All posts by ANC Staff

Jerks! Republicans Not Voting For Trump

Hillary Obama

Jerks! Republicans Not Voting For Trump

Food For Thought and this is Very Crucial:  The Supreme Court

If you are a Republican that won’t vote for Trump, think about this:

  • If Trump wins and he turns out to be a jerk as President, he’ll be tossed out in 4 years.  Do you think he’ll be as bad a President as Obama?  The guy has done pretty well managing a very large business so at least he’s got some credentials and is not a community organizer like Obama.
  • If Hillary wins, because ‘you’ didn’t feel dignified enough to vote for Trump, you, your children, and grand children will live under Hillary’s designated Supreme Court justices and their liberal rulings for many years to come (even if she’s a terrible President).

Even after Hillary is gone AND even if she is followed by a Republican President after 4 years that you do like, its most likely SHE will have CONTROL over future Supreme Court decisions.

Food For Thought and this is Very Crucial:  The Supreme Court

Some people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump for whatever reason. I just want to put something in perspective:

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant, and Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, Thomas is 67.

Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that… 7-2 rulings…for LIBERAL policies!!

If the next President appoints the next 5 justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation … and 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than any 5-4 decisions which are viewed as lacking in mandate.

obama gun control ammo

Hillary to go after Second Amendment!

Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

A “No” vote for Trump ‘is’ a vote for Hillary !

Hear this! If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

Remember Romney? Three million conservatives who had voted for McCain did not cast a vote for Romney (for whatever reason) and the result was four an additional 4 years of B.H.O.

If you are not convinced yet, I’ll leave with one final thought:
Hillary is already on the record as saying that her buddy, B.H.O. (Yep, that’s Barack Obama) “would make a great Supreme Court Justice.”

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS?

If elected President, Hillary will make Obama a Supreme Court Justice!  He and she will continue to destroy our country taking away all of our rights including the Second Amendment!

Supreme Court appointee
Supreme Court appointee

We Conservatives have lost; The Liberals are coming!

We Conservatives have lost; The Liberals are coming!

Matrix movie red blue pill

What have “we” become as a nation?  Who is the “we”?  With over 80% of Americans believing in God, guns, and the Confederate flag, how come “we” as a nation have turned in such a terrible direction. Most Americans do not support Obamacare, gay marriage, removal of the Confederate flag, removal of “in God we trust”, or giving Iran the bomb.

Most of us (over 85%) believe the border should be secured with a fence, illegals deported, illegals taken off welfare, welfare in general is too large, taxes are too high, the deficit is out of control, that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, the military should not be decimated as it has been over the last 7 years, and the Second Amendment is a guaranteed constitutional right.

So “we the people” believe in all of the above.  But where are the “we’s”?

US map red states blue counties election
Red is Conservative voting counties.

Obama barely won the last two elections.  Basically a 51/49 split.  So the numbers don’t add up.  80+% conservative thinking Americans but 51% voted liberally.  Huh?  Doesn’t add up even for those of you with weak math skills.

I am impressed with Obama.

In 7 years he gave us “Change We Can Believe In”.  Believe him now?

Obama change we can believe in
2008 Presidential Election

In 7 years he has lead change in our country that most of us thought we’d never see in this country.  Gay marriage. National healthcare. Iran with a nuclear bomb.  Russia flying military aircraft into our airspace.  Complete decimation of our military strength and fighting ability. A border so open hundreds of thousands of illegals cross each year encouraged by our government to do.

Most conservatives think we will turn our country around.  It won’t EVER happen!

We’ve lost!

And we aren’t ever turning back.  Too many people have been deeply influenced by the liberal main stream media.  The rage right now is the removal of the Confederate Flag.  The states of Alabama and South Carolina, two deeply conservative states, have removed this flag.  Did you think you’d ever see the South cave into this sort of pressure.  I’m am extremely disappointed in those states giving in.

But in other news right now, a 32 year old white woman walking down the streets of San Fran with her dad was brutally killed by an illegal alien (hispanic) and a young white male in DC on his way to celebrate the 4th was killed by a black man who wanted the white guy’s cell phone.  Stab him 40 times on a moving subway car while other’s watched.

How many of you have cried out for these two white victims?   Looted? Destroyed buildings and cars? Even protested? How many of you have even heard of these incidents?

Where’s the media coverage?  Where’s the outrage? 85% of us should be outraged.  Instead the 15% are worried about the Confederate Flag.  Its so bad Memphis is digging up a Confederate Civil War hero, and his wife, and moving the bodies!

15% protested, looted, and destroyed a city over a black thug being killed as he was attacking a white police office when the thug was beating him up and attempting to take his gun. 15% protested, looted, and destroyed a city when police (black police mind you) killed another black thug in Baltimore.

United We Stand!

Nope, scratch that….Divided We Fall!

We are a severely divided nation.  Obama promised us change to bring us together.  He did accomplish that by bringing together Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, and Liberals.  And he has brought closer those people who want to destroy America.

8 years ago, our government was not oppressing Christians. And no one ever thought Islam would be held in high esteem by our government.  Let an Muslim cut off the head of a lady at work, and no one cares. But there’s no way we are going to let that racist, bigot Colorado baker not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding!

And its working!  That is why I am impressed by him.  He has accomplished things that most Americans (85%) thought we would never see in this country.

Did you see where the Federal government FORCED a Colorado baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple AGAINST his religious beliefs?

Did you see where the Federal government sent in an armed group of 200+ agents against a unarmed Nevada farmer in order for Senator Harry Reid to take the farmers land and give to the Chinese?

All true stories.  And many, many more like them that most of you have never heard about.  Why?  They are not in the evening news on the liberal main stream media.

The USA, the “United” States, that 85% of us knew and loved is gone.  It’s not coming back.  We are losing and will lose because of the influx of foreigners and the liberal agenda being brain-washed into our younger generations.

There is nothing we can do.  At least as things are today.

Congress is worthless, spineless, weak, and influenced by big money from liberal minded people.  For those of you who believe Obama is really in charge, watch the movie “The Matrix” and take the blue pill which makes you go back to the world as you know it.  The red pill opens your eyes to what the world really is.  “It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes.” The Matrix movie.

When a married couple has irreconcilable differences, differences that they are NEVER going to resolve, they get a divorce and then find another person who is more like-minded.

Liberals and Conservatives are NEVER going to reconcile their differences.

We need a divorce!

US map red states blue counties election

It would be so nice if the all the Red States could live together under laws and leadership of like-minded people. And let the Blue’s do the same.

America Is On The Same Glide Path As The Fatal Germanwings Flight

America Is On The Same Glide Path As The Fatal Germanwings Flight

Germanwing airplane plane

The pilot was locked out of the cockpit. That phrase finally revealed the full horror of the crash of Germanwings flight 9525.

Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz waited for the pilot to leave the cockpit then locked the door to prevent his re-entry. After which Lubitz, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, deliberately steered the jet into a harrowing 8-minute plunge, ending in an explosive 434 mph impact with a rocky mountainside. One hundred fifty men, women and children met an immediate, unthinkably violent death.

Lubitz, in his single-minded madness, couldn’t be stopped because anyone who could change the jet’s disastrous course was locked out.

It’s hard to imagine the growing feelings of fear and helplessness that the passengers felt as the unforgiving landscape rushed up to meet them. Hard, but not impossible.

ISIS Tweet: We Are Coming to America
ISIS Tweet: We Are Coming to America

America is in very deep trouble and we feel the descent in the pits of our stomachs. We hear the shake and rattle of structures stressed beyond their limits. We don’t know where we’re going anymore, but do know it isn’t good. And above all, we feel helpless because Barack Obama has locked us out.

He locked the American people out of his decision to seize the national healthcare system.

He locked us out when we wanted to know why the IRS was attacking conservatives.

He locked us out of having a say in his decision to tear up our immigration laws and to give over a trillion dollars in benefits to those who broke those laws.

Obama locked out those who advised against premature troop withdrawals. He locked out the intelligence agencies who issued warnings about the growing threat of ISIS.

He locked out anyone who could have interfered with his release of five Taliban terror chiefs in return for one U.S. Military deserter.

And, of course, Barack Obama has now locked out Congress, the American people, and our allies as he strikes a secret deal with Iran to determine the timeline (not prevention) of their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Was Andreas Lubitz depressed, insane, or abysmally evil when he decided to lock that cockpit door and listen to no voices other than those in his head? Did he somehow believe himself to be doing the right thing? The voice recordings from the doomed aircraft reveal that as the jet began its rapid descent, the passengers were quiet. There was probably some nervous laughter, confusion, a bit of comforting chatter with seat mates, followed by a brief period in which anxiety had not yet metastasized into terror. It was only near the end of the 8-minute plunge that everyone finally understood what was really happening. Only near the end when they began to scream.

Like those passengers, a growing number of Americans feel a helpless dread as they come to the inescapable conclusion that our nation’s decline is an act of choice rather than of chance.

The choice of one man who is in full control of our 8-year plunge. I wonder when America will begin to scream.

Dr. RICHARD S. WELLS

Obama’s Brother Speaks Out Against Obama And His Deception

Obama’s Brother Speaks Out Against Obama And His Deception

Obama with his Muslim brother, Malik, Who Egypt States is Muslim Brotherhood terrorist
Obama with his Muslim brother, Malik, Who Egypt States is Muslim Brotherhood terrorist (see story)

There’s no arguing that there is a shroud of mystery surrounding Barack Obama, as countless statements released by the president have been proven to be lies. However, Obama’s brother recently dropped a bombshell so extreme, that it may just be enough to topple the man for good.

The remarks were made during an interview between Joel Gilbert – the man who produced the film, “Dreams From My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception” – and Obama’s brother, Malik Obama. During a 12-minute clip that was made from the Q&A session, Malik informs the public of many truths – or mistruths – relevant to Obama.

As pointed out by Gilbert, the American people feel a bit more than deceived when it comes to the current president on account of several promises he’s broken in order to pursue personal agendas. After being asked about Obama failing to cut the deficit, support Israel, and when he lied saying “Obamacare is not a tax,” Malik’s response said it all:

“Well, the way that he’s turned and become a different person with the family is the same way that I see him behaving politically. He says one thing and then he does another. He’s not been an honest man, as far as I’m concerned, in who he is and what he says and how he treats people.”

After being asked how it felt being the eldest brother of the leader of the free world, Malik simply replied, “Disappointed… disappointed, used, used and also betrayed. In the beginning, I didn’t think that he was a schemer. His real character, his real personality, the real him, is coming out now.”

However, Malik then noted that Obama’s own family can’t stand him as they too have turned their backs on him in disgust. “I don’t understand how somebody who claims to be a relative or a brother can behave the way that he’s behaving, be so cold and ruthless, and just turn his back on the people. He said were his family,” said Malik.

Perhaps the most critical accusation comes as Malik claims that Obama has lied about everything since being in the public spotlight, including who his father was. Alleging that his father was actually his Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, many think it a plausible reality.

malik obama

In fact, even Obama explained in his memoir how much time he spent with “Frank,” and how much he learned – specifically about racial issues (no surprise there).

It’s unfortunate that the sheep of this nation continue to leave their blindfolds on, but the real question stands; how many lies can you tell before all trust is lost? Beyond Malik’s claims – some of which cannot be verified – Obama has been exposed enough times with his pants down for common sense folk to see right through his deceit.

As the liberal lapdog media continues to praise him and give off the idea that the man can literally do no wrong on account of his skin tone, feeble minds continue to support all things Obama.

George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

By
<p>Hold the applause.</p>  Photographer: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In a closed-door meeting with Jewish Donors Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.

One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in “retreat” around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.

According to the attendee’s transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He’s smooth,” Bush said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s “second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV.”

Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State’s forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”

“In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”

Bush told several anecdotes about his old friend and rival Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush recalled that Putin met his dog Barney at the White House and then later, when Bush went to Moscow, Putin showed him his dog and remarked that he was “bigger stronger and faster than Barney.” For Bush, that behavior showed him that Putin didn’t think in “win-win” terms.

Bush also remarked that Putin was rich, divorced his wife and loves power. Putin’s domestic popularity comes from his control of Russian media, according to Bush. “Hell, I’d be popular, too, if I owned NBC news,” he said.

Regarding his brother Jeb’s potential run for the presidency, Bush acknowledged that he was a political liability for Jeb, that the Bush name can be used against him, and that American’s don’t like dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in the presidential campaign and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the “courage” to resist isolationist tendencies.

Regarding Hillary Clinton, Bush said it will be crucial how she plays her relationship with the president. She will eventually have to choose between running on the Obama administration’s policies or running against them. If she defends them, she’s admitting failure, he said, but if she doesn’t she’s blaming the president.

For George W. Bush, the remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world. He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs.

Obama’s executive action rollouts increasing in pace

Obama’s executive action rollouts increasing in pace

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

President Obama never used the words “executive action” until nearly three years into his presidency. Now announcements of executive actions have become a routine, almost daily occurrence.

GTY 470712248 A EPT ENV POL GOV USA FL

(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As President Obama stood in an Everglades swamp to speak on climate change Wednesday, the White House rolled out a package of eight executive actions, implemented by seven government agencies, to “protect the people and places that climate change puts at risk.”

The announcement contained no executive orders, sweeping directives, legislative proposals or bill signings.

Instead, the actions include smaller-bore staples of a “pen-and-phone” strategy that shows no sign of letting up: a report on the value of parks to the environment, a proclamation declaring National Parks Week, and conservation efforts in Florida, Hawaii, Puget Sound and the Great Lakes.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the actions were an effort to deal with the impacts of climate change “even in the face of pretty significant opposition from Republicans in Congress.”

Indeed, the actions have a political component, part of a White House strategy to work around Congress and force Republicans to respond to the president’s agenda.

“Since the election, the president has had a pretty explicit strategy,” said Brian Deese, a senior Obama adviser. “And it has consisted of trying to stay on offense, trying to push where he can to move the agenda through executive action. You’re going to keep seeing the president in that posture going forward.”

“Executive action” — a phrase Obama never uttered publicly in the first two and a half years of his presidency — has now become so routine that new announcements come several times a week.

The actions can take many forms, from formal executive orders and presidential memoranda to more routine reports, meetings and internal bureaucratic changes. That makes any definitive count of lower-level executive actions difficult.

But by one measure, such policy rollouts are actually increasing in pace. The White House often announces executive actions with a fact sheet from the press office, and those spiked last year during what Obama called the “Year of Action.” The White House issued 228 fact sheets in 2014, more than the first three years of his presidency combined.

This year, the White House has already issued three more fact sheets than last year at the same time.

The Obama strategy on executive actions closely parallels that of the Clinton White House. In Bill Clinton’s last two years in office, chief of staff John Podesta launched what would become known as “Project Podesta.” In an effort to flex presidential authority, Podesta canvassed executive agencies for actions Clinton could take without going to Congress.

Podesta came back to the Obama White House last year, and when he departed forHillary Clinton’s presidential campaign his responsibility for climate policy fell to Deese.

“One of the ways that the White House plays a role is to think forward and challenge the agencies to be proactive in saying, ‘What more can we do? And what more can we do that’s consistent with certain themes?’ ” Deese said.

This year, the major theme is “middle-class economics.” The Obama White House has also used executive action to lower mortgage insurance premiums and regulate retirement accounts. And coming soon: new overtime regulations from the Department of Labor, which Obama ordered in a presidential memorandum last year.

The actions often don’t originate in the White House. “Sometimes an agency has a particular initiative that they want to push that would benefit from getting a higher profile, or the president making a very concrete call to action,” Deese said.

Executive action wasn’t part of Obama’s strategy when he first came into office.

“I sort of see it as flowing from the failure of the grand bargain negotiations in 2011,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. That’s when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, tried to reach a permanent budget agreement but instead came up with a “Supercommittee” that failed to reach agreement, triggering across-the-board budget cuts.

“He gets shellacked in the midterm, and then sets up a position where he could actually cooperate — a triangulation strategy, channeling Bill Clinton,” Rudalevige said. “Instead of channeling Bill Clinton, he started channeling Harry Truman taking on the ‘Do Nothing’ Congress.”

In the fall of 2011, Obama went on a “We Can’t Wait” road tour, meant to put pressure on Congress leading up to the 2012 elections. It was during that tour that Obama used the words “executive action” in public for the first time as president.

“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy,” Obama said in an October 2011 speech in Las Vegas. “And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.”

In the 2014 congressional election cycle, that strategy was called the “Year of Action.” It brought often controversial executive actions on climate, immigration and Cuba.

“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And that’s all I need,” he said in 2014. “Because with a pen, I can take executive actions.”

Not all Obama’s executive actions get congressional attention, and many involve “soft” powers — like convening meetings, issuing reports or writing internal rules — that are clearly within the president’s authority. But for Republicans in Congress, executive action become synonymous with presidential overreach.

“One of the important roles of Congress is to serve as a check and a balance against the administration, and we’ve seen from this Obama administration many, many times where they’ve overstepped their legal authority,” House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday. “In fact, 20 different times the Obama administration has had the Supreme Court rule unanimously against executive actions that they’ve taken, that they’ve actually gone before the Court on.”

As the Obama presidency heads into its final furlong, White House officials say their focus is increasingly on getting all those executive actions implemented.

“We will continue to announce more executive actions, but the president is also holding us to account to execute on the executive orders we’ve already announced,” said White House economic adviser Jeff Zients.

Follow @gregorykorte on Twitter.

Congress Seeks U.S. Military Response to Russian Treaty Violation

Congress Seeks U.S. Military Response to Russian Treaty Violation

Administration ignores Moscow’s illegal nuclear cruise missile

Vladimir Putin

BY:

The House Armed Services Committee approved legislation last week that would require the Pentagon to deploy new weapons in two years to counter Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

The fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill considered by the committee last week contains language that directs the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to evaluate and develop new U.S. and allied weapons in response to Russia’s failure to explain its new intermediate-range cruise missile.

The legislation, contained in the $604.2 billion authorization bill, states that the U.S. government has been negotiating with Russia since 2013 on the violation and to date “the Russian Federation has failed to respond to these efforts in any meaningful way.”

“For years, we’ve been urging the Obama administration to get serious about Russia’s violation of the INF treaty,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces.

“Its response: we’re talking to Russia,” said Rogers, who sponsored the provision. “While Obama talks, Putin cheats on treaties and invades his neighbors. We must take Russia’s actions seriously, and this authorization of DOD funding does just that. The United States will not be unilaterally bound by any treaty.”

Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of the U.S. European Command and NATO commander, said the Russian INF violation “can’t go unanswered.”

“We need to first and foremost signal that we cannot accept this change and that, if this change is continued, that we will have to change the cost calculus for Russia in order to help them to find their way to a less bellicose position,” Breedlove said. His remarks, made in April 2014, were quoted in the bill.

Additionally, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that the United States must make clear to Russia that there will be political, diplomatic, and “potentially military costs” for the treaty violation. “It concerns me greatly,” Dempsey has said.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated during his Senate nomination hearing in February that options were being studied. He warned Russia that treaty limits were a “two-way street” and suggested the U.S. military could build missiles that it agreed not to build under the 1987 accord.

The bill would require the president to submit formal notification to Congress within 30 days on Russia’s testing and deployment of missiles that violate the treaty and on whether Moscow has begun to take steps for full compliance and verification to correct any violations.

If Russia fails to return to full compliance, with inspections and verification, the Pentagon should begin preparing “military response options,” the legislation states.

The options include “counterforce” capabilities that could prevent intermediate-range ground-launched ballistic and cruise missile attacks, including weapons acquired from allies.

Additionally, Congress wants the Pentagon to begin developing unspecified “counterforce capabilities” and “countervailing strike capabilities”—presumably similar or asymmetric nuclear strike capabilities “to enhance the armed forces of the United States or allies of the United States.”

The legislation authorizes using funds for research, development, testing, and evaluation, noting that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs can prioritize those weapons that will be fielded within two years.

The INF treaty bans ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 310 miles and 3,417 miles. The United States eliminated all its Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Russian officials have said the INF treaty has constrained their defenses and noted concerns about the large buildup of Chinese INF-range ballistic and cruise missiles as one reason for Moscow apparently jettisoning the INF accord.

The Obama administration has sought to play down the INF violation, first disclosed formally last year in a State Department arms compliance report.

Russia’s INF missile banned under the accord has been identified in published reports as the Iskander M ground-launched cruise missile. The missile, also known as the R-500, is a cruise missile variant of the Iskander short-range ballistic missile.

Moscow has denied violating the treaty and countered U.S. charges by claiming the United States has violated the treaty through a target missile and drone – both of which are not covered by the treaty. The U.S. has denied Moscow’s counter charges.

Critics on Capitol Hill, however, said State Department arms control officials, led by Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, have sought to play down or ignore the INF violation in order to try to preserve the arms control agenda with Moscow.

Gottemoeller, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told the congressional hearing in December that there were no plans to withdraw from the INF and that efforts were being undertaken to bring Russia back into compliance.

The House bill will need to be reconciled with a Senate version in the coming months. Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain (R., Ariz.) said during a hearing March 19 that the new INF weapon is a “a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile.”

In March, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that one option for the United States would be to deploy a ground-launched cruise missile in Europe and that such a deployment would require withdrawing from INF.

“What we are looking at in terms of options, countermeasures, some of which are compliant with the treaty, some of which would not be,” he said.

The options ranged from bolstering defenses of NATO and U.S. sites in Europe, preventive measures and then “countervailing strike capabilities to go after other Russian targets.”

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon arms control official, said the legislation is very useful.

“There must be a congressional push for a response to Russian violation of the INF Treaty or there won’t be any,” he said.

“While I believe that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is sincere when he talked about the need for a U.S. response, I do not believe that this is the case within the Department of State arms control bureau.”

Schneider stated that in addition to the illegal cruise missile, Russia cheating is much broader.

“In particular, there has been a recent development on the issue of whether Russian ABM systems and surface-to-air missiles have the prohibited capability to attack ground targets with nuclear warheads at INF range,” he said.

For example, Russian military analysts have reported that Russia’s S-300 anti-missile system has a ground attack capability close to INF range.

“With the Russian sale of the S-300 to Iran, this issue takes on greater significance,” Schneider said.

David S. Sullivan, a former Senate arms control specialist and former CIA analyst who first exposed Moscow’s cheating on the SALT arms treaty in the 1970s, said effective arms control treaties require effective verification and compliance.

“Violators must pay a price,” Sullivan said. “The Reagan defense build-up was the price the U.S. paid to deal with Soviet arms control cheating, and it ultimately caused the Soviets to bankrupt themselves in response.”

The U.S. response today to several confirmed INF treaty violations should also be programmatic, Sullivan said, including deployment of “offsetting cruise missile deployment to NATO and more strategic missile defenses.”

“Neither would cost very much, but they would be effective bolsters to deterrence,” he said.

A State Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the legislation. A spokesman for the Russian Embassy did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

According to the bill, other treaties that Russia appears to be violating include the Open Skies Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Vienna Document, the Budapest Memorandum, the Istanbul Commitments, the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. Moscow also recently withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, raising new doubts about its arms control commitments.

Other Russia-related provisions of the bill call on the Pentagon to notify Congress of Russian transfers or sales of Club-K cruise missiles, weapons disguised in launchers that appear to be shipping containers. The military also would be required to develop a strategy to defeat the Club-K.

Another measure calls for the Pentagon to provide quarterly notifications to Congress of Russian preparations for deploying nuclear weapons in militarily occupied Crimea.

Congressional notification of any U.S. approval of Russia’s plan to upgrade intelligence-gathering aircraft under the Open Skies Treaty is included in the bill.

George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

By
<p>Hold the applause.</p>  Photographer: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In a closed-door meeting with Jewish Donors Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.

One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in “retreat” around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.

According to the attendee’s transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He’s smooth,” Bush said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s “second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV.”

Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State’s forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”

“In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”

Bush told several anecdotes about his old friend and rival Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush recalled that Putin met his dog Barney at the White House and then later, when Bush went to Moscow, Putin showed him his dog and remarked that he was “bigger stronger and faster than Barney.” For Bush, that behavior showed him that Putin didn’t think in “win-win” terms.

Bush also remarked that Putin was rich, divorced his wife and loves power. Putin’s domestic popularity comes from his control of Russian media, according to Bush. “Hell, I’d be popular, too, if I owned NBC news,” he said.

Regarding his brother Jeb’s potential run for the presidency, Bush acknowledged that he was a political liability for Jeb, that the Bush name can be used against him, and that American’s don’t like dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in the presidential campaign and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the “courage” to resist isolationist tendencies.

Regarding Hillary Clinton, Bush said it will be crucial how she plays her relationship with the president. She will eventually have to choose between running on the Obama administration’s policies or running against them. If she defends them, she’s admitting failure, he said, but if she doesn’t she’s blaming the president.

For George W. Bush, the remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world. He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs.

Texas Police To Take 700 Guns Away From Citizens

Texas Police To Take 700 Guns Away From Citizens

Deep in the heart of Texas, where there are more firearms in homes than people, Dallas County will start taking guns away from a specific group of individuals as early as this week. As an avid supporter of American’s right the bear arms, I also support the county’s move to do this, but the method has me a bit puzzled.

Dallas County will be the first in the nation to collect weapons from domestic violence offenders as a preventative measure to keep victims safe. Statistics prove that women are 500 times more likely to lose their life in an argument with a violent offender if there is a gun in the home. But before anyone gets up in arms about government overreach into someone’s armory, understand that there are no rights being taken away here. The way it works does not mean officials are knocking down offender’s doors, raiding homes, and seizing what’s not theirs. In fact, the rule operates on an honor system with criminals.

According to WFAA, this rule is not new, but the execution of it is. Federal and state law forbids anyone with a domestic violence conviction or an emergency protective order against them from possessing firearms, but until now, Dallas didn’t have a way to collect and store relinquished guns.

County Criminal Court Judge Roberto Cañas, who is one of two judges who handle misdemeanor domestic violence cases, devised a plan called “Firearm Surrender Project,” in collaboration with a local Dallas Fort Worth area gun range, where criminals can go and safely surrender and store their guns until they are legally able to have them back.

Texas To Take 700 Guns Away Starting NOW, But That's Not The REAL Issue

Although officials expect to collect around 700 guns each year under this plan, that’s giving criminals far too much credit in assuming they are going to be honest about what weaponry they have at home.

More than it being an ineffective project, considering it relies on the unreliable word of a criminal, it’s going to cost taxpayers in the area a lot of money. Cañas’ collection idea includes having a deputy on staff at the private gun rage to run the operation of signing in and out offenders’ firearms.

Taxes will be used to cover that salary, along with start-up costs to get the project rolling. So far, $37,000 has already been dumped into this, through a grant given to the country from the governor’s office. Cañas and crew will need double that amount over the next year to keep the project going.

The way the rule works is that offenders are simply asked at conviction if they have a gun. IF they are honest and admit they do, they are ordered to surrender that gun at the range and get it signed off that they did. They are also given the option to give it to a third-party instead, to someone who is legally able to own a gun. That looks a lot like, “Here friend, take my gun, say I gave it to you, then give it back.”

“There’s no doubt that the intersection of firearms and domestic violence is a very lethal one,” Cañas said. “If we can take a step that will even prevent one homicide, this project will be worth it.”

Texas To Take 700 Guns Away Starting NOW, But That's Not The REAL Issue

Criminals can’t buy guns if they’re convicted of violent crimes and they shouldn’t be able to keep guns they have after conviction if they are a proven threat to people’s lives. But the fact is, felons will always have firearms because they don’t buy them through legal means, and they aren’t going to be honest in giving them up.

For this reason alone, everyone needs to own firearms to defend themselves against the unknown. It’s the bad guy with a gun that gives the good guys with guns a bad rap with gun-grabbers. Effort and money would be better spent in empowering women to know how to use a firearm and prevent themselves from becoming a victim in the first place, or again if they already are one.