From the Blog of Wild Bill, http://godgunsfreespeech.blogspot.com

This is a letter that was written by a wife of a Vietnam Veteran about Ann Margret, Richard, (my husband), never really talked a lot about his time in Viet Nam other than he had been shot by a sniper. However, he had a rather grainy, 8 x 10 black & white photo he had taken at a USO show of Ann Margaret with Bob Hope in the background that was one of his treasures.A few years ago, Ann Margaret was doing a book signing at a local bookstore. Richard wanted to see if he could get her to sign the treasured photo so he arrived at the bookstore at 12 o'clock for the 7:30 signing. When I got there after work, the line went all the way around the bookstore, circled the parking lot, and disappeared behind a parking garage.Before her appearance, bookstore employees announced that she would sign only her book and no memorabilia would be permitted. Richard was disappointed, but wanted to show her the photo and let her know how much those shows meant to lonely GI's so far from home.Ann Margaret came out looking as beautiful as ever and, as 2nd in line, it was soon Richard's turn. He presented the book for her signature and then took out the photo. When he did, there were many shouts from the employees that she would not sign it. Richard said, "I understand. I just wanted her to see it".She took one look at the photo, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "This is one of my gentlemen from Viet Nam and I most certainly will sign his photo. I know what these men did for their country and I always have time for "my gentlemen". With that, she pulled Richard across the table and planted a big kiss on him.She then made quite a to do about the bravery of the young men she met over the years, how much she admired them, and how much she appreciated them. There weren't too many dry eyes among those close enough to hear. She then posed for pictures and acted as if he was the only one there.Later at dinner, Richard was very quiet. When I asked if he'd like to talk about it, my big strong husband broke down in tears. "That's the first time anyone ever thanked me for my time in the Army", he said.Richard, like many others, came home to people who spit on him and shouted ugly things at him. That night was a turning point for him. He walked a little straighter and, for the first time in years, was proud to have been a Vet.I'll never forget Ann Margaret for her graciousness and how much that small act of kindness meant to my husband. I now make it a point to say Thank You to every person I come across who served in our Armed Forces.Freedom does not come cheap and I am grateful for all those who have served their country.Even today she is remembered fondly by those who served in Vietnam and who were lucky enough to be in the audience for one of her shows. In interviews with the press, she has spoken about former G.I.s who have stepped forward to thank her for taking the time to do her part back then. It's not too much of a stretch to think she would in turn be thanking them.Its a shame how our Troops are treated by Hollywood now, very few celebrities go into Combat zones to entertain the troops and show their appreciation for the sacrifice our military men and women make for us.A few celebrities do go to Iraq and Afghanistan and should be recognized for their Patriotism,to name a few and I mean few:Gary Sinise, Kid Rock,Toby Kieth,Wayne Newton,Bradley Cooper,and Don Shula.I know that there are more Celebrity Patriots that have gone to see the troops, but I cant remember them all,but I am glad their is still a small part of the entertainment industry that gives of themselves and cares about our Nations Military."In God We Trust"
tweetmeme_url = 'http://godgunsfreespeech.blogspot.com/2009/07/ann-margaret-and-vietnam.html';

Objection! Best Evidence Rule.

(This latest article, which follows, regarding Long-legged, Mackdaddy's birth certificate is disappointing. It begs the question; WHY CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT GET TO SEE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF OBAMA'S BIRTH!? This is an easy one...how about a little transparency? Apply the "Best Evidence" rule. Show us his birth certificate. Show us his school records. Show us how he got to Pakistan during a travel ban and how he got into Columbia.

Folks, I am sad to think that the reason we cannot see the records "checked" by Hawaiian officials may well be that they do not exist. This is an issue that will not die. This coverup borders on treason and some of us are getting damned sick of it!)

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

By JAYMES SONG, Associated Press Writer Jaymes Song, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 28, 1:54 am ET

HONOLULU – State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.
They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
So-called "birthers" — who claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States — have grown more vocal recently on blogs and television news shows.

Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31, but was prompted to speak out again because of the renewed attention on Obama's beginnings. Hawaii's Health Department has been flooded in recent weeks with questions from individuals and several national TV news networks asking for proof that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

"They just keep asking over and over and over again," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

The Constitution states that a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Birthers contend that Obama's birth certificate is a fake, and many say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. They've challenged his citizenship in court.
One widely circulated YouTube clip of a town hall meeting showed a Republican congressman getting booed for saying Obama is a citizen. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and CNN's Lou Dobbs have also raised the issue, and 10 Republican members of Congress co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate.

However, it appears Congress has moved on and has accepted Obama's island birthplace. The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible inerest.

However, Obama's birth certificate along with birth notices from the two Honolulu newspapers were brought forward even before he took office. But that's done nothing to shake the belief by many Obama critics that the president was born abroad.

Rush was right. Biden, the gift that keeps on giving!

By LYNN BERRY, Associated Press Writer Lynn Berry, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago

MOSCOW – An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.

Biden said Russia's economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.

Read more at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us

Right on, Brother Doug!

Doug Casey on Judging Justices
(Interviewed by Louis James, International Speculator)

L: Doug, you wrote in an email that you’ve been shaking your head over the latest antics of Supreme Court nomination and appointment. Care to tell us why?

Doug: Well, the whole thing is a pointless circus. The whole uproar over the “wise Latina” remark is irrelevant, and all the hours of intense scrutiny people are devoting to examining the alleged thoughts of Sotomayor are a waste of time. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever.

L: None whatsoever? Wouldn’t it matter if a justice got in who might be more harmful than another to the economy or civil liberties?

Doug: No, not at all. The kind of justice who might do some good could never make it through our highly politicized appointment process, so it’s a choice between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. It just doesn’t matter. But, for what it’s worth, Soto mayor seems to have all the wrong instincts. Besides, the Supreme Court has drifted so far from what it’s supposed to do that the court itself doesn’t matter.

The Supreme Court has a very simple mission; it’s supposed to safeguard the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution and its first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) were adopted and ratified simultaneously. Though imperfect, it’s actually a pretty clear and easy-to-understand document.

All a Supreme Court justice should have to do is read the Constitution to see if the law in question is constitutional, in other words, falls within the authority spelled out in the Constitution. It’s that simple, and it doesn’t take a lawyer – in fact, a lawyer’s training, with all its emphasis on precedent and interpretation, is the exact opposite of what you want in a Supreme Court justice.

So the weight of precedent and so-called law that has built up over the years is basically junk. Most decisions reflect not what the Constitution says, or even what’s equitable, but the political views of the judges – who are all political appointees.

The vast majority of the Supreme Court’s precedent should be scrapped. They should start from scratch, and with a copy of the Constitution in hand, and strike down any law that the Constitution does not specifically authorize. Article One, Section 8, makes it absolutely clear that any powers not given to the government in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights reinforce that. But they’re completely disregarded, like everything else in that document, which was made to shield the individual against the state.

L: That would eliminate most of the federal government – the SEC, the FDA, HEW, HUD, DOA, DOT, IRS, BATF, FBI, CIA, and who knows how many other agencies – leaving little besides the military and the post office.

lawyerBob sez; SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN, TO ME!

(Thanks to Brother Higgins for emailing this one.)

The Story That Just Won't Die

(Go to bottom of blog to turn down music)

Well, Good old Chris Matthews... Me thinks he protests too much. Leave it to him to hold up the COLB and call it a birth certificate! We need an answer, not shucking and jiving!

The boy wonder seems to be getting a little testy on the birth issue, but at least he's talking about it. A couple of comments;

1. Do we have to wonder why BHO waved off the challenge to McCain's eligibility? I think not.

2. Now, in addition to being right-wing extremists, apparently those of us who believe in the Constitution and honoring its provisions are, "whackos."

3. This story simply will not die. Good.

4. Because of the consequences that would result, government cannot tell the truth on the legitimacy issue. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

There is an old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." We are there!

"In God We Trust."

MSM attack on USAF

From F-16.net

Recently an article in the Washington Post made a big splash against the F-22 using deception, gross misstatements and innuendo. It was a big hit. Many gobbled up the nonsense wholesale. What was wrong with it? While it made some good points—the defense establishment rarely has a handle on figuring out big dollar programs—it went over the top by stating some things that just were not true.For instance, it portrays the F-22 as a maintenance pig. The Post stated that maintenance on the F-22 was getting more expensive and troublesome with time when in fact the opposite is true.

What the Post really missed is that maintenance USAF wide is having challenges and not just one specific airframe. In the past several years with shortages of funds for just about everything, even simple to maintain F-16s have lost up to 10 percent of their mission capable (MC) rates. If one is going to only criticize one USAF airframe they are missing the big picture. Almost all USAF airframes have gone down in MC rates and not just due to age. Just a few years ago the B-1 bomber was taking huge criticism for only being able to deliver 51 percent MC rate. The fact of the matter was that the pauper USAF was only funding 49 percent of the aircraft systems required maintenance plan to keep it healthy. Dedicated maintenance personnel squeezed out an additional 2 percent through just plain hard work.

Looking at recent history of the F-22 shows a different story than that painted by the Post. Around the 2005-6, the F-22 upgrade schedule was on track. This effort was thrown into disarray when the needs of the Afghanistan and Iraq war—at over $10-13 billion per month— pulled scheduled funds from the F-22 program. The F-22 reached initial operating capability (IOC) in 2005. In the years 2006-2008, maintenance metrics from real live USAF squadrons came in. This is where real life at the squadron level validates (or disproves) the optimistic planning from previous years of aircraft development. What was shown is that the aircraft was spending a lot of time at the unit level in the low observable (L.O.) maintenance hanger. Consider that the aircraft was designed to be maintenance friendly where only 5 percent of maintenance actions required refurbishment of the low observable components on the F-22. In the end it wasn’t any kind of disaster but a learning curve. It took a while for airmen and NCO’s —the enlisted maintenance force that makes or breaks a flying unit—to get maintenance experience on this new kind of aircraft That process includes everything from training, keeping methods that work, throwing out ones that don’t and filtering all of that into a reliable form of tribal knowledge.

Fast forward to where in one deployment, an F-22 unit put up all of their scheduled missions (350 sorties) for a stunning 100 percent MC rate. This means that the F-22 community has risen to the challenge and put up MC rates that match or exceed current “legacy” aircraft in deployments.

Of course none of this was mentioned in the Washington Post article. More? Maintenance Supers (the lead maintenance NCO in a unit) will tell you a lot of things that are hassle-free with the jet. For example the Pratt and Whitney F-119 motors don’t require a lot of extra work. Still More? The F-22 community has won sustainment awards for its maintenance processes. Of interest is that the methods of logistics and sustainment used in the program are a baseline for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the F-35 has a long way to go to prove itself, it is designed so that only 1-2 percent of maintenance processes require L.O. refurbishment.

No matter. When the F-22 is out of production, guess what the yellow journalism crowd will pick on next?

US financial market bailout tab hits $4.7 trillion

THESE PEOPLE MUST BE STOPPED-LB



By JIM KUHNHENN,
Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn,
– 25 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a level of assistance equal to about one-third of the overall U.S. economy, a watchdog report said Monday.

Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.

Read More, if you can keep your lunch down! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_meltdown_oversight

(We need to stop feeding that creature we call the Federal Government! This is getting downright frightening!)

UPDATE: Army Major's Afghanistan Orders "Revoked." Is he now really in harm's way? Ask Joe the Plumber. Guess I was right: go to: http://www.wnd.co

IF THE MUSIC IS TOO LOUD, SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF BLOG AND TURN IT DOWN.

Another procedural trick for Obama to avoid facing his ineligibility to be president. Once Major Cook's orders were revoked, there was no case or controversy. If there is no case or controversy, then there is no reason for a temporary injunction. Case closed. Again.

Gee, just how bad do they want to keep this issue covered up, and why is the mainstream media not reporting on this significant issue?

Look here for other cases that have been brought, and dismissed. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

World Daily Net (WND) has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

This saga continues. We MUST get to the bottom of this!

The Ten Commandments, per Obama

© 2009 The Patriot Update.
Feel free to circulate this article, but please give credit and link to The Patriot Update!Click here for the Online Version.

After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of "Ten Commandments." They're certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain. Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are a conservative or Republican. liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, unless you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against any group unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

Goodbye to a Hero

From an email forwarded by Higgins.


Subject: Memorials are not always given to the most deserving
The following was sent to me:

We're hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers.

Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.

I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat. Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st.

I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 . . . " at which point my heart skipped. At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . . do you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was. At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day. I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said "Yes. And it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip."

My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach, while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.

There was no parade.No big event in Staples Center .No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.No weeping fans on television.And that's not right.

Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.Rest in peace, Shifty.

"A nation without heroes is nothing."Roberto Clemente

This Could Get Interesting!

By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily

In what ultimately could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California has planned a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.

According to attorney Orly Taitz, who is working on multiple cases alleging Obama is a "usurper" because he doesn't meet the constitutional requirement that only a "natural born citizen" can be president, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a hearing today that her case will move forward...
READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE PATRIOT UPDATE NOW!

Too Much Information

Brave New World of Infant DNA Data-Basing
by Bob Barr, as published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, July 13, 2009 at 9:00 AM

One of the most exciting moments in life is to witness the birth of a new child. All hell could be breaking loose outside the delivery room, yet all your attention in those moments is focused on the miracle of a new baby being born. Yet in those exhilarating moments, a small event takes place in hospitals across the country that escapes the attention of most every parent, yet is becoming a matter of increasing concern for parents.Laws in all 50 states require hospitals to collect a sample of every newborn baby's blood (from a small pin prick to the baby's foot). The primary purpose is to test for PKU (phenylketonuria, an inherited disease that can result in brain and nerve damage) and other diseases (California, for example, tests for some 76 different conditions).Were the test itself the end of the matter, few questions would be raised. However, parents and others in a number of states are beginning to question what happens to those millions of infant dried-blood samples — each of which contains the entire genetic history of the infant, as well as DNA information on his or her parents and ancestors — that are collected each year. Who owns those samples? For what purpose(s) can the information be used; and by who? What agencies and commercial entities can access the information? Is parental consent required? Why should the information be retained at all?In fact, lawsuits in at least two states — Minnesota and Texas — have been filed to test the limits of such newborn DNA data basing. The conditions under which such DNA samples are collected, retained and used likely will lead to more such lawsuits as parents learn of these factors.Some states (California and North Carolina, among others) retain the DNA samples collected from newborns indefinitely, and other states keep them for up to 23 years. And while many states technically allow parents to refuse to have their newborn's blood sample genetically tested, such "opt out" procedures rarely are made known to parents.The stakes in this data war are high, as researchers and government agencies are realizing the value of such a databank of DNA and other genetic information. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has at least since 2002 been advocating for a national databank, calling such "leftover dried blood spot specimens" a "valuable . . . source for public health surveillance and . . . population-based data on prevalence of genetic variations." The National Institutes of Health is using $13.5 million in taxpayer dollars to create a national blood sample repository.These efforts are being aided by federal legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush last year that allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborns in the country. The purported justification for this far-reaching, privacy invasive law was the need to have a "national contingency plan" to meet "public health emergencies."State governments are moving quickly also to develop regimens for retaining and accessing what Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance calls a "national treasure" of data. Michigan, for example, reportedly has set up state-run freezer facilities at a "neonatal biobank" in Detroit.Researchers and other advocates of DNA data basing are aggressively protecting their turf. The American College of Medical Genetics, for example, recently issued a "position statement" extolling the benefits of dried-blood specimen databases, and dismissing opponents' concerns as "unsubstantiated and highly exaggerated." Even the March of Dimes has joined the bandwagon — vigorously opposing requirements for parental consent (now required only in two states plus the District of Columbia).With federal law, taxpayer dollars, and otherwise respected agencies like the March of Dimes lined up against them, parents and privacy-advocates trying to stem the tide of infant DNA data basing have their work cut out for them. Let's hope they are up to the challenge.

You have got to be kidding me!

From the Yahoo Newsroom

Democrats on the Hill have begun calling for investigations into a CIA counterrorism program that may have been concealed from Congress during the Bush administration. President Barack Obama has resisted efforts by Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward, not backwards." According to The AP, Attorney General Eric Holder will decide in the next few weeks whether to appoint a prosecutor to probe the previous administration's harsh interrogation techniques. Do you think an investigation of Bush-era anti-terror policies is warranted?

LawyerBob sez: Truth Commission!? What in the hell do Holder and his facist colleagues know about truth?! Here's some truth for you all...WE HAVEN'T BEEN ATTACKED SINCE9/11! I swear, these naive idiots will end up getting us all killed!

On the Lighter Side, Retro Version

Archie Bunker on Democrats

Go to: http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=archie+bunker+on+democrats&ei=UTF-8&fr=fptb-hptb6-501&tnr=21&vid=000163618678

"Hello Kitty" is running the White House!

From the Wall Street Journal

By KEITH B. PAYNE
Three hours after arriving at the Kremlin yesterday, President Barack Obama signed a preliminary agreement on a new nuclear arms-control treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The agreement -- a clear road map for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) -- commits the U.S. and Russia to cut their nuclear weapons to the lowest levels since the early years of the Cold War.

Mr. Obama praised the agreement as a step forward, away from the "suspicion and rivalry of the past," while Mr. Medvedev hailed it as a "reasonable compromise." In fact, given the range of force levels it permits, this agreement has the potential to compromise U.S. security -- depending on what happens next.

Ryan Inzana
In the first place, locking in specific reductions for U.S. forces prior to the conclusion of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is putting the cart before the horse. The Obama administration's team at the Pentagon is currently examining U.S. strategic force requirements. Before specific limits are set on U.S. forces, it should complete the review. Strategic requirements should drive force numbers; arms-control numbers should not dictate strategy.
Second, the new agreement not only calls for reductions in the number of nuclear warheads (to between 1,500 and 1,675), but for cuts in the number of strategic force launchers. Under the 1991 START I Treaty, each side was limited to 1,600 launchers. Yesterday's agreement calls for each side to be limited to between 500 and 1,100 launchers each.

According to open Russian sources, it was Russia that pushed for the lower limit of 500 launchers in negotiations. In the weeks leading up to this summit, it also has been openly stated that Moscow would like the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles (SLBMS), and strategic bombers to be reduced "several times" below the current limit of 1,600. Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is a smart position for Russia, but not for the U.S.

Why? Because the number of deployed Russian strategic ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers will drop dramatically simply as a result of their aging. In other words, a large number of Russian launchers will be removed from service with or without a new arms-control agreement.
The Obama administration will undoubtedly come under heavy pressure to move to the low end of the 500-1,100 limit on launchers in order to match Russian reductions. But it need not and should not do so. Based solely on open Russian sources, by 2017-2018 Russia will likely have fewer than half of the approximately 680 operational launchers it has today. With a gross domestic product less than that of California, Russia is confronting the dilemma of how to maintain parity with the U.S. while retiring its many aged strategic forces.

Mr. Medvedev's solution is to negotiate, inviting the U.S. to make real cuts, while Russia eliminates nothing that it wouldn't retire in any event.

This isn't just my conclusion -- it's the conclusion of many Russian officials and commentators. Russian Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov, commander of the Strategic Missile Troops, was recently quoted by Moscow Interfax-AVN Online as saying that "not a single Russian launcher" with "remaining service life" will be withdrawn under a new agreement. Noted Russian journalist Pavel Felgengauer observed in Novaya Gazeta that Russian leaders "have demanded of the Americans unilateral concessions on all points, offering practically nothing in exchange."
Precisely.

Beyond the bad negotiating principle of giving up something for nothing, there will be serious downsides if the U.S. actually reduces its strategic launchers as much as Moscow wishes. The bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission -- headed by former secretaries of defense William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger -- concluded that the U.S. could make reductions "if this were done while also preserving the resilience and survivability of U.S. forces." Having very low numbers of launchers would make the U.S. more vulnerable to destabilizing first-strike dangers, and would reduce or eliminate the U.S. ability to adapt its nuclear deterrent to an increasingly diverse set of post-Cold War nuclear and biological weapons threats.

Accepting low launcher numbers would also encourage placing more warheads on the remaining ICBMs -- i.e., "MIRVing," or adding multiple independently targeted warheads on a single missile. This is what the Russians openly say they are planning to do. Yet the U.S. has long sought to move away from MIRVed ICBMs as part of START, because heavy MIRVing can make each ICBM a more tempting target. One measure of U.S. success will be in resisting the Russian claim that severely reducing launcher numbers is somehow necessary and "stabilizing." It would be neither.

Third, the new agreement appears to defer the matter of so-called tactical nuclear weapons. Russia has some 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons and many thousands more in reserve; U.S. officials have said that Russia has an astounding 10 to 1 numerical advantage. These weapons are of greatest concern with regard to the potential for nuclear war, and they should be our focus for arms reduction. The Perry-Schlesinger commission report identified Russian tactical nuclear weapons as an "urgent" problem. Yet at this point, they appear to be off the table.
The administration may hope to negotiate reductions in tactical nuclear weapons later. But Russia has rejected this in the past, and nothing seems to have changed. As Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin of the Russian Academy of Sciences said recently in Moscow Interfax-AVN Online, "A treaty on the limitation and reduction of tactical nuclear weapons looks absolutely unrealistic." If the U.S. hopes to address this real problem, it must maintain negotiating leverage in the form of strategic launchers and weapons.

Fourth, Mr. Medvedev was quoted recently in RIA Novosti as saying that strategic reductions are possible only if the U.S. alleviates Russian concerns about "U.S. plans to create a global missile defense." There will surely be domestic and international pressure on the U.S. to limit missile defense to facilitate Russian reductions under the new treaty. But the U.S. need for missile defense has little to do with Russia. And the value of missile defense could not be clearer given recent North Korean belligerence. The Russians are demanding this linkage, at least in part to kill our missile defense site in Europe intended to defend against Iranian missiles. Another measure of U.S. success will be to avoid such linkages.

In short, Russian leaders hope to control or eliminate many elements of U.S. military power in exchange for strategic force reductions they will have to make anyway. U.S. leaders should not agree to pay Russia many times over for essentially an empty box.
Finally, Russian violations of its existing arms-control commitments must be addressed along with any new commitments. According to an August 2005 State Department report, Russia has violated START verification and other arms-control commitments in multiple ways. One significant violation has even been discussed openly in Russian publications -- the testing of the SS-27 ICBM with MIRVs in direct violation of START I.

President Obama should recall Winston Churchill's warning: "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands." There is no need for the U.S. to accept Russian demands for missile-defense linkage, or deep reductions in the number of our ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers, to realize much lower numbers of Russian strategic systems. There is also no basis for expecting Russian goodwill if we do so.

Mr. Payne, a professor of defense and strategic studies at Missouri State University, is a member of the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, which was established by Congress to assess U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. This op-ed is adapted from testimony given before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 24.

Air Force Association Briefings

Saturday, July 11, 2009

AFA Members, Congressional staffers, Civic Leaders, DOCA Members, we have recently developed a briefing on the Principles of Airpower. A hearty thanks to Col (Ret) Phil Meilinger for his assistance in developing it. I would ask you to comment on the briefing … so we can improve it. Send your thoughts to Chet Curtis at: CCurtis@AFA.Org

You can find the briefing on our website at: http://r.listpilot.net/c/afa/453zy9o/1wa3s
Secondly, President Obama was in Russia this week. He and the Russian President signed a preliminary agreement on a new nuclear arms control agreement. This will begin serious negotiations. However, I worry about the preliminary agreement because it starts with the number of warheads and launchers … and does not seem to derive from strategy. I also worry that DOD is not yet finished with its Nuclear Posture Review - which defines the strategy from which we derive the numbers of weapons, etc. I also would like to hear the views of the Joint Chiefs, the Commander of STRATCOM, and others. This is an area in which we should all pay attention … because it is absolutely critical to our security. To help add clarity to this issue, Keith Payne [no slouch in Arms Control circles] wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In it he points to many areas of concern. I especially liked his concluding quote/warning from Winston Churchill: "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."
You can find a link to the op-ed on our website at: http://r.listpilot.net/c/afa/453zy9o/1wa4t

For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn President/CEO

The Putin/Obama Negotiations

Not looking good for the home team, folks!

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Read on at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

Unbelievable! Judgment is forthcoming.

Congressman speaks truth to stupidity!

A day after posting a YouTube video blasting Michael Jackson as a "lowlife," Congressman Peter King said he opposes any move to honor the King of Pop's legacy on a postage stamp.

King, a New York Republican, criticized calls by the Rev. Al Sharpton to have the U.S. Postal Service issue a Michael Jackson stamp in an interview Tuesday with WPIX News. Sharpton is also pushing for a national day of mourning to honor the pop star.

"It's almost as if he were Mother Theresa," King told the station. "Our priorities have been skewed. They've become really, I think, totally out of whack." (Ya think!?)

If you can stand to read more, go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/08/king-blasts-memoralize-jacksin-postage-stamp/

WTF?!!

Still true, after more than 230 years

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

Thank you Lt. Bradshaw...and all the rest of our fallen heroes.

On June 25, the same day that Michael Jackson died, one U.S. Army Lt. Bradshaw was killed in Afghanistan. He was taken by an IED. Why is there not wall-to-wall media coverage of his valor, his funeral and his family's devastating loss?

See the Fox News video of his family's reactions at: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=6628644&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

What has happened to our American culture? Congress has a moment of silence for a rock star, but not for Ed McMahon, a Marine combat pilot and one-star general officer. It just makes me sad...and mad.

To the family of Ed McMahon, Lt. Bradshaw and the rest...God bless you, and thank you for your incredible sacrifices. Know that out here in your country there are many, many of us who feel the pain of every serviceman who is lost. And...we are eternally grateful

PatriotLawyer

Doomed

From an Email forwarded by our friend Tom:

"I do not subscribe to placing the blame for what is coming solely on Obama's back. The Republicans were as bad as the Democrats as they increased federal spending 40% while that idiot Bush was in office. He also signed the prescription drug bill which is like pouring gasoline on the boondoggle Medicare and Medicade financial fire. I do agree that this sets out why we are doomed to rampant inflation and a collapsing government." Higgins

Why Obama's socialism will not work:
The rich in America may have lost $10 trillion so far...but their losses are just beginning. Who's going to pay the expenses of bailing out the banks...the economy...the states...Detroit...?

You do the math yourself. The United States functions as a popular democracy. Politicians get elected by winning votes. The idea is to get as many votes as possible. Do you get the most votes by appealing to the few people with money - the 20% "rich"? Or do you appeal to the masses - the 80% of the population who don't have much wealth?

Well, you can do the math later.

How do you get the masses to vote for you? You offer them something. What? Well...Medicare...pensions...bridges...tax credits...wars - whatever they seem to want at the moment. And how do you pay for it?

Okay...now we're putting 2 and 2 together: you have to take the money from the 'rich.'

Of course, it's not that simple. Because you also need money from the rich to "get the word out" about what a great guy you are. And if you lose the race for the House of Representatives, you want to make sure you have a cushy chair somewhere to rest your fat behind. No point in going to the masses for those things. You need friends among the rich.

So, you favor some of the rich - with special subsidies and credits - while making the rest of them pay. And since you're competing with other politicians who have gotten their support from other groups of rich people...at the end of the day, by the time the votes are counted, it's hard to know exactly who the real winners and losers are. One rich family gets millions in subsidies. Another has his business protected from competition. Another benefits from an obscure amendment to an almost unknown little section of the IRS code. Rivals get wind of these boondoggles and make a stink about it in the press. Pretty soon, the masses think the 'rich' are ripping them off...not realizing that, as a group, the rich pay for 80% of the costs of government.

And now, as the official federal debt goes to $12 trillion, who's really going to pay it? Just apply the 80/20 rule... the 'rich' will have to pay 80% of it - at least. That's $9.6 trillion that will be borne by 60 million citizens. No, wait...of those 60 million...you have to take out those who are too young...or too old. Each household may only have one person earning a living...say, only about 20 million real taxpayers.

Now, divide $9.6 trillion by 20 million - you get a debt burden of $480,000 for each one.

But that's just the "official" national debt, which is bad enough. But what about Social Security and healthcare obligations...and obligations to soldiers who've lost their legs in Iraq? Are you going to forget about these people? Who's going to support them?

According to the Petersen Foundation, there's a "financing gap" of about $47 trillion between what the government is obliged to pay out and what it expects to get in tax revenues. Now, let's put that burden too onto the only place it might be shouldered - the same 20% of the population who have the money - the "rich people." That's another $2.35 million per taxpayer!

We are doomed.

From the Go-Figure Department

Received in an email from Ricky


John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock
(MADE IN JAPAN ) for 6 am.
While his coffeepot
(MADE IN CHINA )
was perking, he shaved with his
electric razor
(MADE IN HONG KONG )
He put on a
dress shirt
(MADE IN SRI LANKA ),
designer jeans
(MADE IN SINGAPORE )
and
tennis shoes
(MADE IN KOREA)
After cooking his breakfast in his new
electric skillet
(MADE IN INDIA )
he sat down with his
calculator
(MADE IN MEXICO )
to see how much he could spend today. After setting his
watch
(MADE IN TAIWAN )
to the radio
(MADE IN INDIA )
he got in his car
(MADE IN GERMANY )
filled it with GAS
(from Saudi Arabia )
and continued his search
for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.
At the end of yet another discouraging
and fruitless day
checking his
Computer
(made in MALAYSIA ),
John decided to relax for a while.
He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL ),
poured himself a glass of
wine
(MADE IN FRANCE )
and turned on his
TV
(MADE IN INDONESIA ),
and then wondered why he can't
find a good paying job
in AMERICA
AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT
MADE IN KENYA

Good Point, Maxine

(E-mailed from Bobby, a former U.S. Marine and a great American. Attributed by him to one "Maxine.")

Minorities - We need to show more sympathy for these people.
* They travel miles in the heat.
* They risk their lives crossing a border.
* They don't get paid enough wages.
* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day ~ every day..


I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans ~ I'm talking about our troops! Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops, and are even threatening to defund them?

Fed Up

From: Representative Gabrielle Giffords [mailto:az08ima@mail.house.gov] in response to my pledge to oppose her re-election due to her support of Cap and Trade.







July 2, 2009


Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Last week, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. This bill will jumpstart our economy with investments in clean power, reduce our nation's dependence on foreign energy, and create thousands of high-paying jobs.

There has been a lot of discussion of this bill, but not all of it has been accurate. I want to set the record straight and explain why I voted in favor of this legislation.

First of all, I worked hard to make sure that the ACES Act will benefit Arizona. Together with a few of my colleagues, I was able to ensure that the bill included some provisions that significantly strengthened the bill before it passed. Specifically, I added two provisions: One will require the federal government to obtain 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This will make Arizona an attractive location for the federal government to invest in large scale renewable projects. The other will allow federal agencies to enter into renewable energy power purchase agreements for up to 20 years, up from the current limit of 10 years. This longer contracting period will help make renewable energy more cost competitive with traditional power sources and encourage more solar development in Arizona. Both of these provisions will create more high-paying jobs in Arizona and grow our economy.

Consumer protection was a paramount concern in designing this bill and it contains numerous protections. The bill calls for giving emission allowances to utilities, natural gas distributors and oil refineries for free. This will cushion the impact of the bill on industries and regions dependent on fossil fuel-powered energy, such as Southern Arizona. Recipients of such credits would have to use the allowances to protect consumers from price hikes. The bill also provides agriculture offsets for our farmers and ranchers which is why it won the support of the National Farmers Union.

Finally, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost the average American household just $168 per year, or less than 50 cents per day, and that is before counting the benefits from increased efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency projects that if the bill becomes law, the average household utility bill will actually go down 7% by 2020 due to the new energy efficiency standards.

For all these reasons, the legislation enjoys wide support from electric utilities; energy companies; major corporations like Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Chrysler, ConocoPhillips, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Ford, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, NRG Energy, PepsiCo, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, and Shell.

The ACES Act is designed to address some of the most complex challenges currently facing our country, including creating jobs and jump-starting our economy; reducing our dependence on foreign energy and strengthening our national security; and protecting our natural environment. I believe these are not only urgent issues, but also tremendous opportunities.

I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested in the important issues affecting Arizona and the nation. My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you require assistance.

To receive regular e-mail updates on my work as your U.S. Representative, visit https://giffordsforms.house.gov/contact/email-updates.shtml to opt-in to my e-newsletter. It allows me to keep Southern Arizonans, like you, informed about the most recent activities in the House of Representatives and upcoming public forums I am sponsoring in the district.

Sincerely Yours,Gabrielle GiffordsMember of Congress







MY RESPONSE


Dear Ms. Giffords:

You know, this bill is just more meddling by the government in the private sector. It is not good for our free market economy. It is not good for business. It is not good for the environment. It puts this country at a competitive disadvantage in the world market.

I received my BA in Political Science at a liberal Midwestern university. I have a JD and have practiced law for nearly 30 years. I used to be a democrat. As I have watched your party over the years, the underlying themes are and have been controlling the peoples’ lives, regulating everything (and that is not an exaggeration), and putting globalist/transnationalist interests ahead of American interests.

I and many other Americans are fed up.

You say you are MY representative and are here to serve me. OK, please do the following;



1. Tell me where ALL the TARP money went.

2. Tell me how you are going to pay for Obama’s spending spree.

3. Tell me what the full and true story is on the $138B in treasury bonds seized by Italian customs.

4. Tell me why you people want the American people disarmed.

5. Tell me why this mouse of a president won’t stand up to the N. Koreans.

6. Tell me why he didn’t stand up for the Iranian protesters.

7. Tell me why this government is siding with Chavez and Castro on the Honduran matters.

8. Tell me why this government is failing to support our fighting men and women by fully funding the weapons systems we need.

9. Tell me why this government is apologizing for my country and bowing to our enemies.

10. Tell me why Madoff is in jail, but your own colleagues, responsible for the financial meltdown of this country, are not.

Answer these questions, and then we will chat.

Thank you. Robert J. XXXX

(I am guessing we have heard the last from her!}

THE ITEM BELOW WAS STOLEN FROM WILD BILL AT:


http://www.godgunsfreespeech.blogspot.com/



(Sorry, Bill, but some things simply MUST be disseminated.)


The year was 1947 ,Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell,New Mexico.This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by The U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.





However,what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948,nine months after that historic day, the following people were born: Albert A. GoreHillary Rodham John F. Kerry William J. Clinton Howard DeanNancy PelosiDianne FeinsteinCharles E. SchumerBarbara Boxer.

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?

I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you.



It did for me.