Nuclear Arms and America

April 7, 2010

The United States has become significantly less safe under Barack Obama than we have ever been in the past. President Obama has now stated that the U.S., under his administration, will not use nuclear weapons in any case against a non-nuclear state. This basically means that even if we are attacked with a biological or chemical weapon, we will not nuke the agressor.

Naturally leftists are cheering the president for taking America down a notch. Yea, our European, more sophisticated and less backwoods *choke, gag, spit* ‘allies’ are glad that the only superpower is basically self-destructing under Obama. But countries like Japan, South Korea and Israel should be very worried. Even the American people should be worried. Our nuclear arsenal is the greatest deterrent the world has ever seen. At the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union had a larger military than we. If it weren’t for our advanced nuclear weapons we might have went to war. Today China, India, and others have larger militaries than we do. Yet we keep our status as superpower because of our power projection, world-wide influence and ability to neutralize potential foes via our large number of nukes. This is our greatest threat against China, whose military is modernizing and whose power projection is being increased.

So what does this mean Mr. President? Does that mean that if China invaded next month without using nukes on us, would we just sit back on our haunches with 20 million invading Chinese troops overrunning us? Would we seriously not drop the bomb on them if they attacked conventionally? Besides the threat of 200,000,000+ armed American citizens our nuclear payload is our safety against expansionist potential regional or super-powers. An emerging China, whom we depend upon for borrowing and cheap labor, is looking at eventually contending with the U.S. in regional power and has longer term goals of being to us soon what the USSR was yesteryear. China, however, doesn’t have our advanced nuclear arms and missile defense. This keeps them in check, for now. With Obama’s promise to not use nuclear arms, China has been green-lighted to speed their military upgrades and potential conflict with Taiwan. Do we really need a wet behind the ears president who doesn’t understand the complex diplomatic dance and international intrigue of the world stage deciding that we won’t use nukes?

This puts in question every American’s safety. Obama seems to think that his charm offensive is going to appease the Sino expansionism and lead to international peace whereby nuclear weapons become obsolete and every nation beats their swords into plowshares. Unfortunately, we live in reality, not some far off land where money grows on trees and dictators are talked out of their totalitarianism. This begs the question, will Obama come to his senses before a serious national security threat arises? Or has it already?


The Lunacy of the Drudge Retort

February 8, 2010

My friends, I’ve heeded my own warning about visiting the cesspool of intellectual understimulation that is the Drudge Retort. However, upon surfing through other liberal blogs to counter their points, it seemed that some of them have linked back to the same. So, to see what my arch-nemesis Ben Hoffman was up to, I stopped by, kindly adhering to my own pledge to comment no more forever on his blog. Well this was all that I could do to keep from refuting his falsities and outright lies. Let me list some of the most egregious.

1. “Our country is in serious trouble. Just to keep running, the government needs to borrow $14.3 trillion dollars. The federal debt is now at over $12 trillion, thanks to the irresponsible tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the two wars, and high unemployment that has greatly reduced revenues, not to mention the over $400 billion dollars a year we pay to interest on the debt.” He actually said this. It’s enough to make one laugh out loud if it weren’t for the dangerously high level of misinformation.

First though, to be nice I will admit that some of this is true. We have had to pay for two wars and since we weren’t able to do it through our own revenue, we borrowed. What we should have done was CUT SPENDING on Democratic and Republican earmarks, welfare, medicaid etc. That is all the truth in this statement. The tax cuts have not cut down on our revenue, increased spending has multiplied our expenditures. (Something that liberal loons like Hoffman have long advocated.) Lastly, the high unemployment is half Bush’s fault and half Obama’s. Remember, under Obama the unemployment has been over 10%, something that *gasp* NEVER happened under Bush. The debt (not to be confused with the deficit which is simply year to year) has shot over 12 TRILLION under Obama and is on course to be over 14 trillion very soon. Right, keep on blaming Bush Obama, that’s what real leaders do right? JUST SHUT UP ABOUT BUSH AND DO SOMETHING. I swear that Obama’s administration has to be the WHINIEST, MOST INEFFECTIVE administration in 50+ years. Maybe a hundred.

2. He made some half-cocked, lame brained, totally uninformed and misleading statement about the SCOTUS ruling that allows corporations to spend money on political advertising. He said that Hugo Chavez can now spend money to influence American politics. Even if that were true, he would most likely spend money on trying to elect pseudo-socialists like Obama and the idiot former head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean. In truth, the ban on foreign corporations spending money still stands. Surely he didn’t INTEND to mislead his readers!

3. “Barack Obama took office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He got off to a good start in February when he signed the $787 billion stimulus bill. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has created or saved 800,000 to 2.4 million jobs. This is probably his greatest accomplishment so far.” This made me choke on my own tongue. Really? Saved or created? 2.4 million? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is the stupidest, most idiotic statement I’ve heard on a blog in a LONG time. Which is it 800,000 or 2,400,000? Big difference Hoffman. Even if it is 2.4 million, that brings the cost per job to just under $330,000. Wow, I could employ half a billion people with $787B running a lemonade stand. Maybe more.

4. “He eliminated some wasteful spending, such as the F-22 Raptor program. [Oh yeah, spending money on that silly little airplane is foolish. Forget that China is spending more money than ever on expanding their military power and power projection. Why, if we need to defend Taiwan we can just throw rocks at them. That’ll surely work! We definitely could use that money on a bridge for turtles instead!] He signed some equal rights protection bills, expanded SCHIP, protected wilderness areas, and improved transparency in government. [There goes the tongue again! You mean like having a CLOSED DOOR meeting on TRANSPARENCY?!?! What about the health care bill being written mostly behind closed doors with top Democrats only?!?! Blue dogs be darned, Republicans be darned, independents be darned! Transparency like a concrete wall.] He also eased restrictions on federal money for embryonic stem cell research. [Yup, wholesale slaughter of embryos just for science. Science that hasn’t found any cure for anything despite destroying thousands of embryos over a decade or more.]

I have just shown some of the most absurd, most illogical, blame-shifting, whining, cowardly and misinforming posts on his site. And those are just recent. It would be worthwhile if liberals would actually try to inform rather than twist the facts, shift the blame and lie when it fits their agenda.