RUTHFULLY YOURS

For much of the nuclear age, and certainly after the first arms control agreement between the US and the Soviet Union in 1972, America has sought to balance both arms control and deterrent imperatives by building both nuclear deterrent forces and later missile defenses that in combination make the use of nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies less and less likely.

As Admiral Richard Mies, the former Commander of US Strategic Command has emphasized, the watchword of nuclear deterrence has been to prevent nuclear war from ever breaking out between the nuclear armed superpowers. Critical to that effort has been to enhance what is known as “strategic stability” which means in a crisis there is no pressure on an American President to use nuclear weapons.

The current geostrategic landscape, however, is fraught with grave concerns which have heightened nuclear dangers. Civilian and military leaders of the Russian Federation just since 2009 have in more than two dozen instances threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies. China has threatened the use of military force against its East Asia neighbors as well as the United States should its hegemonic moves in the South China Sea be challenged. In North Korea, a rogue regime may now have an arsenal of upwards of 20 nuclear weapons which it routinely threatens to use against the Republic of Korea and the United States. And in Iran, the mullahs seek nuclear weapons while publicly denying any such ambition even as they remain the world’s number one state sponsor of terror while holding the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East.

President Obama missed a Monday deadline to have a Middle East strategy, including his counter-extremism plan, in the hands of lawmakers.

The comprehensive plan, which was supposed to be delivered by the secretaries of State and Defense, was a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama last fall.

The Obama administration has been focused on their Asia pivot over the past several days, as the president hosted a retreat session with ASEAN leaders at Sunnylands in Southern California.

“Unsurprisingly, the administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said. “Time and again, the president has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress.”

“I fear the president’s failure to deliver this report says far more about the state of his strategy to defeat terrorists than any empty reassurance he may offer from the podium.”

The law requires that the strategy include: “A description of the objectives and end state for the United States in the Middle East and with respect to violent extremism; a description of the roles and responsibilities of the Department of State in the strategy; a description of the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Defense in the strategy; a description of actions to prevent the weakening and failing of states in the Middle East; a description of actions to counter violent extremism; a description of the resources required by the Department of Defense to counter ISIL’s illicit oil revenues; a list of the state and non-state actors that must be engaged to counter violent extremism; a description of the coalition required to carry out the strategy, and the expected lines of effort of such a coalition; an assessment of United States efforts to disrupt and prevent foreign fighters traveling to Syria and Iraq and to disrupt and prevent foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq traveling to the United States.”

One great disconnect afflicting American society is between earning a profit and safeguarding our national security. On one side are those who support free trade in the belief that open markets and shared technology trade strengthen the economy. On the other hand, there is something categorically wrong with the free trade paradigm if free trade means selling or sharing technology critical to national security. Then, the cost of free trade is very high, so much so that it could be fatal to the long-term survival of the state.

The United States is justifiably proud of its technological prowess; in fact, much of our military might is based on our superior technical smarts. But is this an artifact of a fast-evaporating past?

Starting in the early 1970s, or even perhaps a little before, the then-Soviet Union embarked on a massive military buildup, committing a huge portion of their Gross National Product (GNP) to military development and production, starting with nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The Soviet aim was to shift the balance of power between East and West, and secure for the Soviet Union something better than equality with the United States. By threatening to overrun NATO in a general war, the Soviets were looking for economic and political concessions — principally in Europe, although they also promoted a big push in the Middle East, rich in oil and in markets for Soviet military goods.

Now that so many opinions, columns, politicians are focusing on the next appointment to the Supreme Court, let me recommend a book that explains how important it is to replace Antonin Scalia with a learned and principled and genuine Conservative. rsk

“The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution: You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand how Supreme Court Justices have recently substituted their own elitist views for Constitutional guarntees that protect the average American’s security and values”By Gerald Walpin

They’re on a “rampage,” writes Gerald Walpin, one of the country’s top litigators, in his astonishing new book, The Supreme Court Vs. The Constitution.And it takes just five of them to lay waste to the rights of 300 million Americans.

A mostly bare majority of justices of the United States Supreme Court, the only judicial body enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, have spent recent decades reversing, revoking and rescinding the fundamental guarantees of that sacred document to the people of America.

They’ve freed thousands of murderers, rewritten sound and time-tested laws, crippled religious liberty, enabled the spread of pornography and immorality. They have ignored the letter and spirit of the Constitution and its amendments in grabbing power that rightfully belongs to the Executive and Legislative branches, the states − and, ultimately, the people.

Gerald Walpin, who prosecuted criminals and pursued crooked bureaucrats as a federal Inspector General nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and, many years before, as a top prosecutor for the Department Of Justice in New York, dramatically sets out the deliberate push by a bare majority of Supreme Court justices to usurp the role of our country’s elected lawmakers and executives.

The justices time and again seize the rightful authority of those we elect to represent us, and with unchallengeable arrogance undermine the “inalienable rights” that long have made the United States the world’s brightest beacon of freedom, democracy, and personal security.

As if seven years of Obama’s efforts to diminish the world’s superpower were not enough, recent events in the Middle East highlight the need for American leadership capable of righting the ship.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s statement that the U.S. sailors “obviously had misnavigated” two boats into Iran’s territorial waters illustrates the administration’s mindset of blaming America first, as well as its efforts to neuter America’s defense forces.

This was exacerbated by Secretary John Kerry’s thanks and “gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation,” for releasing the ten sailors whose boats were hijacked by the terrorist designated Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Once again he demonstrated his acquiescence to Iran and inaptness to represent America’s interests.

President Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East thus far, included the enabling of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, accelerating Iranian intervention in the Middle East, and elevating the regime’s influence on the international stage.

Lifting the sanctions and filling the coffers of the terrorist theocracy of Iran with more than $100 billion, not only increased the funding of Iran’s terrorist activities and groups but also served to justify the Iranian Revolution agenda.

Expressions of the regime’s appreciation of these American concessions were exhibited this week by millions who marched in celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. The government organized demonstrators carried signs calling for “Death to America” while chanting “Death to Obama” and “Death to Kerry.”

Obama’s illusionary ‘red-line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons was made worse when the U.S. agreed to Assad regime’s demands that limited inspection and controlled the inspectors access even at the sites they were allowed into. While 1,300 metric tons of weapons-grade chemicals were removed from Syria, this was only part of Assad’s arsenal. Some of what was left behind was seized and used by ISIS. But none of that stopped Obama from celebrating his alleged success.

Imagine that it is Dec. 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. President Franklin Roosevelt goes before the Congress to request a declaration of war against . . . the Nazis’ SS.

Not the Japanese—they could never occupy the U.S. Not Hitler—we don’t much like him, but he’s not doing the killing. Not the regular Wehrmacht troops, they’re following orders. Not the Nazi Party—they aren’t a direct, physical threat to the U.S. Only the SS, because they are perpetrating the genocide that is the Third Reich’s worst crime.

Then FDR calls up Stalin and Churchill and urges them to quit worrying about German army divisions and the Luftwaffe and Hitler’s munitions factories—and focus only on the SS.

If America had taken that approach to World War II, it would have been utterly nonsensical, yet that is, in effect, how the Obama administration is dealing with the Middle East conflagration: by focusing exclusively on Islamic State.

The murderous jihadists of Islamic State, or ISIS, are only one symptom of a much larger problem in the Middle East. By fixating on this one symptom—rather than its sources—and then trying to convince everyone else in the region to do the same, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

READ MORE AT SITE

This very week General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that Castro’s spies remain a serious security threat to the U.S.:

“The threat from foreign intelligence entities…is persistent, complex, and evolving. Targeting and collection of US political, military, economic, and technical information by foreign intelligence services continues unabated. Russia and China pose the greatest threat, followed by Iran and Cuba…” (General James Clapper, Washington D.C. Feb 9, 2016.)

But two weeks ago (Jan. 26-29th) when the U.S. military’s Southern Command held its annual “Caribbean regional security conference,” senior members of Castro’s KGB-trained spy agency were kindly invited to participate.

“Aw come on, Humberto,” you say! “All nations embed spies in their diplomatic corps, for crying out loud. Let’s give Obama’s people a break on this one. How are they supposed to know which Cubans are the spies? It’s a jungle out there, amigo!”

Good point. Very true. In fact, U.S. intelligence services, regardless of the president they served, do not have an exactly stellar record with regards to Castro. To wit:

“We’ve infiltrated Castro’s guerrilla group in the Sierra Mountains. The Castro brothers and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara have no affiliations with any Communists whatsoever.” (In Nov. 1958 Havana CIA station Chief Jim Noel, was reacting to warnings from “tacky right-wing Mc Carthyite!” Cubans.)

First- Following the death of a great justice …..In a better world Michael Mukasey would be appointed to the Supreme Court….rsk

Second : The Debate
John Kasich is what we used to call a “goody two shoes” defined as a smugly or obtrusively virtuous person; a goody-goody. He reminds me of Philip Roth’s aunt in “Portnoy’s Complaint” who claimed that her only flaw was being “too good.”

Trump was worse than usual- rude, obnoxious, insulting, void of any real policy gravitas- and his grimaces were clownish. A schoolyard bully and a mud wrestler.

Jeb? He tried gamely to go after Trump but the oaf outshouted him. He was right that the Cruz/Rubio skirmish over a bill that never passed was silly.

Cruz and Rubio were better but Rubio won in delivery, personal message, answers, and foreign policy. It was definitely a comeback.

Ben Carson? Alas….nice guy who finished last.