And that’s before mentioning North Korea, which already has miniaturized nuclear warheads it can mate to missiles, and ICBMs capable of delivering them to the US.
America’s Allies Get It; American Anti-Nuke Activists Don’t
Hardly surprising, then, that America’s European allies – especially those most threatened by Russia – have also once again underlined the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated: “The current situation reaffirms the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy.”
Because America’s nuclear weapons also serve another vitally important function: reassuring them that they are protected by the US, safe from potential aggressors like Russia and China, and therefore don’t need to develop their own nukes.
But they will if the US continues to cut its arsenal. Already 66% of South Koreans want their country to “go nuclear”; Poland’s former President Lech Walesa has said his country should do the same; Saudi Arabia has already ordered nuclear warheads in Pakistan andDF-21 ballistic missiles in China; and Japan has opened a facility that can produce 3,600 nuclear warheads in a year if Tokyo ever decides to “go nuclear.”
And if America continues to cut its own arsenal, they won’t have any alternative. They cannot afford to bet their security and their very survival on American liberals’ fantasies of “a world without nuclear weapons”. They know that Reif’s and another anti-nuclear hacks’ claims that “nuclear weapons are useless” are patently false.
So if America continues to cut its nuclear arsenal, we will see MORE nuclear arms and MORE nuclear-weapon-wielding states in the world, not fewer. Potential enemies, emboldened by America’s disarmament, will arm themselves. Nervous allies, worried about their security, will also obtain nuclear weapons. 66% of South Koreans also want their country to do so. Japan is ready to do likewise the moment its Prime Minister decides to do so.
Therefore, no matter how much nuclear modernization will cost, it is a national security imperative – and even the anti-nuclear President Obama has realized it.
Forget About The “Nuke-Free World” Fantasy
Critics claim that by pursuing it, he’s violating his pledge to seek “a world without nuclear weapons.”
But he isn’t. There is nothing inconsistent with seeking a long-term goal of such a fantasy world (which will never exist) while modernizing the US nuclear arsenal to maintain it for the foreseeable future.
From the beginning of his first presidential campaign, Obama was saying explicitly that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the US will have to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal.
And let’s be honest: there will never be a world without nuclear weapons. There is zero chance of such a world existing. More and more countries are developing nuclear weapons or at least considering it and talking openly about it. The world is heading towards MORE nuclear arms and more nuclear weapon possessing states.
Obama’s “nuclear-free world” was always a totally unrealistic, childish fantasy. It should’ve never been pursued.
But when the NYT and anti-nuclear groups like the “Council for a Livable World” and the “Arms Control Association” complain that nuclear modernization plans impede the goal of “nuclear disarmament”, they are not talking about GLOBAL nuclear disarmament.
No, they are talking about their long-held goal of the nuclear disarmament of the United States. That is what they seek and have always sought.
Their goal is not to free the world from nuclear weapons. Their goal is to disarm the US unilaterally and to expose it to Russian and Chinese nuclear attack.
They must be stopped at all costs.
Reposted with permission of the author 9/27/14