Democratic National Circus! Part Two

Only 59 Days Remaining!

Another Proud Moment for the Left

Yesterday, our conversation centered on omissions from the Democratic Presidential Platform, of “God” and of the affirmation that Jerusalem is and will always be the capital of Israel.  The narrative also described the inexplicable difficulty in returning both of these omissions to the Platform.  In all, three votes were required and still failed to produce the level of consensus required for approval of their return.  That did not stop the Chairman of the Convention, Antonio Villaraigosa, from dutifully reading his pre-scripted teleprompter and announcing that the Aye’s had achieved a 2/3 majority and the measure was passed.

There can be no question that this incident involved conscious decisions, lies and very nearly an open declaration of hostility towards Israel from Democratic Party Delegates.

But, this was not the only “ground ball” for finding lies among the Democrat hierarchy.  Earlier in the Circus, DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was questioned about a statement she had attributed to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren:

   “what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel,”[1]

Ambassador Oren quickly responded to the alleged quote, stating that:

“I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”[2]

When Wasserman-Schultz was asked about the quote and subsequent denial by the Ambassador, her response was not only that she had been misquoted, but that she had been deliberately misquoted. Her precise response – of a type becoming more and more typical of the Democratic Party:

“’I didn’t say he [Ambassador Oren] said that,’ Wasserman Schultz insisted. ‘And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me.’”[3]

Examiner Senior Editorial Writer Philip Klein, who made the initial report, then produced the audio proving that Wasserman-Schultz had made exactly the statement he quoted in his previous column. [4]  When later asked if she intended to offer Mr. Klein an apology, Wasserman-Schultz allegedly answered “with a slight laugh,”  “No, I definitely will not.”[5] 

Another “Class” moment for the Obama camp – another moment that marginalizes and ridicules their own base.

TO BE CONTINUED…



[1] Douglas Bloomfield, (Sep. 6, 2012), The Jewish Weekly web-site, The Jewish Week/Political Insider, Debbie Does Damage,” retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political-insider/debbie-does-damage

[2] Ibid.

[3] Philip Klein, Senior Editorial Writer, (Sep. 4, 2012), The Examiner web-site, Politics, Beltway Confidential, DWS Attacks Examiner for ‘Deliberately’ Misquoting her, but here’s the Audio, retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://washingtonexaminer.com/dws-attacks-examiner-for-deliberately-misquoting-her-but-heres-the-audio/article/2506980#.UEuST6OO6So

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ken Shepherd, (Sep. 5, 2012), Newsbusters web-site, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Refuses to Apologize to Reporter She Falsely Charged with Misquoting Her, retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/09/05/debbie-wasserman-schultz-refuses-apologize-reporter-she-falsely-charge

 

Democratic National Circus! Part One

Only 60 Days Remaining!

Obama and Israel – Really???

For the past two weeks, voters have been treated to the rare opportunity to observe a microcosm of the ideologies that drive both the Republican and Democratic Parties today – ideologies that affect the lives of all Americans.

Predictably, the first of the two national conventions was “conservative” (no pun intended).  Speakers cited the reasons for supporting Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and they were not shy about enumerating the policy failures of the past four years.  The emphasis however, was not on the past, but on the future and on what a Romney presidency would mean to the country and to our economic recovery.  Noticeably absent from the narrative was an “Obama bash fest.”  With the exception of an imaginative skit by actor Clint Eastwood, references to the president were largely measured and respectful, albeit critical of his policies.

By comparison, last week was an entertaining, but disturbing circus.  Much like the Obama presidency itself, the Democratic National Convention  was a spectacle of questionable decisions, illusions and insults to the intellect of American voters.  Here, over the next few days, are just a few of what I sincerely hope most readers will see as additional “Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama.”  The future of our country depends on it.

Issue #1

Midway through the Convention, it was discovered that Obama had omitted “GOD” from the Party Platform.  It was also discovered that he had omitted any reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  These were not just absent from the Platform.  They were removed from the Party’s previous presidential Platform.  It was a conscious decision.  This was first exposed in an interview by FoxNews Anchor Bret Baier with Senator Dick Durban (D-IL).  When asked to explain the basis for these omissions, Durbin became visibly agitated and defensive, suggesting that Fox and Baier were attempting to paint the Democrats as “Godless.”  But, despite Durbin’s reaction, we soon saw  Convention Chair Antonio Villaraigosa calling for a voice vote from delegates, in order to return God and Jerusalem to the Platform.  Most Americans, I think, would suspect that such a voice vote would be a mere formality.

Not so.

The first call for “Yea” or “Nay” produced an indiscernable difference in shouting volume between the two camps.  A noticeably confused Villaraigosa called for a second vote – same result.  Villaraigosa, as if searching for advice, stopped and looked to staff members – one of whom told him

“You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re gonna do.”[1]

He again repeated the process.  Results?  Still the same.

Then, with amazing finality, Chairman Villaraigosa looked straight into the camera, announcing that:

                 “In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative.”[2]

The truth is that the difference between “Yea” and “Nay” votes was barely discernable, if at all.  The suggestion that either side won by a 2/3 majority is sheer fantasy.   As we later discovered, Chairman Villaraigosa’s “Opinion” had already been posted to his teleprompter.  He could have no other opinion.  The “Party” had spoken – he was just the face.  We have to wonder if this is the process that Obama has followed in his alleged efforts to reach compromise and bipartisan solutions in Washington.  No wonder Republican Governors want voter I.D.!!!

The bigger, far more troubling part of this saga however, is that rank and file members of the Democratic Party, in large numbers, voted against returning “God” and Jerusalem to the Party Platform.

At the close of the convention when Cardinal Dolan gave the Benediction, the “Amens” were plentiful and loud – as loud as the “Yea’s” and “Nays” of the earlier votes.  We can only surmise from this, that the controversial issue for rank and file Democrats was not “God,” but the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.  This of course, begs the question of 1) whether or not the Democratic Party has, under Obama, become hostile to Israel; and 2) Who, in the Democratic Party was “testing the waters,” by removing “God” from the Platform.  While all of his minions were racing around to certify that the omissions were made without Obama’s knowledge and that he was proactive and adamant in having them re-inserted in the Platform, the fact remains that it was Obama’s Platform.  Were its writers using accepted boilerplate language, both items would have been included, because they had been there in 2008.  It is far more likely that these omissions represented a conscious decision executed with Obama’s personal approval – or even more likely – at his direction.

In the opinion of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), DNC Chairperson, none of this amounted to more than a “Technical Correction.”

TO BE CONTINUED…


[1] LA Times, (September 6, 2012), La Times web-site, Awkward moments for Villaraigosa during God, Israel vote at DNC, retrieved Sept. 7, 2012 from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-dnc-vote.html

[2] Ibid.

Obama and Miracles of Logic!

Only 63 Days Remaining!

President Obama may be one of the most prolific speakers of  all the politicians in our history.  He is the speaking equivalent to literally thousands of windmills, albeit windmills designed for moving volumes of hot air.  Although he promised to be the most transparent president in history, he has proven one of the most opaque.  Indeed, it has been the frequency of his speeches that supports his claim of transparency – and their content that makes his presidency opaque.

How many speeches has Obama made about businessmen out to cheat the consumer?  How many speeches has he dedicated to the promise of protecting citizens from the evil clutches of big business?  Aside from signing the Dodd-Frank bill, he even created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  So, there’s transparency!  Right?

We’re no doubt in for a lot of Obama’s “Transparency” over the next few days of the DNC.  And convinced of the absolute truth and justice of every Obama utterance and action, the mainstream media is understandably reluctant to ask even a few mundane questions that might suggest reasonable doubt.  For example:

1)  If Dodd Frank is really designed to protect consumers, why does it expand the power of the Federal Reserve?  Is that a good thing?

2)  If  Obamacare has already caused a reduction of $716 billion dollars in Medicare funding, exactly how is it that Obama argues he is protecting Medicare and improving health care to seniors?

3)  The daughter of a 105 year old woman once explained to Obama that at 99, her mother needed a pacemaker and that nothing could be done for her without it.  In other words, she would die without it.  The doctor, after seeing the woman’s energy and love for life, o.k.d the operation and the woman lived at least 6 years longer.  When she asked Obama if this could happen under Obamacare, the answer was no and that sometimes it was better just to give them a pill.  How is it that Obama can take such a position while sneering at the suggestion that Obamacare contains a “Death Panel?”

4) Obama  claims  responsibility for 29 straight months of job growth  and the creation of millions of jobs.  WHO CARES?  If he created 50 billion jobs and the unemployment rate goes up (as it is) and workforce participation goes down (as it has), what do those jobs matter?  Does anybody get it?

5) If Obama can make people believe he’s saving Medicare, producing jobs, and looking  out for the middle class, why hasn’t he bypassed Congress as usual and issued an Executive Order removing himself from office?

Now that would be logical!

Obama: Cops will Harass Hispanics – Reason #90

Only 65 Days Remaining!

Obama: Cops Will Harass Hispanics

Over the past three years, Obama has worked hard to inflame the passions of Hispanics and especially illegal immigrants.  It was Obama who used the bully pulpit to create a chasm between Arizona Latinos and the Governor and law enforcement officials.  He used the media to let Latinos know that:

“If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.”[i]

There is very little difference between this statement and the principle behind the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany.  Obama needs always to find a common enemy that he can use to divide and polarize our nation.  Here, as in other statements, he makes clear that honest American immigrants should fear and distrust law enforcement officers – officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve their fellow Americans.

Many people have pointed to Obama’s past as a Community Organizer and professional agitator; and theorized that he would like nothing more than to create more divisiveness in America and to manipulate that divisiveness into more votes for the Democrats – particularly, for himself.  Well, here it is.  In Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address, the most divisive President in history, told us that:

“Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation[ii]…let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.”[iii]

This is another Obama cheap shot and a “twofer.”  He is advocating a direct path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students – hoping to foster divisiveness between Latinos and the Republican Party.  Obama offers up a bill, which he puts on others to create – essentially the same as the questionable DREAM Act, which has already faced bipartisan opposition in Congress and which some say, amounts to opening “the door to allow millions of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.”[iv]  (Note: Since this writing, Obama has unilaterally enacted what amounts to the DREAM Act, completely bypassing Congress.  A lawsuit has been filed against the Administration by ten agents, alleging that they are being ordered not to enforce the Immigration laws.)

At the same time, he disingenuously casts the Republican Party as anti-immigrant, hoping to gain the vote of Latinos, while ignoring the economic and crime problems being experienced by residents along the Southwest border.


[i] President Barack Obama, (April 27, 2010), White House.gov Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President at Ottumwa, Iowa Town Hall, retrieved November 2, 2010 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-ottumwa-iowa-town-hall

[ii] Note:  If they face the daily threat of deportation, they are illegal immigrants

[iii] President Barack Obama, (Jan 24, 2012), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, retrieved January 25, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/2012-state-union-address-enhanced-version#transcript

[iv] Lamar Smith (Mar. 20, 2012), FoxNews.com web-site, The Truth About the DREAM Act, retrieved March 22, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/20/truth-about-dream-act/

Hate is for Campaigns – and Campaigning is Always! – Reason #88

Only 67 Days Remaining!

Hate is for Campaigns – Campaigning is Always

As he accepted his Party’s nomination for President in 2008, then Senator Obama laid out his case for change.  Among the fundamental promises made by the nominee was the promise of political discourse without the type of gutter sniping that has come to characterize Washington, DC.  Obama – in a manner that had to be pleasing to both Republicans and Democrats at the time – pledged:

“But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator [McCain] takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.”[i]

Events moved fast after that speech and it seemed like there had been hardly time to draw a breath before President Obama was vilifying and marginalizing Tea Party participants as “Tea Baggers,”[ii]waving imaginary tea bags in the air as he talked about them; calling on Hispanic voters to “punish our enemies;” [iii] and  “referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws…as not being ‘…the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.’”[iv]   Ridiculing the Arizona legislature’s attempt to pass a strict immigration law, Obama told attendees at the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner:

“Unfortunately, (Senator) John McCain (R-AZ) couldn’t make it.  Recently, he claimed that he had never identified himself as a Maverick – and we all know what happens in Arizona when you don’t have I.D. – Adios Amigos!”[v]

As Obama was personally making these comments, he was also leading a Party, whose members were making such comments as “the ‘tea party’ can go straight to hell,”[vi] that members of Congress with the Tea Party movement, would like to see blacks treated as “second class citizens” and “…hanging on a tree,”[vii]or that “…the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”[viii]

How can we not admire the new level of civil discourse promoted by Barack Obama?


[i] Senator Barack Obama, (Aug. 28, 2008), ABC News web-site, Barack Obama Makes History as First African American Nominee of Major Political Party, retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/barack-obama-makes-history-african-american-nominee-major/story?id=5680403&singlePage=true

[ii] Jonathan Alter, The Promise: President Obama, Year One, (New York, 2010, Simon & Schuster), 129

[iii] President Barack Obama (Oct. 25, 2010), Story by John McCormack, (Oct. 25, 2010), The Weekly Standard, The Blog, Obama to Latinos: “Punish” Your “Enemies” in the Voting Booth, retrieved December 18, 2011, from http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html

[iv] Ibid

[v] President Barack Obama (May 1, 2010), C-SPAN.Org, C-SPAN’s White House Dinner Hub, 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, retrieved May 2, 2010 from http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/01/HP/A/32352/2010+White+House+Correspondents+Dinner.aspx

[vi] Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), quoted by L.A. Times (Aug. 20, 2011), LA Times web-site, Rep. Maxine Waters: ‘The tea party can go straight to hell’, retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/tea-party-maxine-waters-hell.html

[vii] Rep. Andre Carson (March 10, 2011), Story by Judson Berger, (Aug 31, 2011), FoxNews web-site, Rep. Andre Carson: Tea Party Wants to See Black Americans ‘Hanging on a Tree’, retrieved December 18, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/31/rep-carson-tea-party-wants-to-see-black-americans-hanging-on-tree/

[viii] Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), quoted by Rick Klein (Sep 30, 2009), ABC News Web-site, Democratic Rep.: ‘Republicans Want You to Die Quickly’, retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/democratic-rep-republicans-want-you-to-die-quickly/

Words Matter – People: Not so Much – Reason #86

Only 69 Days Remaining!

Words Matter – People: Not so Much

Anyone can make an honest mistake.  There are mistakes of the head and mistakes of the heart.  We may forget dry facts in a textbook, or statistics we hear on the news.  We normally do not forget about America’s brave warriors serving in the Armed Forces – and we particularly do not forget about our fallen heroes…because we care.  The following then, is not important just as a gaffe.  It is important because it shows how detached Obama is from the families across America whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Country, our freedoms and the freedom of people around the world.  It shows the difference between a President who is engaged and caring and a President who merely reads – without emotion – from a teleprompter.

On Memorial Day, 2008, Presidential Candidate Obama, speaking in Las Cruces, New Mexico, said:

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today…”[i]

These words were brought forth by the inspiring and eloquent political candidate, who announced to all Americans that “Words Matter.”

But, perhaps, people…not so much.


[i] Barack Obama, (May 26, 2008), quoted by Rush Limbaugh, (May 27, 2008), The Rush Limbaugh Show web-site, Barack Obama Sees Dead People, retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2008/05/27/barack_obama_sees_dead_people

Border Agent Dead – Holder Apologizes…by Email – Reason #85

Only 70 Days Remaining!

Border Agent Dead – Holder Apologizes…by Email

Asked by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), during a Nov. 8, 2011 hearing on “gun walking” Operation “Fast and Furious,” whether or not he had ever apologized to the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Attorney General Eric Holder replied that he had not apologized to them.  Asked if he had even spoken with them, he responded:

“I have not.” [i]

This was a hearing occurring 11 months after the murder of Agent Terry by drug traffickers using assault rifles allowed – in a botched operation by Holder’s Dept. of Justice – to cross the border into Mexico.

Finally, after avoiding an apology to the family of the slain agent during the his Nov. 8th Congressional testimony, Attorney General Holder went on to claim that:

“It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that happened in Fast and Furious directly led to the death of agent Terry.” [ii]

The following day – Nov. 9th, 2011 – Holder reportedly sent a letter of apology – via email – to Brian Terry’s sister, leaving it to her to share the letter with the remainder of Brian’s family.  The letter was also allegedly released to Politico.com.[iii]

On February 3, 2012, Agent Terry’s mother responded through a Facebook entry, saying:

“Josephine Terry”

“Mr. Holder. How come you can never say my son’s name. You never have. All I ever hear you say is ‘I didn’t find out or I can’t say’ I’m actually tired of hearing your double talk in answering questions. What a joke you are. You know my son was a real AMERICAN, a WARRIOR, and a HERO, who was also protecting COWARD POLITICIANS like you. Hope you remember that.”[iv]


[i] Fred Lucas, (Nov. 8, 2011), CNS news web-site, No Apology: Holder Says ‘Not Fair’ to Assume Fast and Furious ‘Directly’ Led to Border Agent’s Death, retrieved February 26, 2012 from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-apology-holder-says-not-fair-assume-fast-and-furious-directly-led-border-agent-s

[ii] Ibid

[iv] Posted by Tiffany Gabbay, (Feb. 3, 2012), The Blaze web-site, Murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s Mother to Eric Holder: You‘re a ’Coward‘ and a ’Joke’, retrieved on February 26, 2012 from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/murdered-border-patrol-agent-brian-terrys-mother-to-eric-holder-youre-a-coward-and-a-joke/

Fund Raiser or Memorial? What to do? An Obama Dilemma – Reason #83

Only 72 Days Remaining!

Fund Raiser or Memorial?  Decisions – Decisions

It was nearly two months before the President met with the families of the 11 oil rig workers killed in  the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010.   Worse, he did not attend a May 25, 2010 memorial service for the dead.  When asked why, his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, reportedly said “I’d have to look at the schedule. I don’t know the answer.” [i]

Coincidentally perhaps, the President did find time in his schedule that day, to appear at a California fund raiser for Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA).[ii]


[i] Abby Livingston, (June 11, 2010), CNN Political Ticker Blog, President Attended Fundraiser During Gulf Memorial Service, retrieved June 4, 2011 from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/president-headed-to-fundraiser-during-gulf-memorial-service/?fbid=1X3uo6JsabL

[ii] Ibid

How does a President Forget the Recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor? – Reason #82

Only 73 Days Remaining!

Medal of Honor Recipient Forgotten

On June 23, 2011, speaking to members of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, President Obama – Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s armed forces – reminded the soldiers that:

“…First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to, who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[i]

This could have been a fine moment for a President remembering an American hero….except for one flaw in his speech.  President Obama presented Staff Sergeant Jared Monti’s Medal of Honor, posthumously, to his parents at a White House ceremony conducted on September 17, 2009. [ii]  Sgt. Monti was killed in action on June 21, 2006.[iii]

These should be moments indelibly etched on the mind of a caring person – let alone a caring President…unless, of course, they don’t care.


[i] President Barack Obama, (June 23, 2011), White House.gov Speeches & Remarks, Remarks of the President to Soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York retrieved November 15, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/23/remarks-president-soldiers-10th-mountain-division-fort-drum-new-york

[ii] Ibid

[iii] United States Army, (2011), Medal of Honor Official Citation for actions of Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti, Operation Enduring Freedom, retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/monti/citation.html

Can Obama’s America Defend Itself and the World?? – Reason #81

Only 74 Days Remaining!

Will Obama Short-Change America’s Deterrent?

On Thursday, February 16, 2012, 34 members of Congress sent a letter to the White House, cautioning against further cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal – this, in response to an apparent plan by President Obama, for unilaterally reducing America’s nuclear strength by as much as 80%.[i]  In the unlikely event that a cut of that size is called for, the U.S. would be reduced to approximately 300 nuclear warheads: leaving an “arsenal about the size of France’s Force de Frappe.[ii]  The Congressional letter states, in part:

“At a time when every other nuclear weapons state has an active nuclear weapons modernization program and many are growing their stockpiles and capabilities, it is inconceivable to us that you would lead the United States down such a dangerous plan as has been reported…. [W]e seek to understand the basis on which you would instruct the National Security Staff to pursue these radical reductions in U.S. nuclear forces.” [iii]

The Congressman go on to cite the assessment of retired General Kevin Chilton, who testified in 2010 that “…the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent.” [iv]

According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.”  General McInerney reportedly went on to say:

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”[v]

The letter from members of Congress also reminded President Obama that:

“We are doubly concerned that you have abandoned your pledge to support the U.S. nuclear weapons modernization program by your latest budget submission.” [vi]

What does this mean as a practical matter?  America is reportedly the only holder of nuclear weapons not modernizing its systems.  Following the 2008 Presidential elections, General Kevin Chilton illustrated to the Wall Street Journal

“…a prop to illustrate his point: a glass bulb about two inches high. ‘This is a component of a V-61’ nuclear warhead,’ he says. It was in ‘one of our gravity weapons’ — a weapon from the 1950s and ’60s that is still in the U.S. arsenal. He pauses to look around the Journal’s conference table. ‘I remember what these things were for. I bet you don’t. It’s a vacuum tube. My father used to take these out of the television set in the 1950s and ’60s down to the local supermarket to test them and replace them.’

“And here comes the punch line: ‘This is the technology that we have . . . today.’ The technology in the weapons the U.S. relies on for its nuclear deterrent dates back to before many of the people in the room were born.”[vii]

And as a study continues to determine if America will unilaterally strip itself of up to 80% of our nuclear deterrent, a Georgetown University study reports that China – which “…has never agreed to be part of any strategic nuclear framework,” and has never been part of any related negotiations, may in fact, have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. [viii]

 


[i] Robert Zarate, (Feb. 18, 2012), The Weekly Standard web-site, The Blog, Lawmakers Urge Obama to Abandon Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Study, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-urge-obama-abandon-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-study_630062.html

[ii] Washington Times Editorial (Feb. 16, 2012), EDITORIAL: Obama’s Unilateral Disarmament, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-unilateral-disarmament/

[iii] Robert Zarate, (Feb. 18, 2012), The Weekly Standard web-site, The Blog, Lawmakers Urge Obama to Abandon Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Study, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-urge-obama-abandon-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-study_630062.html

[iv] Ibid

[v] Bill Gertz, (Feb. 14, 2012), Free Beacon web-site, Nuking our Nukes, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

[vi] Robert Zarate, (Feb. 18, 2012), The Weekly Standard web-site, The Blog, Lawmakers Urge Obama to Abandon Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Study, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-urge-obama-abandon-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-study_630062.html

[vii] Melanie Kirkpatrick, (Nov. 22, 2008), Wall Street Journal web-site, Sounding the Nuclear Alarm, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731227702749413.html

[viii] Washington Times Editorial (Feb. 16, 2012), EDITORIAL: Obama’s Unilateral Disarmament, retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-unilateral-disarmament/

Our Detached President