Barack Obama: I Have A “Moral Obligation” To Neuter America The American Dream Wednesday, March 28, 2012 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 anyadditional 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 caught by a microphone that was accidentally on.
and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was
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…. President Obama CAUGHT! Assures Medvedev of flexibility Nuclear missile defense after http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py8BF0 hHPnc 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.
Americans angry with Obama over gas prices Patricia Zengerle Reuters March 28, 2012 More than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is handling high gasoline prices, although most do not blame him for them, according to a Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Tuesday. Sixty-eight percent disapprove and 24 percent approve of how Obama is responding to price increases that have become one of the biggest issues in the 2012 presidential campaign. In the past month, U.S. fuel prices have jumped about $0.30 per gallon to about $3.90 and the Republicans seeking to replace the Democrat in the November 6 election have seized upon the issue to attack his energy policies. The disapproval reaches across party lines, potentially spelling trouble for Obama in the election, although the online survey showed voters hold oil companies or foreign countries more accountable than politicians for the price spike. "Obama is getting heat for it but people aren't necessarily blaming him for it," said Chris Jackson, research director for Ipsos public affairs. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all disapprove of the president's handling of gas prices, according to the online poll of 606 Americans conducted March 26-27. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans said they disapproved, as did 52 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents. "People are unhappy that they are having to pay $3.90 a gallon. They want somebody to be able to lash out
at and the president is as good a person as anybody," Jackson said. BLAMING OIL COMPANIES The most common reason cited by voters of all political stripes for the rising cost was oil company greed. Overall, 36 percent of respondents said "oil companies that want to make too much profit" deserve the most blame for higher energy prices. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said so, as did 44 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of independents. Twenty-six percent of all respondents said a range of factors was equally to blame, including oil companies, politicians, foreign countries that dominate oil reserves and environmentalists who want to limit oil exploration. There was little difference in that result across party lines. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans, 24 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of independents said all of those factors were equally to blame. Republicans have hit Obama particularly hard for his decision to block TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL Canada-to-Texas pipeline as a sign that his energy priorities are hurting America. Hoping to placate car-loving Americans, Obama toured U.S. oil country last week to tout his "all of the above" energy strategy that includes room for oil and gas development in addition to support for renewable fuels. In Oklahoma, he pledged to accelerate approval of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans immediately dismissed the campaign-style stop as a stunt, saying Obama does not have the authority to really jump start the project. Jackson said Obama has little to fear, at least according to historic trends, from gas prices alone if the U.S. economy continues to recover from deep recession. Previous spikes in fuel prices have not affected U.S. presidential election results. But economists warn that higher gas prices could slow the overall economy, which would toughen Obama's chances of winning re-election. The poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points for all respondents.
The Federal Reserve Boss Bernanke Promises Record High Gas Prices Through Summer Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com March 28, 2012 Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke told ABC’s Diane Swayer on Tuesday that gas prices will continue to skyrocket through the summer. Bernanke told Sawyer gas prices “are a major problem” and he admitted they are “a hardship for lots of people.” During the interview, he tried to pawn off the fallacy that gas prices are responsible for inflation, which he said will escalate over the next few months. By inflation Bernanke means price increases. As Ron Paul notes, blame for this can be placed at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. “Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon,” Paul wrote last March. “There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.” Bernanke also claimed the rise in gas prices can be attributed to Iran and troubles in the Middle East. “The Middle East is very unpredictable — lots of things happening with respect to Iran and so on, so you know, we obviously — need to be — very attentive to that,” he told Sawyer. Bernanke did not bother to explain how the Federal Reserve creates monetary inflation. It is really quite simple. More money equals less value. The Federal Reserve is currently doing this through quantitative easing – increasing the money supply and flooding financial institutions with capital. Economists note that the problem with this is that although there is more money in the economic system, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale.
Bernanke “admits he doesn’t understand why the economy is the way it is. Reality doesn’t fit his theory,” writes Zero Hedge. “So, what do you do when you are the head of the world’s biggest printing press, and don’t know what else to do? Why QE3 of course.” On Tuesday, Bernanke hinted that QE3 may be right around the corner. He said more dilution of the money supply will be required due to vexatious unemployment. High unemployment is directly related the the Federal Reserve and its engineering of boom and bust cycles through monetary policy. The Fed – as Bernanke has sheepishly admitted – was responsible for the so-called Great Depression and its staggering unemployment. It’s the same today. Ben Bernanke is simply reading his bankster script, as instructed. If he was sincere, he would admit that rising oil prices do not create inflation. Oil prices are a reflection of a devalued dollar. In an interview last year, ShadowStats editor John Williams said “the dollar’s weakness is doubly inflationary. It is the biggest factor behind the ongoing rise in oil prices.” It’s not greedy oil baron in the Middle East or Iran threatening to close down the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack.It’s the Federal Reserve and the central banks.
Published on Mar 28, 2012
Published on Mar 28, 2012
Barack Obama actually plans to do it. He actually plans to neuter America by unilaterally dismantling most of the U.S. strategic nuclear ars...