Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of Totalitarian Rule

Commentary embedded below in this color.

---

---

Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of China’s Xi Jinping’s Totalitarian Rule

12-18-2018 | George Thomas

Many on the left, and many Christians with their heads in the sand, deny that Christians are being persecuted around the world.  Well, they are.  However, it’s not only Christians who are being persecuted, especially in nations with totalitarian governments.  Religion makes a totalitarian government/ruler nervous.  Why?  Because totalitarian rulers and governments see themselves as the only god that should be worshipped.  When you have a large and growing portion of the populace NOT worshipping at the alter of government, you have a lot of people thinking for themselves who may at some point rise up and overthrow you.

Early Rain, like scores of other congregations, is outside government control as part of China’s burgeoning so-called underground or house church movement.

Appearing on CBN News‘ WorldBeat, Todd Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs, says this movement has touched every corner of China.

“And that’s the exciting thing, all across China, there are house churches, there are what they call ‘family churches’ and the reason the Communist government is so worried is because there are far more Christians in China than there are members of the Communist Party,” Nettleton told CBN News.

So, what does a totalitarian government or ruler do to people who are threatening their power?  They tighten the screws.

In recent months, Beijing has waged a brutal and widespread crackdown to stop the growth of these unregistered churches.

“This crackdown I think is a direct response to the fear of the Communist Party leaders who see the church growing way faster than the party is,” Nettleton said.

This has been going on since the beginning of time.  In Christ’s time, Rome was the government, and the Emperor was god.  They tolerated Judaism as long as the people stayed in line and paid their taxes.  The Jewish religious leaders were often complicit in the oppression of the Jews because they had it good.  As long as the people followed the “advice” of the religious leaders, and didn’t cause any trouble, Rome made sure they stayed in power, and got paid well.  When Jesus came along, He was preaching a message that was revolutionary, but in a peaceful way.  Nonetheless, people were turning away from the Jewish faith to follow this revolutionary person, so the Pharisees and other religious leaders saw Jesus as a threat and attempted to have Him killed.  When that failed, they whipped up the crowds against Jesus and had the Romans take Him.  The Romans didn’t really care as long as there was order and taxes.

In more modern times, you can look at socialist, communist, and muslim nations/governments.  In all of these examples, any god other than government (islam is a system of government hiding behind a thin veneer of religion) is seen as a threat to the government.  The response has ALWAYS been the same. 

This is what’s happening in China right now, and is happening to a greater or lesser degree all over the world.  Yes, even in the United States.

In America, we haven’t lost the freedom of religion YET.  However, one can’t take an objective look at how religions, especially Christianity, have been treated over time in our country and honestly say that persecution of religions isn’t increasing.  America was FOUNDED on Christian principles.  For most of the next two centuries, we largely lived by those principles, but the forces of evil have been attacking those principles and our Constitution since before the ink it was written in was dry.

The process has been slow, but we have seen Christians and Christianity slowly chased out of the government, the schools, the courts, and into the confines of the churches themselves.  The churches have also been infiltrated by people who attack, alter, and water down the Gospel.  It is very difficult today to find a church or preacher who teaches EXACTLY what’s in the Bible without fear or apology.  You have churches calling themselves “Christian” that are openly violating CLEAR commands of the Bible.  They are embracing things that God CLEARLY calls sin, and in doing so are leading many people straight to Hell.  On this front, Christianity and other religions are under attack because people don’t like to be told they are wrong.  They don’t like to be told that what they are doing, what feels good, what is easy, is a sin.  They want their ears tickled so they will feel good about themselves. 

Back to the totalitarian angle, why are Christians and people of other religions being persecuted so vigorously?  We’re in the way.  We’re a roadblock.  We remind people that they are wrong, and expose their wrongs to others by holding them up to a black and white standard that never changes.

Now authorities routinely target houses of worship, destroy crosses, burn Bibles and arrest pastors.

Mr. Fengang, who once predicted that China could become the world’s largest Christian nation, says the government, headed by Xi Jinping, views Christianity as a threat to the party’s long-term political aspirations.

“Christians are the remaining NGO’s (non-governmental organization) in the shrinking civil society in China,” Wang warned. “Under Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, they are really trying to establish a totalitarian rule of Chinese society and the Christians are standing in the way of totalitarianism, so that’s why they’ve become a target.”

 

Link to article:  Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of China’s Xi Jinping’s Totalitarian Rule

Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

Military, REMEMBER YOUR OATH. Now is the time to act on it. If you are a Christian or support that faith (which doesn’t advocate the harm of others), and/or you support an organization whose mission is the support of very same Constitution which our military swore an oath to protect and defend, you are now being classified as an enemy of America. The actual enemy of America is anyone who would have you believe this drivel. It is time to clean this mess up. Military, do your duty.

As a reminder, here’s what you swore:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” 

+

---

TERRIFYING! Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

 AP

(by TODD STARNES, Fox News Radio) — Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Burning the Strawman of Gun Control: Part 1

Why would any civilian ever need a high capacity magazine?  For the same reason that police officers do.

1. One shot may not be enough to stop the threat
2. You don’t always hit what you aim at, especially under stress
3. There may be more than one assailant
4. In a self-defense situation, or firefight with a criminal, the only thing you want to focus on is your target, and pulling the trigger.  Reloading or clearing malfunctions could be a deadly distraction.

STRAWMAN:  “Criminals use “assault weapons” with high capacity magazines to slaughter people.

REALITY:  The mass killers have all used pistols with standard capacity magazines.

There are dozens of news stories where police fired dozens, perhaps HUNDREDS of rounds in firefights with a SINGLE criminal.  If our supposedly highly trained police officers can’t subdue a criminal with one shot, how would civilians defending themselves in their homes be expected to?

So, WHY do politicians REALLY want these magazine bans?  Control.  Liberals/progressives have been slowly chipping away at our ability to own firearms for over 75 years.  They know they can never completely control us as long as we have the means to resist.  When only the police and military have that kind of firepower, we are defenseless.  Not only against them, but more immediately against criminals who DON’T OBEY LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
+

---

Calling out WTIC’s John Rowland on a 30-round magazine ban

Posted by Steve McGough on January 9, 2013 at 12:01 am | Share via e-mail

The title of this post may sound a bit harsh, but I don’t mean it to be. I’m trying to ensure this post gets noticed and might result in a written response from the former Connecticut governor concerning his opinion on 30-round, and other high-capacity magazines for rifles and pistols.

Update: Plenty of traffic for this post, but I ask readers to step out of their comfort zone and share this post via Faceboook, social media and email not just with those who agree, but include the gun control crowd and ask for their response. Get the information out there!

During the last week or so, John Rowland’s afternoon radio show on WTIC 1080 has been filled with callers and discussion about high-capacity magazines and the Connecticut law that holds private, the names and addresses of those with Connecticut’s State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. I’ll admit I have listened to only a few minutes here and there, but it’s clear Rowland thinks permit holder information should remain private, and gun owners who want access to high-capacity magazines are wrong, stubborn, and have been doing such a bad job explaining their point of view, listeners may think it’s a good idea to have the permit information made public.

Flip-flop hypocrisy and an absence of leadership from our incompetent Dear Leader, and the left who worships him.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are… in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…

MARCH 18, 2011
OBAMA: “Obama closed Friday’s remarks by saying, “I’ve taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused. Our cause is just. And our coalition is strong.”

2001, Before beginning operations in Afghanistan
BUSH: “To all the men and women in our military … I say this: Your mission is defined. Your objectives are clear. Your goal is just.”

MARCH 18, 2011
OBAMA: “The United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.”

Oct. 7, 2001
BUSH: “We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. … We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.”
————————————————————————–

When Bush got us into Iraq, the screams from the left were “BLOOD FOR OIL!” and “We have no national interest in Iraq,” and “How is Saddam Hussein a threat to us?” and “Bush is a war criminal.”

Isn’t it strange how 99.9% of the media and the left refuse to acknowledge that Obama is doing the same things or worse as Bush? Isn’t it also strange how now that Obama owns Iraq and Afghanistan, you hear very little about them anymore? Where are the daily body counts on the news? Where are the daily interviews with protesters? Where are the Cindy Sheehan’s of the world hiding now?

Remember when the price of oil climbed above $100/bbl and gasoline hit over $3 a gallon under Bush? Remember the cries of “Bush/Haliburton are evil, and it’s all their fault,” and “Bush needs to be impeached?” Now that oil is back over $100/bbl, and gas is at a national average of $4/gal, more than twice where it was when Obama took office, AND the Obama energy policy DEMONSTRABLY contributes to the increase, WHERE are the cries to impeach Obama and remove his energy czars?

I almost NEVER find myself agreeing with someone like Ralph Nader, but he is one of the few on the left who is at least giving an apples to apples comparison of Bush’s to Obama’s actions. While I think he has many facts wrong, at the end of this clip he makes THE statement that both liberals AND conservatives must come to grips with. “If Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCLQQzMtsw&feature=player_embedded

Now, when it comes to Libya, Obama can’t make up his own opinion about the deal. Doing so and displaying actual leadership on the matter would infringe on his golf, party, vacation, Andy-Warhol-ish-need-my-15-minutes-of-fame lifestyle where he loves to enjoy the perks of being president while doing none of the actual work. He has been all over the map on Libya and the unrest in the mid-east, and our European allies, as well as the muslim world, are confused to say the least. As NYT writers Helene Cooper and Steven Meyers write, Obama is basically following the women (Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice) to war. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=2&hpw Now we are involved in combat in a THIRD middle eastern country with our shrinking, crumbling, underfunded military behind a “leader” who says we are creating enemies in the middle east, and spending too much money and wasting too many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was it the two guys on the Guinness commercial said? Oh, yeah. “BRILLIANT!”

Now, about that Nobel Peace Prize that the mOssiah was preemptively awarded for saying he would do great things, and bring peace to the world? I got your worthless peace prize right here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE5ndLZ0768&feature=player_embedded

British Prime Minister Misses the Mark on Muslim Extremism

British Prime Minister David Cameron at least understands that SOMETHING must be done about islamic terror groups and other extremists, but he wiffs at the slow pitch in his response.

Here’s what he said today.

Cameron told the annual Munich Security Conference that European governments have been too tolerant of some sectors of society that publicly oppose democracy or reject equal rights for all.

Sounds pretty good, right? He goes on to say…

“We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,”

Still sounds like someone who is awakening to the fact that his nation is being overrun, right? And he continues…

In an attack on Britain’s previous government, Cameron said authorities there had been too hesitant to intervene when some sectors of society espoused abhorrent views.

“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values,” Cameron said. “We have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

Oh… my… goodness. Has the clue bird landed on British leadership that they are mere heartbeats away from losing their country? This is what many of Britain’s allies have been saying about Britain’s handling of the islamic terror problem.

Some European allies have criticized Britain for harboring hardline Islamic clerics and failing to clamp down on mosques that promote a perverted view of Islam.

Think the critics are wrong? Here is evidence that the critics are EXACTLY spot on.

British Muslims Protesting Outside US Embassy, London

Muslims with sand in their vaginas protesting over a FREAKING CARTOON

Muslims protest against homecoming British troops

Islamic Extremist protest in London

Cameron steps to the plate, shoulders his bat, the pitch is on the way…

“If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past,” Cameron said. “Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.”

…He’s watching the pitch all the way in…

…SaaaWing, and a MISS!

He told the conference that developments in the Middle East should be harnessed to disprove Muslims who claim their religion cannot be observed properly within the democratic system.

“If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo,” Cameron said.

And there you have it. He thinks western civilization, and I repeat, CIVILIZATION, is compatible with islam. He has bought into the PC line of crap. He can’t see that islam and western civilization are like oil and water. THEY… DO… NOT… MIX.

Sadly, the citizens of western nations, Europe and the US, keep electing these idiots who either think we can coexist with islam, or they are lying to us. If we don’t remove these idiots, and return sanity to our nations soon, we’re doomed.

Read full article HERE> UK’s Cameron: Europe must wake up on extremism

---

Terror Alert Levels Increasing Around the World

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats, and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross”. The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.”

The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Welsh, Scots and Irish have raised their threat level from “P****d Off” to “Let’s get the Ba****ds.” They don’t have any other levels…. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbor” and “Lose.”

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Canada doesn’t have any alert levels.

New Zealand has raised its security levels – from “baaa” to “BAAAA”… Due to continuing defense cutbacks, New Zealand has only one more level of escalation, which is “I hope Australia will come and rescue us.”

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, mate.” Three more escalation levels remain: “Crikey!”, “I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend” and “The barbie is
canceled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

---

Texas city revives paddling as it takes a swat at misbehavior

As the old saying goes, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”  A child without discipline will grow to be a menace to himself, his family, and society.

Here are a few things the Bible say about disciplining children.

• Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).”
• Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”
• Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
• Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”
• Prov 23:14: “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel).”
• Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”

The whiny liberals who won’t spank their children obviously subscribe to the UN School of Parenting (Click HERE for explanation).UN_School_of_Parenting

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505964_pf.html

By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 16, 2010; A01

TEMPLE, TEX. — In an era when students talk back to teachers, skip class and wear ever-more-risque clothing to school, one central Texas city has hit upon a deceptively simple solution: Bring back the paddle.

Most school districts across the country banned paddling of students long ago. Texas sat that trend out. Nearly a quarter of the estimated 225,000 students who received corporal punishment nationwide in 2006, the latest figures available, were from the Lone Star State.

But even by Texas standards, Temple is unusual. The city, a compact railroad hub of 60,000 people, banned the practice and then revived it at the demand of parents who longed for the orderly schools of yesteryear. Without paddling, “there were no consequences for kids,” said Steve Wright, who runs a construction business and is Temple’s school board president.

Since paddling was brought back to the city’s 14 schools by a unanimous board vote in May, behavior at Temple’s single high school has changed dramatically, Wright said, even though only one student in the school system has been paddled.

“The discipline problem is much better than it’s been in years,” Wright said, something he attributed to the new punishment and to other discipline programs schools are trying. Residents of the city’s comfortable homes, most of which sport neighborly, worn chairs out front, praise the change.

“There are times when maybe a good crack might not be a bad idea,” said Robert Pippin, a custom home builder who sports a goatee and cowboy boots. His son graduated from Temple schools several years ago.

Corporal punishment remains legal in 20 states, mostly in the South, but its use is diminishing. Ohio ended it last year, and a movement for a federal ban is afoot. A House subcommittee held a hearing on the practice Thursday, and its chairman, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), is gearing up for a push to end the practice once and for all. She plans to introduce legislation within weeks.

“When you look that the federal government has outlawed physical punishment in prisons, I think the time has come that we should do it in schools,” she said. (This is one reason why the criminals have the upper hand on law abiding citizens.  When you make prison not such a “nice” place to be, criminals will stop trying so hard to get into them.)

A joint American Civil Liberties Union-Human Rights Watch report last year found that students with disabilities were disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment, sometimes in direct response to behavioral problems that were a result of their disabilities. Many educators and psychologists say that positive tools, such as giving praise for good behavior and withholding it for bad, are far more effective for discouraging misbehavior.  (Contrary to the psychobabble bull crap that liberals lay down on this topic, “withholding praise” has NEVER proven to work as a means of changing behavior.  A punishment unpleasant enough to deter bad behavior, followed by praise and reward when POSITIVE behavior takes place works most of the time.  The bottom line, children, criminals, animals, etc. MUST know that there are consequences to their actions.  Today, children and criminals alike are being shown that they can do whatever they want with no consequences.  We are letting the inmates run the asylum.)

Those techniques “encourage them to behave well in the future,” said report author Alice Farmer. Paddling “makes students lose respect for their teachers.”  (Wrong again, Ms. Farmer.  You are confusing LIKE and RESPECT.  Children LIKE teachers who let them get away with murder.  They RESPECT teachers who hold them to a standard.)

Rules about paddling vary from district to district, but typically only administrators, not teachers, can mete out the punishment, which is done in private. Usually, a long, flat wooden paddle is used to give as many as three blows across the student’s clothed rear end, although Farmer found students who had been hit many more times. Boys are overwhelmingly the target.

Not everybody in Texas is gung-ho about paddling. The practice has been banned in the state’s big cities, and its use varies from campus to campus in districts that allow it.  (…and who is more likely to run the government and school boards in big cities?  LIBERALS.  For the liberals who actually have children, I bet you a dime to a dollar that you stack a conservatives kids who are actually disciplined by spanking, etc. against the liberals kids who are allowed to run amok, and I am confident that you would choose to be around the kids who get discipline and are held to a standard higher than “do it if it feels good.”  The well behaved, respectful children who say “Yes, Ma’am/Sir,” or “No, Ma’am/Sir” are much more likely to be invited back into your home a second time that the spoiled little brats who have never been denied anything a day in their lives.)

In Alvin, a formerly agricultural city of 23,000 that has been swallowed by Houston’s suburbs in the past decade, the policy is on the books but not used in many schools.

“I don’t think it’s that simple anymore,” said Terry Constantine, who added that she hasn’t swung a paddle in her 16 years as an elementary school principal there. “We look for our parents to work with us now.”  (If you have parents who will actually do the job of parenting, rather than pawning off their responsibilities on the school and society in general, that might work.  That is increasingly rare in today’s society.  You must be prepared to deal with the children who are not being dealt with at home.  They MUST be shown that society has boundaries.)

At Alvin High School, where the technique is used, Principal Kevon Wells said he had paddled students about six times this school year. If a student continued to misbehave, he said, he wouldn’t do it again. “I’m not into beating kids,” he said.

But in Temple, a city just outside Fort Hood that shakes with the air horns of the trains that pass through its rail yards, many residents say they hope that the old-fashioned solution can address what they see as rising disrespect among youth. They say their discipline problems aren’t different from those in any other school system in the country: students showing up late for class, or violating the dress code, or talking during lessons. Those habits were unheard of in the days when schoolteachers routinely swung a paddle, they say.

“Back then, you wouldn’t throw spitballs, because you were afraid of the consequences,” said Darr Kuykendall, a worker for a plumbing supply company.

“A lot of kids have tempers,” said Abby Jones, a junior at Temple High School. “Those kids that would be paddled would think of it as a threat . . . and maybe would be better.”

Parents also pushed for the change because many paddle their children at home and wanted consistent discipline in the classroom, said John Hancock, assistant superintendent of administration for the Temple schools, who has been an educator for more than 40 years.  (When you have parents willing to do this, you typically have more well behaved children.)

“We’re rural central Texas. We’re very well educated, but still there are those core values. Churches are full on Sundays,” Hancock said. “This is a tool we’d like in the toolbox for responding to discipline issues.”

Hancock, an urbane, sturdily built Colorado native who wears horn-rimmed glasses, said the school system had banned corporal punishment about six years ago because a state law change made what was permissible uncertain. Follow-up made clear that schools could paddle, he said.

Since the policy was changed in May, the school system has paddled only one student, and that was at the request of his parent, Hancock said.

Many districts, including Temple, which is nearly evenly divided among white, black and Hispanic students, require parental consent before the punishment is given. Temple also requires the student’s consent, Hancock said, and the punishment is considered equivalent to an out-of-school suspension.  (The student’s consent?  Are you freaking kidding me?  He or she is a minor.  The parents and the school will tell you what to do, as long as the parents are on “board” with policies of discipline.)

Residents said restoring paddling is less about the punishment and more about the threat. (EXACTLY!!!)

“It’s like speeding,” said Bill Woodward, a graphic designer. “Are they going to give you a speeding ticket, or . . . a warning? I’d speed all day if I knew it was going to be a warning.”  (EXACTLY again!  Yes, yes, yes!  This sentence sums up the whole article!)

+

---

Proof Obama is a Clear and Present Danger to America

Conclusive proof to all but the mentally deficient among us that Obama is a danger to America.  (Socialist) Economics aside, he is weakening us in reality, and in the eyes of our enemies, which is as bad or worse.  An enemy who views us a weak will be emboldened to strike us.  The vultures are beginning to circle in anticipation of having an American carcass to feast on soon.

Add a few of these things up and tell me that we have no cause for concern, and I’ll tell you that you need to use your Obamacare to reengage the half of your brain that is sitting idle.  China does not like us, and is in a position to destroy us economically today, and will soon be able to do so militarily as well.  Russia never did like us, and they are reemerging as a threat.  Russia is selling arms and technology to EVERYONE who hates us, i.e. Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea.  Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, and all Obama can do is complement My-mood I’m-in-a-jihad and talk about sanctions that will never happen, and will not work.  China and Russia are forming “strategic alliances,” as are Russia and Venezuela.  Obama has alienated EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that we have historically called allies, and whom we would rely on if we get into trouble.  Obama has bowed to every tin-pot dictator around the globe, and has now told them that we basically won’t do anything to stop them should they attack us.  The list goes on, and on, and on, and…

Obama apparently can’t destroy America quickly enough for his liking from within, so he is now trying to enlist the help of our enemies around the world.

For the good of America, and dare I say the world, Obama must go.

---

April 07, 2010

Russia Moving Fast Before ‘Arms Control’ with U.S.

By Jane Jamison

The New York Times says that President Obama’s nuclear arms reduction agreement, to be signed within a few days, will significantly alter U.S. defense policy to “substantially narrow the conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, even in self-defense.”

Is anyone in the Obama administration paying any attention to Vladimir Putin?

The Russian prime minister has just returned from his first-ever trip to Venezuela, with bear hugs for dictator-“presidente” Hugo Chávez.

Russia and Venezuela signed no fewer than 31 agreements in twelve hours. Russia has already sold Chávez $4 billion in military armaments, and now he has signed on for at least $5 billion more.

RTT NEWS:

The relationship between Moscow and Caracas has strengthened in recent years, with Venezuela buying military equipments worth $4 billion from Russia, including Sukhoi jet fighters, helicopters, tanks and assault rifles, since 2005.

During his latest visit to Venezuela, Putin had personally delivered four Russian Mi-17 helicopters President Chavez, the last of a batch of 38 military helicopters the South American country purchased from Russia in 2006.

Besides weapons, Venezuela wants nuclear power (“just for domestic purposes,” of course). Sadly, due to NASA budget cuts under Obama, it appears that Venezuela may have astronauts before America does in the future. Russia needs oil, and Putin came back with a $20-billion contract to partner with Venezuela in the Orinoco belt. Vladimir and Hugo. It’s all good.

Reuters:

We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era,” Chavez said on Thursday.

While Putin was in Venezuela, China was taking delivery of weapons from Russia on Friday.

Russia has delivered 15 batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to China, Interfax news agency reported, under a contract analysts said could be worth as much as $2.25 billion.

China is a major buyer of Russian weapons, and the two countries say they are trying to forge a strategic partnership, though senior Russian officials are privately concerned about an increasingly assertive China.

Russia has been conducting quite a business by selling the same S-300 “Favorit” (“the world’s most powerful and efficient air defense system”) to many countries hostile to the U.S. and Israel: Syria, India, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. Russia is also well underway with even more advanced versions, the S-400 and S-500 series, the latter of which can repel attacks in space. The systems began marketing on YouTube videos and news releases dated in late February of this year.

A nagging concern is the fact that Russia signed a deal in 2005 to deliver anti-aircraft, anti-missile S-300s to Iran…with delivery originally set for 2009. It is not clear if they ever were delivered. Why don’t we know?

Obviously, this has presented a huge security concern to Israel.

Haaretz News:

The S-300 is considered to be one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world, and its capabilities allow it to intercept aircraft flying 30,000 meters up, from 150 kilometers away.

Netanyahu’s government began stepping up its pressure on Putin not to go forward with the arms deliveries to Iran last summer. While Russia was taking meetings with the Israelis, Putin also said that his country’s economic crisis makes the lucrative armaments business very attractive.

A Russian ship, which may have been delivering S-300s to Iran last August, mysteriously “disappeared” between Finland and Algeria. It is believed that the ship was destroyed by the Israeli Mossad security service, which was acting on a tip. There is speculation that the arms deal was brokered with Iran by rogue Russian military “black marketeers” rather than with the Russian government.

Heritage Foundation’s Dr. Ariel Cohen warned last year that the shipments to Iran must be thwarted:

Although the sale of the S-300 to Iran is not prohibited, such a deal would be a game changer in the Middle East. Tehran could threaten U.S. and allied troops’ aerial assets in Afghanistan and Iraq if Iran were to deploy the system along its borders. Furthermore, it would boost the defense of Iran’s Bushehr reactor, which Russia has built. Finally, Tehran could also use S-300s to protect its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Arak heavy water plant, and other components of its sprawling nuclear and missile complex.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the region as Iran uses its nuclear arsenal to foster its hegemony in the Persian Gulf and beyond and would likely trigger a regional nuclear arms race. Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would not sit idly while Tehran is building its nuclear arsenal.

In mid-February this year, after another eyeball-to-eyeball session with Putin in Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that there was an agreement to hold off on the S-300 deliveries to Iran…for now.

The Russians, however say that the delay is due only to “technical difficulties.” It wasn’t made clear when those “difficulties” might be cleared up and the shipments might proceed.

It may not make a whit of difference. While Obama and Secretary of State Clinton dither over sanctions and partnering countries, Iran sneers at the lack of foreign policy fortitude and races to a finish line of its own making.

It appears that while Vladimir Putin is allowing himself “official deniability” of any deal to directly arm Iran, the technology has nonetheless somehow made its way to Tehran. Just a few days ago,  Free Republic’s sources quoted Iranian military officials who say they have developed their own “indigenous” versions of the S-300.

Investor’s Business Daily now calls Secretary of State Clinton the “Bull in the China Shop Diplomat.” She seems overly preoccupied with micro-managing Israel’s apartment-building plans and picking fights with Canada over abortion health care policy, while ignoring such elephants in the room as Iran building nuclear weapons and Russia arming America’s enemies.

The Wall Street Journal opines that “Obama Seems Unserious about a Nuclear Iran.” If the Obama administration has accepted the inevitability of nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why would it cringe at Iran also being militarily able to demolish the Israeli fighter jets which come to destroy the nukes?

Take it a step further, and what assurance does Israel have at all anymore that the United States of Barack Obama will defend her if the worst comes from Iran?

Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch, a Democrat and a Jew who supported Barack Obama’s campaign, recently wrote an editorial in an Israeli newspaper, saying “The Trust is Gone.”

Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.

Vladmir Putin has already proven once to Israel that he cannot be trusted. Kim Zigfeld wrote in American Thinker of Russia’s criss-cross hypocrisies of human rights violations, terrorism, and military aggression, while selling weapons of mass destruction to every enemy of this country.

In the meantime, Iran’s nuclear negotiator has just come back from a meeting on “energy” with China. China still refuses to join the U.S. in sanctions against Iran.

While Russians and Iranians are taking intercontinental flights cementing deals with our enemies, President Obama is rolling Easter eggs and playing baseball. Still feeling a headwind from passage of the health care bill, no doubt.

Obama is scheduled April 8 to sign a treaty with Russian president Medvedev to reduce nuclear weapons of the two countries “by 30 percent.”

Barack Obama presented his tepidly-received nuclear disarmament plan exactly one year ago today in Prague. It would appear, confirming our worst fears, that the only place in the “world with no nuclear weapons” will be the United States if we stay on the bobble-headed foreign policy course of Barack Obama.

Jane Jamison is publisher of the conservative news/commentary blog UNCOVERAGE.net.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/russia_moving_fast_before_arms.html at April 07, 2010 – 01:40:01 PM CDT

+

---

April 07, 2010

Obama’s Nuclear Poser Review

By Pamela Geller

Barack Obama announced Monday what the New York Times called a “new strategy”: his Nuclear Posture Review. He is narrowing the conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. For the first time since the U.S. became a nuclear power, the president of the United States has explicitly vowed that we will not use nukes even against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us, or take us down with a massive cyber-attack — as long as those states are obeying the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

He also overruled his own Secretary of Defense and said that no new nuclear weapons would be developed. Our aging, rusting arsenal is enough.

The New York Times lapdog reporting on this was pure Walter Duranty:

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

Obama is effectively saying to our enemies, bring it on, we won’t fight ya — leaving us naked and vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran’s devout mullahcracy is building its nuclear arsenal with the objective of establishing a global Islamic state. And what would Obama do about Iran’s nukes? He came out for a U.N. resolution on sanctions — one “that has bite,” in other words, one that will somehow be different from all the sanctions that are already in place. But he warned that it probably wouldn’t work: “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior…there’s no light switch in this process.”

I am actually embarrassed for my nation.

Obama is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history than the age of Obama? Yes, there were very dangerous periods (the Civil War, World War I, World War II), but during those times of great crisis, the steward of this nation was always a patriot, a freedom-lover — an American. As I explain in my forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon & Schuster), Obama, in contrast, is a socialist internationalist who clearly despises this country and the whole idea of America, the first moral nation built on the principle of freedom itself in human history.

He himself said it in April 2009. During a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20), a reporter asked Obama: “[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?”

Obama offered no avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, America is nothing special. Just another country. Dick Cheney summed it up: “There’s never been a nation like the United States of America in world history, and yet when you have a president who goes around and bows to his hosts and then proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing. That says to me this is a guy who doesn’t fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in.”

Of course, Obama knows what buttons to push. He assured us: “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.” And now his cover in this subversive new suicide pact is his desire to make the world into a “nuclear free zone.”

Who does he think he’s kidding? What despot will ever freely and willingly give up his power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This policy is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn’t a new strategy. This is surrender. He is making America into the laughingstock of the civilized world and the bullseye of the Axis of Evil.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obamas_nuclear_poser_review.html at April 07, 2010 – 09:31:45 AM CDT

+

---

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights

You know it has to be bad if CNN is actually reporting this.  Have I not been telling you that government unrestrained by the people from whom they derive power is dangerous?

Love your country.  Fear your government.

---

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/cnn-poll-majority-says-government-a-threat-to-citizens-rights/?fbid=LdDg622z-Kl

February 26, 2010

Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

+

---

Sympathy for the Devil

You can’t bargain with the devil and expect to benefit from it.

www.actforamerica.org

Every President’s administration sends signals about its foreign policy intentions by the people the President selects and the various statements they make.

The Obama administration’s intentions are becoming clearer and clearer to discern. The message to the world: America has been arrogant. The message to Muslims: America has been arrogant. The message to Israel: See below.

There is a difference between acknowledging mistakes and communicating weakness. The Obama administration is, unfortunately, repeatedly communicating weakness to those who mean us harm. One could understand pursuing such a policy if there were historical precedent for it actually working. If the goal of the Obama administration is to secure lasting peace in the Middle East that includes safety and security for Israel, and if its goal is to secure peaceful co-existence with radical Islamists, the paths he is following will fail.

Not because any of us wishes they would fail, but because, as George Santayana wrote, “He who does not know history is condemned to repeat it.” We’re reasonably sure most Brits wanted Neville Chamberlain to succeed when he declared after his meeting with Hitler that he had secured “peace in our time.” Why did he fail? Because he refused to acknowledge the reality of the evil he was dealing with and deluded himself into believing such evil could be appeased with accommodations and concessions.

---

Obama’s Signal to Israel: Submit

By Mona Charen

May 12, 2009 / 18 Iyar 5769
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen051209.php3

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In early April, Vice President Biden was asked if the administration was concerned that Israel might strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that,” Mr. Biden replied. “I think he would be ill advised to do that.”

A few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the administration’s solution to the threat of an Iranian bomb: “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts … they go hand in hand.”

And on May 10, National Security Adviser James Jones spelled it out further: “We understand Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. … By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution.”

By what reasoning has the administration decided that pushing Israel to permit a new Palestinian state would — in any way — diminish the threat from Iran? Do they believe that Iran’s (or I should say the Iranian leadership’s) genocidal hostility toward Israel is the result of lack of progress toward an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Will the Iranian leadership, which has characterized Israel as a “cancerous tumor,” declared that “Israel must we wiped off the map,” and promised that “Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear” is going to change its mind if Israel enters into negotiations with the Palestinians?

“Obama will be a great friend to Israel.” So said a Jewish Democrat in a pre-election debate with me. I asked her whether she had any hesitations about someone who had been steeped in academic pieties and Hyde Park leftwing intellectual fashions, and who had tamely absorbed the Rev. Wright’s sermons for 20 years? Her response was to mouth some of the platitudes about support for Israel that were to be found on the Obama campaign’s website. I wonder if she is having doubts now.

Does it give her pause that Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state and America’s chief nuclear arms negotiator, has called on Israel (along with Pakistan, India, and North Korea) to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? By including Israel on a list of nations known to either have nuclear weapons or be close to acquiring them, the Obama administration is introducing a sinister note of moral equivalence to the problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. All previous U.S. governments have implicitly accepted that Israel’s nuclear weapons pose a threat to no nation and are maintained only to deter Israel’s enemies from genocidal attacks.

Like other liberals, my debate opponent probably believes that Obama’s apology tour of global capitals was pitch perfect. Of course, it’s one thing for the United States, still the world’s superpower, to delude itself that winning international popularity contests will make us safer (though it’s a dangerous delusion), but Israel, which always sits inches from the precipice of destruction, cannot afford such fantasies at all.

We have recent history to guide us. In 2000, Israel withdrew from the security corridor it had established in southern Lebanon. The world had long been clamoring for Israel to do this. The Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah movement immediately seized the area — trumpeting its triumph in driving out the enemy. In 2006, southern Lebanon became the launching pad for Hezbollah’s missile campaign against northern Israel.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Iranian-backed Hamas movement moved quickly and took control there (not without significant internecine bloodshed with Fatah), and again used the territory not to build a peaceful Palestinian enclave but to launch 10,000 missiles against southern Israel.

Fatah (which is called moderate because it wants to destroy Israel on the installment plan rather than all at once) retains tenuous control of the West Bank. But even Mahmoud Abbas admits that if Israel were to withdraw completely from the area, Hamas would gain control in a heartbeat.

Next week, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama in Washington. It is hard to see how this relationship can go well. President Obama has sent abundant signals that his foreign policy is 50 percent wishful thinking and 50 percent leftwing mush. There may not be any easy answers to the problem of a nuclear Iran. But pressuring Israel to take suicidal risks is clearly the worst possible approach. Iran will conclude, as its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas at various times concluded, that force and the threat of force work.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. –Sir Karl Popper

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

Obama doesn’t know Bo, Jack, Diddley, or Bubkiss.  Not only is he the driving force in the destruction of our economic system, he is doing everything he can to destroy our military capability and ensure our removal from the world stage as a superpower.  The one and only thing the constitution provides the authority to tax for is national defense.  Yet defense is being sacrificed for vote-buying give away programs funded involuntarily with our money.  But we the sheeple have allowed our morals and ethics to be eroded, and our government to take so much of our freedom, that there may be no turning back.  America, it’s time to take back our country.

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

by W. Thomas Smith Jr. (more by this author)

Posted 04/07/2009 ET
Updated 04/08/2009 ET

The unclassified version of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) — the U.S. Defense Dept.’s four-year strategy planning exercise — has yet to be released. But an unprecedented gag order placed on those responsible for developing the QDR, combined with Monday’s proposed terminations of programs — like the Air Force’s newly operational air-superiority fighter, the F-22 Raptor — has military experts concerned the writing may already be on the wall.

“I am appalled at the decisions just made by the secretary, as are other very senior Air Force general officers,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (U.S. Air Force), told HUMAN EVENTS following U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ press conference yesterday.

Gates proposed delays and terminations of current and next-generation platforms and weapons systems programs, which included, among other particulars:

• cutting aircraft carriers from 11 to 10 and decreasing production of other surface combatants
• delaying amphibious ship programs
• halting the planned increase of ground-based interceptors in Alaska
• cancelling a second airborne laser (antimissile) aircraft
• terminating the ground-vehicle element of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (essentially killing the program)
• delaying production of a new presidential helicopter
• ending development of a new Air Force search and rescue helicopter
• canceling the development of a new bomber
• ending the C-17 transport aircraft, and
• stopping production of the F-22 at 187 fighters

Additionally, the secretary of defense vowed to “maximize the production” of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and up the purchase of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’ F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 14 to 30 in Fiscal Year 2010.

“But the F-35 cannot survive a Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile, and the F-22 can,” says McInerney, a former assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force. “The question should be, why don’t we have a fly-off between the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter?”

McInerney adds, “He [Gates] is trying to make the Air Force a supporting service. He does not understand airpower.”

Among the concerns expressed — in the wake of yesterday’s proposed cuts before the QDR — is that the current crop of defense planners and policymakers may be suffering from shortsightedness. They may be dismissing potential strategic military threats to the U.S. as overblown. They may be capitulating to the “change” crowd in Washington. Or all of the above.

Asked if he was “walking into a buzzsaw,” Gates responded: “There’s no question a lot of these decisions will be controversial. My hope is that — as we have tried to do here in this building [the Pentagon] — the members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.”

But Gates’ remarks in 2008 in which he said, “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called ‘next war-it is,’” have fueled fears among many retired generals. And the QDR gag order (a non-disclosure agreement reportedly signed by defense officials stating they will not discuss the QDR) is certainly not alleviating any concerns.

“It’s the first time it [the agreement] has ever been done in history,” says McInerney. “If I was one of the chiefs, I would have said there is no way I’m signing anything.”

A general who spoke on condition of anonymity added, “[A] serious naiveté has begun to fester [in the Beltway],” and the White House and senior defense officials “want to shape the military the way they think it should be without debate. They don’t see Russia or China as a threat. And the idea that we should not focus on future potential conflicts — from guerrilla operations to even air or sea battles — is troubling.”

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (U.S. Army), former deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Pacific, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “There is no overriding strategy, not only for the war against radical Islam — the planners don’t even know what to call it anymore — but no broad strategy for the Middle East and beyond. We do not seem to have senior people — particularly among the political appointees — who understand the threats against us, much less how to develop a strategy to meet those threats.”

McInerney says — based on information he and other retired general and flag officers are gleaning — whatever strategy is being planned seems to be too narrowly focused on ground-centric, irregular warfare operations and forces. Though, he adds, those forces are critically important in the 21st century, so are sea, air, and space forces which must never be neglected in the face of emerging and yet-unseen threats to national defense.

“Ground forces will not deter China from going into Taiwan,” says McInerney. “The Air Force and the Navy’s carrier strike groups have been fighting for 19 years. They are worn out. They need money.” The money, he argues, is desperately needed for recapitalization (also known as resetting — essentially putting a new engine in an old F-15) and modernization (replacing an F-15 with a brand-new F-22).

Retired Brig. Gen. Jim Cash (U.S. Air Force), former vice commander of the 7th Air Force, agrees.

“I think there is some shortsightedness,” Cash tells HUMAN EVENTS. “The Sec. Def. does not seem to realize that the major long term threat to this country may well come from Russia and China. The only way to negate that threat is through development and maintenance of a continuing strong deterrent. The F-22 will provide that deterrent by insuring command of the skies over the battlefield for the next 50 years. UAVs will not.”

Cash says U.S. Army and Marine forces have enjoyed air-superiority above their battlespaces “almost continually since the inception of air warfare” without which those ground forces could not survive.

Therein may lie one of the problems: America’s air and sea forces are indeed so dominant — the equipment and technology so superior to anything fielded by other nations, and the training of American airmen and sailors so effective — that much of America has grown to take that dominance for granted. “Our equipment and people are simply so good, they make warfighting look easy. But there is nothing easy about what we do,” Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commanding general of U.S. Central Command’s Air Forces, told me back in 2007.

Peter Brookes, a former CIA operations officer who also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “The QDR needs to show a balanced force capable of dealing with a range of contingencies because the next war is not necessarily going to be like an Iraq or Afghanistan. It could be with Russia, China, even a conventional war with Iran or North Korea. And because of the lag time [from drawing board to fielding] of these weapons systems, we must be moving out smartly on next generation systems.”

As Brookes says, “You can build a second lieutenant in six weeks, but you can’t build a ship or a tank in that same time.” And the longer we postpone production of a new weapons system, the more expensive that system becomes.

But it’s not simply development lag time and increasing costs: America’s Defense-Industrial base cannot afford to atrophy. If production of ships, planes, and tanks is halted, it will be difficult — perhaps impossible — to reengineer and retool from “cold iron” quickly enough to defend the country in a 21st-century environment. “The world is far different today than it was in World War II,” says Brookes. Time is critical.

Maj. Gen. George B. Patrick III, former special assistant to the director of Air National Guard and chief of staff U.S. Air Force, believes that much of what we will see in the forthcoming QDR will reflect Gates’ belief that the focus should be on the near-term threat. “But some of our high-tech weaponry that has been broadly listed under this ‘next-war-it is’ heading, is very effective in the global war on terror,” Patrick tells HUMAN EVENTS. “And if we do not continue to leverage the technology that’s available to us, and if we don’t pursue the fifth-generation fighters and other systems, potential peer competitors will.”

Patrick adds, “In my opinion, the QDR over the years has become something of a budget drill, making the threat and the resources needed to address the threat match the reality of the projected budget. It should, however, be a true empirical analysis of what our threats are regardless of budget.”

Barack Obama’s 2010 baseline defense budget is $534 billion: Still, “$26 billion below four percent of GDP, according to the Senate analysis,” writes Rowan Scarborough. Four percent is what many analysts and experts believe we should be spending as a minimum on defense.

For perspective, the U.S. was spending a whopping 34.5 percent of GDP for Defense in World War II. We spent 11.7 at the height of the Korean War, nearly 10 percent at the height of the Vietnam War, six percent under President Reagan in 1986, and 4.6 percent in 1991, the year of Gulf War I.

“Four percent for baseline Defense budget is certainly not too much to ask,” says McInerney. “After all, we spent $787-billion on a stimulus package that gives $3-billion to ACORN.”

Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Fuel for the Coming Fire Storm

Either enough Americans wake up and retake control of the government that is rightfully ours, or we pack up now and head for the hills.  I feel a revolution coming, and unless enough Americans wake up soon enough to make it a peaceful one at the ballot box, it’s going to be ugly.

Monday, April 06, 2009

---

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
WorldNetDaily
Will bill give Obama control of Internet?
Proposed new powers called ‘drastic federal intervention’

---

Posted: April 04, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

---

WorldNetDaily

Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller, D-W.V.

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency.”

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.  (What ever happened to the idea of SMALLER government?  That baby got thrown out with the fiscal restraint bath water)

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.” (NOTHING you do online will be private, not that it really is now.  But your government will have unrestrained access to ANYTHING you do online.  George Orwell was a prophet.  His predictions were just 25 years ahead of their time.)

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act’s broadly drawn government powers.

“The cybersecurity threat is real,” says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

“The whole thing smells bad to me,” writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. “I don’t like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don’t like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president.“

According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation “addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.” (It’s the “at all cost” liberal laundry service again.  Scare, tax, spend, repeat.)

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, “If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”  (Olympia Snowe is NOT a republican.  She is a RINO, and a liberal.  She must go.)

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect “critical infrastructure” networks from the Internet – including private citizens’ banks and health records, if Rockefeller’s examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president. (Once again, the Obama power grab rears its ugly head.  In Obama’s America, he or his people will CONTROL EVERYTHING.  You will have no rights, privacy, security, personal property, wealth, or anything you associate with freedom and prosperity.  Mr. Hussein Obama will start by deciding that conservative blogs and news sights are a “threat” to America (“threat to America” defined as “could potentially reveal the truth about Obama and his actions) and he will shut them down.  Anything else on the internet that doesn’t dovetail with his agenda will soon be declared to be a “cybersecurity threat,” and will be shut down.  It’s coming, People.  Unless enough of us wake up and do what is necessary to stop it.)

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as “the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information,” including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the “critical infrastructure.”

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.  (Are you seeing this?  This is just a small piece of what adds up to marxist, totalitarian control.  Don’t doubt me on this…)

“There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them,” writes Seltzer in eWeek. “This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it.” (Uh, what?  It sounds like you’re saying there is no BLACK and WHITE, just white and melanin impaired.)

“It’s an incredibly broad authority,” CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.” (The U.S. Constitution be damned if you’re a liberal or B. Hussein Obama.  They have already discarded the constitution and no one is doing a D@#$ thing about it.)

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure. (Duh.  That’s exactly what they want.  Big Brother.  BIG BROTHER.)

“What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are ‘banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.’ Let’s think about this,” writes Seltzer. “I’m especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash.”

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.

The Democrats AIG Bonus Scam

How is it that lying to congress is a federal offense, but congress lying to the American people is no problem at all? At the very least all of these clowns are guilty of impeachable offenses of lying to their employers (that’s US!). Actually, following the Democrat-set precedent of the Scooter Libby trial, they are guilty of criminal offenses that should land them all in jail. The Democrats lead by Obama are destroying truth, real justice, and personal responsibility in America. They, along with the Democrats posing as Republicans, all need to go to jail for their contributions to the destruction of America.

The Dems’ AIG Bonus Scam

by Fred J. Eckert (more by this author)
Posted 03/24/2009 ET
Updated 03/25/2009 ET

The Democratic Congress put on quite a show for us last week (and this week may top last).

In a memorable performance, they feigned surprise and shock that $165 million of taxpayers’ dollars were spent on bonuses for executives of the failed insurance giant AIG.

“If they don’t give the money back, we will put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so that it is returned to its rightful owners — the taxpayers,” New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer fumed in a Senate speech. “So, to those of you getting these bonuses, be forewarned: you will not keep them.”

It was a scene reminiscent of the one in the movie Casablanca in which Captain Renault tells Rick he is closing down his saloon down because, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here” as a casino worker hands Renault a wad of money and says, “Your winnings, sir.”

Schumer knows perfectly well that this $165 million for AIG executive bonuses is something he voted for just a few weeks earlier.

The same is true of each of the other ten Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have joined Schumer in signing a letter making the same threat he announced in his floor remarks.

It’s a farce — a sham.

What’s going on here is that the news media finally got around to mentioning that this $165 million for bonuses is part of the more than $170 billion of taxpayer money that Congress and President Obama insisted must be awarded in haste to the failed insurance giant American International Group, Inc (AIG). The public, understandably, is really angry.

So the Democrats are terrified that the public might actually start figuring out what an incredibly incompetent job President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are doing.

What if average citizens begin asking themselves the sort of questions that the Democrats can depend on the mainstream media to cover for them by not asking? Questions such as,

• Why was Congress so reckless in writing the bailout legislation that it didn’t include limitations to preclude waste such as those big bonuses?
• Anyone who reads the news knows that the financial markets are truly global. When writing the legislation, Congress had to know that AIG would pass billions of U.S. tax dollars to foreign banks. Why didn’t Congress make that contingent on equal or greater contributions by foreign governments? Why are the French, the Germans and the British having their banks rescued by American taxpayers?
• What other questionable expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars are buried in the barrels of billions the Democrats are rush delivering to seemingly anyone who puts his hand out? Weren’t there better alternatives than simply giving away taxpayers’ billions to anyone and everyone who got into severe trouble by taking reckless risks? Why no public hearings on this?
• Was the main reason for such a great rush to avoid close scrutiny of where the money was going? How many so-called “stimulus” expenditures are really nothing but gigantic rewards to political allies?

What the Democrats decided is that they needed a stunt to divert attention away from their stunning incompetence.

So, last week, the House voted to “take back” those contractually obligated bonuses, and the Democratic leadership has promised that the Senate will do the same this week. This is not a comedy the Democrats are performing for us — it’s a tragedy.

Equally tragic is the blatant disrespect for the Constitution of the United States that is on display throughout these shenanigans. Article 6 of the Constitution requires that the President and Member of Congress swear to support the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t require them to understand it or even to read it, but let’s give the driving force behind this sham, Chuck Schumer, the benefit of the doubt and presume he has read it. He is, after all, a graduate of Harvard Law School, a member of the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, and was a member of the Judiciary Committee when he served in the House.

Schumer knows better — and so should every member of Congress and the President. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution prohibits what they are doing because it specifies that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” And what they are doing constitutes a bill of attainder.

As the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution says, “In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death…,” but the Supreme Court — going back to a case in 1810 — reads the Constitutional bar to prevent legislative confiscation of property.

As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers No. 44: “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principle of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

Freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are the only individual rights which the Framers deemed so important as to insert in the original document protection against both federal and state infringement.

In 1965, in United States vs. Brown, the Supreme Court once again affirmed that the purpose of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 is to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.”

The position of the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has been that this clause of the Constitution is deemed violated if 1) The legislation in question specifies a specific group; 2) It includes some form of punishment; and 3) It does not include a judicial trial.

One, two, three — guilty on each count. Which means that what’s coming next is that the Supreme Court will give thumbs down to their pathetic pretense. And then they will feign surprise and say they tried. Trying to con the American people into believing they have nothing to do with something the public is incensed about — that’s what this big charade is really all about.

This sham is an affront to the Constitution of the United States by the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States. They are violating the solemn oath they took to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution — and by doing this, they are guilty of neglecting to “well and faithfully discharge” the duties of their offices.

Many of them don’t know what they are doing.

Many of them know but don’t care.

That’s how bad things are in Washington right now.

It’s change, all right — an appalling change from what the Founders of the American Republic had in mind for governing this great country.

Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan, who called him �a good friend and valuable advisor.�

The Handwriting on the Wall

If you haven’t checked out Brigitte Gabriel at http://www.actforamerica.org/, give her site a look. She speaks from PERSONAL experience about the oppressiveness of radical Islam.

---

http://www.actforamerica.org/

By Brigitte Gabriel

During this first month of the New Year 2009, we have seen some stunning developments that, considered together, should leave absolutely no doubt about the rising radical Islamic threat on our doorsteps in America.

I have been warning Americans since 2002 about this threat, and that the threat is not just confined to terrorism. This is not a “war on terror.” Terror is a tactic, one of many in the arsenal of radical Islamists.

I have been declaring, to anyone who would listen, that Islamists are well on their way to subverting and transforming Europe, and they are riding that wave here to America.

I have told my personal story, of how Islamists, step by step, took over my country of Lebanon. How they used our freedoms and commitment to tolerance and multiculturalism against us to further their ultimate ends. And how they are using the same strategies and tactics against us in the West.

In just the past three weeks we have seen:
• A violent Islamic protest in Britain, where an angry mob shouting “Allahu Akbar” chased – yes, chased – dozens of British policemen for blocks. You must see this video to believe it! (Please be warned – there is offensive language and profanity). Click here to see this shocking video.

• Pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Muslims conducting demonstrations here in America, shouting praises to Hitler for what he did to the Jews, yelling “go back to the ovens,” and at times physically attacking counter-protestors.

• The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordering the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders because he has made statements deemed “insulting” and harmful to “the religious esteem” of Muslims.

• Austrian parliamentarian Susanne Winter convicted of “incitement,” because of public statements she has made, including the claim that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile.

• Muslim protest marches in Italy that ended with the protestors, in an obvious act of intimidation, conducting mass prayer vigils directly in front of Catholic places of worship.

• The release of an official U.S. government report stating that Hezbollah is forming terrorist cells here in the U.S. that could become operational.

• The UN continuing to move ahead with the “Durban II” conference and its document that is little more than an anti-Israel rant that calls for suppressing public “defamation” of religion – notably Islam. This has run parallel to an effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to get the UN Human Rights Commission to pass a resolution condemning public “defamation” of Islam.
My friends, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. Radical Islam is on the march, and it is growing stronger and bolder with every passing day.

What elected official in Europe or the UK will now have the courage to speak out against this threat? Certainly the actions against parliamentarians Wilders and Winter will ultimately have a chilling effect on American elected officials as well.

How many more “no-go zones,” Muslim enclaves where non-Muslims and even police officers fear to go, will appear in Europe? We’re already seeing such enclaves develop here in America right now. There’s a reason why Dearborn, Michigan, is frequently referred to as “Dearbornistan.”

What will happen in America when 50,000 ranting, chanting Islamist demonstrators attempt to aggressively back down and chase police officers trying to maintain order? Will the police use the force necessary? If they do, we can expect howls from groups like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). How will government officials respond?

And if the police back down and run, as they recently did in Britain, what message is being sent to radical Islamists?

With the recent announcements by the Obama administration regarding ending the use of certain coercive interrogation practices, will this administration have the courage and use the tools necessary to protect us from Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda terrorist cells in our midst?

It is becoming crystal clear that 2009 is going to be a critical year in our effort to roll back the rising tide of Islamofascism. Over the next several weeks we will be announcing various projects and programs designed so that we can more aggressively and effectively go on the offense against this threat.

I am asking you to pay close attention to these announcements when they occur and to participate in every way you can. We must all come together and ACT! this year, before the worldwide momentum building behind radical Islam becomes too powerful to stop.

Always devoted,

Brigitte Gabriel