Obama may give Russia secret data on Missile Shield interceptors

[vector7]

Companion Posts and Threads:

• Obama Administration Plans to Share Nuke Secrets with Russia
• Obama Administration to Share Nuke Weapons Secrets with China
• Obama's giveaway: Oil-rich islands to Russia
• Obama agrees to give Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
• President Obama seeks Russian deal to slash nuclear weapons
• The Obama Administration gives both Russia and China access to our nuclear sites
• Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms.
• The Obama administration Declares Size of Nuclear Arsenal and Stops Counting New Missiles In Russia
  
• Obama loosens missile technology controls to China
• Obama shuts down NASA, transfers technology to Russia while redirecting their focus to make Muslims 'feel good'
• Obama on a path to Gut the Military
• One Month before the Gulf Oil Crisis Obama Surrenders Gulf Oil to Moscow
• Obama Administration Imposes Seven-year Drilling Moratorium
• Obama surrenders Oil off US coastline and Texas to Russia
• Obama allows Russia to take over Uranium Mines in Wyoming - 50% of US production

U.S. dangles secret data for Russia missile shield approval


A U.S. Navy military personnel is pictured aboard the USS Monterey military vessel in the Black Sea harbour of Constanta, 250 km (155 miles) east of Bucharest June 7, 2011. The cruiser, equipped with the AEGIS air defense system, is the first phase of Adaptive Approach in Stages missile shield for Europe based in Romania.

Credit: Reuters/Bogdan Cristel

By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:41pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is leaving open the possibility of giving Moscow certain secret data on U.S. interceptor missiles due to help protect Europe from any Iranian missile strike.

A deal is being sought by Washington that could include classified data exchange because it is in the U.S. interest to enlist Russia and its radar stations in the missile-defense effort, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Tuesday in written replies to Reuters.

No decision has been made yet on whether the United States would offer data about the interceptors' "velocity at burnout," or VBO, said Air Force Lieutenant Colonel April Cunningham, the spokeswoman, but it is not being ruled out.

VBO is at the heart of what Russia wants as the price for its cooperation, said Riki Ellison, head of the private Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, who has close ties to missile defense and military officials.

VBO tells how fast an interceptor is going when its rocket-booster motor fuel is spent and the motor burns out.

With VBO and certain other technical data, Moscow could more readily develop countermeasures and strategies to defeat the system and transfer the information to others, Ellison said.

Ellen Tauscher, the administration's special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, held talks in Moscow Tuesday with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, including on missile defense, a State Department spokesman said.

The Defense Department, in its response to Reuters, ruled out giving Russia information on either "telemetry" or U.S. "hit-to-kill" technology.

Telemetry involves the automatic transmission and measurement of data from remote sources to monitor a missile flight. Hit-to-kill is the way in which modern U.S. interceptors, such as Raytheon Co's Standard Missile-3, destroy targets by slamming into them.

The department emphasized the Obama administration was following in the footsteps of the George W. Bush administration in seeking missile defense cooperation with Moscow, a process formally begun in 2004.

In keeping open the possibility of sharing VBO information with Moscow, Obama is at odds with Republicans in Congress who have said they will seek to legislate a prohibition on such data-sharing.

Republican Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House of Representatives' Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, faulted the administration for what he described as "caving" to Russian concerns at the expense of U.S. interests.

"That is why it is important Congress insist on protecting our classified missile defense information, and our right to deploy missile defenses without concern for Russia's posturing," he said in a statement Tuesday to Reuters.

The sharing of such data might help salve Russian concerns about the layered shield being built in Europe by the United States and its NATO allies, chiefly to fend off the perceived threat from Iranian missiles.

Moscow fears the bulwark could grow strong enough over time to undermine its nuclear deterrent force. It has threatened to deploy missiles to overcome the shield and potentially target missile defense installations such as those planned in NATO members Poland and Romania.

The Defense Department, in its reply to Reuters, said the sharing of classified U.S. data is subject to an interagency group known as the National Disclosure Policy Committee, which evaluates requests for dealing with other governments.

Bradley Roberts, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, told Turner's committee last week the United States had been making "no progress" toward persuading Russia to drop its opposition to the shield despite its willingness to consider sharing certain classified data.

(Reporting By Jim Wolf; editing by Todd Eastham)

[Beetle]

Vote this commie Jack Wagon out of office!

[Beetle]

I just read a story on American Thinker about this. The writter said,

Russia used to need spies for this sort of thing. But the administration appears to want to do the same thing to the espionage industry that they have done for other American industries - kill jobs.

I wonder if Russian spies will go on strike to protest against Obama putting them out of business?

[American Patriot]

I doubt it. Remember Beetle, Ronald Reagan offered to share this with Russia - or rather the Soviet Union. He thought that since it was a "defensive shield" it should be a good thing to share such stuff with the world.

[Malsua]

Why don't we sell it to Russia? I mean, why give it away? If we're going to betray our people, our country, our security, can't we at least get SOMETHING out of it?

[American Patriot]

I don't know. That's a good idea too. Except Russia won't buy.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Putin's Spies in America
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
• COMMUNISTS KNEW IN 1992 that BARACK WOULD BE PRESIDENT

Mar 26, 2012 6:17am
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’

Email 194 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.

A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

-Jake Tapper

[American Patriot]

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Fox News Channel is about to cover this very thing. They showed the video with captions as they were talking.

OMG. What is this guy going to do NOW? What are his plans for America?

Oh, wait, we already know...

After my election I have more flexibility.

[American Patriot]

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

[American Patriot]

America is being set up. One way or another.

There were double entendres involved here... innuendo as you've never heard before.

[Malsua]

Congressman to Obama: You’d better not be trading away our missile defense, champ;


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/2...defense-champ/

More at the link...
--------------------
Dear Mr. President,

I request your urgent explanation of your comments to President Medvedev in Seoul this morning.

During the New START treaty ratification process, you made specific promises that Russian concerns about missile defense will not be allowed to affect U.S. missile defense deployment plans. You further committed that the United States will make both qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses. You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?

As you know, in the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress enacted, and you signed into law, a provision constraining your ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia. Despite signing the FY12 defense authorization legislation into law, you then issued a signing statement signaling that you may treat that provision protecting U.S. missile defense information as non-binding. This morning’s comments, on top of that action, suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny.

Congress has made exquisitely clear to your Administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defenses. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Turner

Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

House Armed Services Committee

[American Patriot]

Republican, Ohio.

Good on Ryan for putting this guy in office.

[Ryan Ruck]

I guess "3 co-equal branches of government" is a concept foreign to Obama.

Then again, I suppose it would be to most tin-pot dictators.

[American Patriot]

I guess "3 co-equal branches of government" is a concept foreign to Obama.

Then again, I suppose it would be to most tin-pot dictators.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obam...#ixzz1iFKkiQQh

Author James Patterson Tells Newsmax About Books for Troops, Kids Programs
Home | Headline
Tags: Obama Will Govern Without Congress
Obama Will Govern Without Congress

Saturday, 31 Dec 2011 10:54 AM

Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.

Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.

Partisan, down-to-the-wire fights over allowing the nation to take on more debt and sharply reducing government spending defined 2011. In the new year, there are almost no must-do pieces of legislation facing the president and Congress.

The one exception is the looming debate on a full-year extension of a cut in the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to put in place that extension.

The White House believes GOP lawmakers boxed themselves in during the pre-Christmas debate on the tax break and will be hard-pressed to back off their own assertions that it should continue through the end of 2012.

Once that debate is over, the White House says, Obama's political fate will no longer be tied to Washington.

"Now that he's sort of free from having to put out these fires, the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better," said Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary. But, he added, "that's no longer a requirement."

Aides say the president will not turn his back on Congress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.

If those efforts fail, the White House says, Obama's re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.

Earnest said Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the "We Can't Wait" campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.

Obama's election year retreat from legislative fights means this term will end without significant progress on two of his 2008 campaign promises, an immigration overhaul and closing the military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Presidential directives probably won't make a big dent in the nation's 8.6 percent unemployment rate or lead to significant improvements in the economy. That's the chief concern for many voters and the issue on which Republican candidates are most likely to criticize Obama.

In focusing on executive actions rather than ambitious legislation, the president risks appearing to be putting election-year strategy ahead of economic action at a time when millions of Americans are still out of work.

"Americans expect their elected leaders to work together to boost job creation, even in an election year," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Still, Obama and his advisers are beginning 2012 with a renewed sense of confidence, buoyed by a series of polls that show the president's approval rating climbing as Congress becomes increasingly unpopular.

They believe his victory over Republicans in the payroll tax debate has boosted his credentials as a fighter for the middle class, a theme he will look to seize on in his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.

Obama's campaign-driven, domestic-travel schedule starts in Cleveland on Wednesday, the day after GOP presidential hopefuls square off in the Iowa caucuses. He will also keep up an aggressive re-election fundraising schedule, with events already lined up in Chicago on Jan. 11.

Campaign officials say Obama will fully engage in the re-election campaign once the Republicans pick their nominee. He will focus almost exclusively on campaigning after the late summer Democratic National Convention, barring unexpected developments at home or abroad.

Among the issues that could disrupt Obama's re-election plans: further economic turmoil in Europe, instability in North Korea following its leadership transition and threats from Iran.

The president's signature legislative accomplishment will also come under greater scrutiny in the new year, when a critical part of his health care overhaul is debated before the Supreme Court.

Obama's foreign travel next year will be limited mainly to the summits and international gatherings every U.S. president traditionally attends. He's expected to travel to South Korea in March for a nuclear security summit and to Colombia in April for the Summit of the Americas. He's also likely to visit Mexico in June for the G-20 economic summit.

Two other major international gatherings — the NATO summit and the G-8 economic meeting — will be held in Chicago, on home turf.

He's already done this.... Just sayin....

[American Patriot]

And just to follow on with that line of thinking, this is only one part of a several part series...

Who need Congress – part 4 of 8




Posted by conservativekaren (Diary)
Thursday, February 16th at 11:18AM EDT
No Comments
In part 4 of my expose: Who Needs Congress, I quote Barack Obama: “I’ve told my administration, we’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress,” “We can’t wait for Congress to do its job.” Obama and his administration have passed the following laws and regulations:
1. The recent law signed by Obama confers the right of our government to indefinitely detain any terrorism suspect without trial. Michigan Senator Carl Levin states that Obama asked for the language protecting American citizens to be removed from the bill. To Congress’ shame, the bill passed. While believing no one should be detained or water-boarded at Gitmo, Obama nevertheless decided to kill an American citizen, terrorist though he was, via drone – al-Awlaki.
2. A relaxation on oversight of the FBI’s intelligence gathering activities – meaning our trash can be gone through and law enforcement data bases can be accessed without an investigation being opened.
3. The Department of Justice now has the legal right to tell outright lies about what documents it does and doesn’t have. Government can hide from us just what it is doing.
4. The National Labor Relations Board is charged with judging private sector labor law cases and interpreting labor statutes. It is proposing sweeping rule changes favorable to unions.
5. President Obama recently declared during congressional hearings into the disappearance of $1.2 billion that he can preempt the law whenever its enforcement might irritate a foreign government.
6. President Obama argues that he has the unilateral power to nullify Arizona’s Immigration law by saying that it implicates the president’s power over foreign affairs, trumping any state’s immigration-related actions when another nation has a complaint.
7. Our Department of Justice rejected South Carolina’s voter ID law, saying no evidence of fraud had been provided. This standard was rejected by the Supreme Court but is ignored by Obama. The Supreme Court also previously stated that the “burden to travel to an elections office with proof of ID is no more a burden than traveling to the polling place to vote. Voter turnout has actually increased in states that require voter ID. In Chicago, photo ID is required for purchasing Draino, but not for voting.
8. Obama’s EEOC has just declared that requiring a high school education in order to apply for a job goes against the Americans for Disability Act. This not only is a ploy to get more votes, it creates a reason for more students to drop out of high school and it further dumbs-down our populace, all in one fell swoop! Attorneys will be fully employed prosecuting lawsuits.
9. President Obama recently named a new cabinet-level Office of Manufacturing Policy, along with two new czars who will guide his manufacturing policies. This comes after he signed the budget compromise wherein the czars overseeing health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs were eliminated. Following his signing it into law, he declared he would ignore the part about the czars.
10. Obama is collecting information by asking supporters to ‘have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life’ by signing them up to get an email from the Obama campaign ribbing them for having ‘inspired’ the supporter to donate. In the process, Obama gets the conservatives’ email addresses. If the supporter also provides the home address and purchases an Obama store item, Obama will even send the gift to Republicans. This follows his flag@whitehouse program and “Attack Watch”, the program of snitching to the Obama website on any person who might have said “something fishy” about Obamacare or anything else.
11) Obama’s Cybersecurity Coordinator is moving to give the Commerce Department the authority to create an Internet ID for all Americans, an “identity ecosystem” for the internet.
12) Americans staying at home caring for disabled family members are now forced to join a union and pay union dues. SEIU receives about $30 of each family’s Medicaid subsidy as union dues.
14) President Obama in early January made three recess appointments of those whom Congress failed to approve. The problem is that Congress was not in recess, making this a flagrant abuse of the law.

[vector7]

March 26, 2012
Obama Seeks Another Arms Deal with Russia


Photo: AP

U.S. President Barack Obama, left, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev talk and smile at each other following the conclusion of their bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, March, 26, 2012.

U.S. President Barack Obama says there is room for another arms control deal with Russia.

After talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Seoul nuclear summit Monday, Obama said both countries can continue to make progress in cutting stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The president called the START agreement with Russia ratified in 2010 the most comprehensive arms treaty in 20 years. Obama said he plans to pursue another round of cuts with Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin.

In an exchange picked up on an open microphone, the U.S. leader said he would have more flexibility to deal with the issue of missile defense after the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Medvedev said he understood, and would pass the message on to President-elect Putin.

The two leaders apparently did not intend for the remarks to be made public. The White House later released a statement saying that since 2012 is an election year in both countries, it is not a time in which a breakthrough could be expected.

Differences also remain between the United States and Russia on Syria.

Despite the disagreements, President Medvedev said relations with Washington are their best in 10 years.


Related Articles
Obama Calls for North Korea to Have Courage to Pursue Peace

[vector7]

Issa on Obama's Remarks to Medvedev: 'He's Going to Sell Out Our National Defense After the Election'

By Elizabeth Harrington
March 27, 2012


President Obama and Russian President Medvedev at summit. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) – House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that “the American people should be very afraid” after hearing President Barack Obama’s accidentally recorded remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday that after the election he would have more “flexibility” in dealing with the Russians.

"I judge that in fact he’s going to sell out our national defense after the election," said Issa.

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Issa about the president’s remarks to Medvedev, which were inadvertantly picked up by a microphone and recorded. “Can I ask you about the President’s remarks to the Russian president yesterday?" asked CNSNews.com. "Does he mean he’s going to be making concessions to the Russians after the election?”



Issa responded: “Well clearly, the president has a plan to do after the election what he can’t or won’t do before the election. And he’s going to do it without ever being honest with the American people.”

“I think that’s clear,” said Issa. “Now, how much of a sell out of America’s security -- [Incoming Russian President Vladimir] Putin certainly is not on our side, doesn’t want what we want, has certainly proven to be a new generation dictator of Russia.”

“So, when he sends to the president [Medvedev] who’s about to leave office in favor of Putin coming back in and taking over officially, that we can work together to get what Putin wants, quite candidly the American people should be very afraid that any President who’s going to be flexible with Putin is going to be flexible with an enemy of America, an enemy of the West, an enemy of even delivery of oil and natural gas to people in need in the winter,” Issa said.

“Understand, it has been the Putin administration that has cut off the flow of natural gas in the winter to Eastern Europeans if they didn’t play ball with them," said Issa. "So, that’s the person that he’s quote, going to be ‘flexible’ with after the election.”

On Monday in Seoul, South Korea, President Obama thought he was speaking to Russian President Medvedev privately when live microphones caught his remarks ahead of a summit meeting on nuclear security.

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him (Putin) to give me space,” Obama said.

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev replied.
Obama attempted to clarify his remarks on Tuesday, saying he is not “hiding the ball” on his goal to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

“Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong understanding, both between countries and within countries,” he said.

CNSNews.com asked Issa if President Obama owes a better explanation of his remarks, and if Congress should look into it.

“A free press should be asking the questions and trying to get answers,” Issa said. “And if they can’t get answers as to what this really meant, and an honest answer and a full answer of the kind of disclosure that would occur afterwards, then quite candidly the voters will have to decide.”

“I personally don’t think that the statements like that of a president are the subject of my committee," said Issa. "I won’t be following up on it. I think that they’re available for the press to ask and for the American people to judge."

“I, as an American citizen, was already not voting for the president,” Issa said.

“But, you know, I judge that in fact he’s going to sell out our national defense after the election or something along that line, because I know Putin to be a man who, unlike what George W. Bush said, you cannot see into his soul or his heart," said Issa. "He has been a really awful person for countries around him and for America. And right now he’s the only--he and the Chinese are standing with Bashar Assad as people in Syria are being murdered.”

[vector7]

McCain: Obama Will Use 'Presidential Power to Downgrade' Missile Defense

By Eric Scheiner
March 27, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says President’s Obama’s recent comments to Russian President Medvedev show the president intends to downgrade the importance of missile defense in Europe.

“What he means is that he will use his presidential power to downgrade the importance of missile defense, that’s what he means, that’s what the translation is,” McCain told CNSNews.com.

On Monday an open microphone picked up President Obama telling Russia’s leader that he would have more flexibility after the presidential election in November to deal with the difficult issue of missile defense.

“This is my last election,’’ Obama told the Russian President. “After my election, I have more flexibility.’’

McCain, the ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee is critical of President Obama’s comments, “It’s deeply alarming and disturbing to all of us that we show ‘flexibility’, we know what that means, we know what that means. That means he will back off existing American policy since Ronald Reagan.”

“I think they’re very revealing. I think those of us that are very committed to national security should be very concerned about stating one policy and then saying you’re going to be quote ‘flexible’ – does anybody believe flexible means that he’s going to increase his stance or strengthen his stance on missile defense? Of course not.”

Tensions over missile defense have strained relations between the United States and Russia in recent years.

Russia has been critical of a US-led NATO missile defense system in Europe.

Russian officials are concerned the planned missile initiative will focus on Russia’s nuclear weapons.

The United States says the missile defense system is to counter threats from Iran.

[vector7]

Barack Obama: I Have A "Moral Obligation" To Neuter America



Barack Obama actually plans to do it. He actually plans to neuter America by unilaterally dismantling most of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal. In fact, Barack Obama says that the United States has a "moral obligation" to disarm as we lead the way to "a world without nuclear weapons". Sadly, a "world without nuclear weapons" is a fantasy that will not be possible any time soon. Nuclear weapons technology is getting into more hands with each passing year, and geopolitical tensions are rising all over the globe. If the United States did not have nuclear weapons, anyone with just a handful of nukes would constitute a massive threat to our national security.

An overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal helps keep us safe because every other nation on the planet knows that it would be national suicide to attack us. If you take that overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal away, the entire calculation changes.

Many out there claim that even if the U.S. only has a few hundred nuclear warheads that it will be more than enough to be an effective deterrent.
Sadly, that simply is not true.

If an enemy knows that we only have a few hundred warheads, and if they know exactly where those warheads are located for verification purposes, then a first strike which would take out the vast majority of our operational warheads becomes very plausible.

That is why what Obama wants to do is so incredibly dangerous. If he reduces our strategic nuclear arsenal down to almost nothing, the odds of a nuclear first strike against the United States someday go up dramatically.
The following is what Fox News reported that Obama said during a speech in South Korea the other day....

"American leadership has been essential to progress in a second area -- taking concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said yesterday during a speech in Korea. "I believe the United States has a unique responsibility to act -- indeed, we have a moral obligation."

A moral obligation to do what?
A moral obligation to neuter America?
Obama also said the following in South Korea during his speech the other day....

"Even as we have more work to do, we can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need."

Is that really the case?

Back in 1967, the U.S. military had more than 31,000 strategic nuclear warheads.

The START Treaty that was agreed to back in 2010 will limit both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. That represents a massive reduction from the height of the Cold War.

Unfortunately, that is not nearly good enough for Barack Obama.
Obama has instructed Pentagon leaders to draft a plan which would unilaterally reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal by up to 80 percent.

The U.S. military may soon cut down to a level of only 300 warheads without requiring the Russians to make any additional cuts.
This is complete and utter madness!

Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney shared his opinion of this disarmament plan with the Washington Free Beacon....

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

Sadly, we do not appear to have sane people running things at this point.

In addition, the START Treaty did absolutely nothing to address the overwhelming superiority that Russia has in tactical nuclear weapons. Today, Russia has at least a 10 to 1 numerical advantage over us in tactical nukes.

By shifting the balance of power so dramatically, Barack Obama is making a nuclear attack on the United States someday far more likely.

And we have no idea how many nukes the Chinese have. They could have thousands. We have no nuclear weapons treaty with them and so they can build as many nukes as they want.

How in the world can we be so foolish?

But Obama doesn't just want to strip us of our nukes.

He also appears very willing to negotiate away our missile defenses.

On Monday, an exchange between Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was caught by a microphone that was accidentally on.
The following is what was said during the exchange as recorded by ABC News....

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Video of this exchange is posted below....



So essentially Obama is saying that he will be willing to negotiate away our missile defenses after the 2012 election when he won't be accountable to the American people any longer.

Get ready America.

You are about to be neutered.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are taking an approach that is 180 degrees in the other direction.

Russia has already been spending big money modernizing and updating the Russian military.

And now Vladimir Putin wants to take things to a whole new level. During the speech he made to formally launch his campaign to reclaim the Russian presidency, Vladimir Putin made the following statement....

"In the next five to 10 years we must take our armed forces to a qualitatively new level. Of course, this will require big spending .... but we must do this if we want to defend the dignity of our country"

We are also seeing nations in Asia really ramp up military spending. The following comes from a recent article posted on Business Insider....

Military analysts at IHS Jane's say that South-East Asian countries together increased defence spending by 13.5% last year, to $24.5 billion. The figure is projected to rise to $40 billion by 2016. According to SIPRI, arms deliveries to Malaysia jumped eightfold in 2005-09, compared with the previous five years. Indonesia's spending grew by 84% in that period.

It is part of a wider Asian phenomenon. For the first time, in modern history at least, Asia's military spending is poised to overtake Europe's, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank in London. China is doubling its defence budget every five years and India has just announced a 17% rise in spending this year, to about $40 billion.

Both the Russians and the Chinese have much larger conventional military forces than we do. It has been our overwhelming advantage in strategic weaponry that has tilted the balance of power in our favor. But now Barack Obama wants to totally neuter us. A well-timed first strike at some point in the future could leave us as sitting ducks.

Most Americans don't ever think such a scenario could possibly happen.

Unfortunately, most Americans are dead wrong.

Right now, gun sales in the United States are absolutely skyrocketing.

Someday those guns may be needed, but not for the reasons that most people think.

If we only have a handful of nukes, a limited first strike that takes out our nuclear weapons, our air bases, our naval bases, our electrical grid and our command and control capabilities could leave the United States wide open for a "Red Dawn" scenario.

The war and the starvation that would follow would result in the vast majority of Americans ending up dead.

That is why we need a strong strategic nuclear arsenal. Nobody ever wants to see a single strategic nuclear weapon be used. But we need them so that no other nation on the planet will ever dare nuke us.

Sadly, most people that will read this article will not understand it.

Most people that will read this article will choose to believe that a nuclear attack on America is absolutely impossible.

I wish that was true.

[American Patriot]

Yeah... I really need to get out of this business....