Obama has been a busy little bee of late. After cramming an unwanted and overpriced (if you included the Congressional bribes) healthcare package down the throat of the American People, he recently signed a nuclear reduction agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague. The deal would reduce the nuclear arsenal of both nations by approximately one third, but would still leave enough nukes to destroy the planet hundreds of times over. The current limit is 2200 nuclear warheads. Under the new agreement, total nuclear warheads would be cut to 1550 over the next seven years. The goal, as unrealistic as it may seem, is to create a nuclear free world in 20 years (one nuclear exchange using current stockpiles could solve that problem in 30 minutes).
NATO has effectively reduced its nuclear strike capability by 90% since the end of the Cold War. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START agreement does not address short range or “tactical” nukes, of which the Russians are believed to have some 5400 nuclear warheads, with most aimed at Europe. In addition, the agreement counts all bombers as a single nuclear warhead. The Federation of American Scientists, as reported in FP: Foreign Policy’s March 31st issue (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/31/obama_s_nuke_deal_with_rus), stated that would give the US 450 nuclear warheads compared to 860 for the Russians.
The agreement also failed to address the various delivery systems, but with only a year into his term, Obama would seem to still have plenty of time to work on this and other issues. However, in the short term, the agreement calls for no reduction of Russian missile launchers, while the US will be required to make substantial reductions of its launchers. The agreement calls for the US to step back from updating its nuclear strike and response capabilities (including next generation weapons) while permitting the Russians to modernize their systems. The presumed logic to this is to allow the Russian and US system to become par with each other. Obama also promised his support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the Russians have long supported (the US signed the CTBT agreement but it was never ratified by Congress). The new agreement also allows the Russians to bow out should the US deploy strategic anti-missile inceptors in Europe. Frankly, this is not the best agreement the US could have made. But with the chilly relationship we’ve been experiencing with the Russians lately, the new START may have contributed to a slight warming of relations. It also still holds open the door for additional talks. Let’s hope it’s not a prelude to another “Prague Spring”.
There was one issue that came out of all this that I had a little trouble swallowing. That too was under the ending of nuclear response. If the US is attacked by non-nuclear means, such as biological or chemical, the United States, per President Obama, would use a “no nuke” response so long as the attack was by a non-nuclear country (and I suppose that would include a non-nuke terrorist group operating out of a friendly country) (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html).
I completely disagree. If some rouge nation or group of crazies decides to hit the US with any form of mass destruction, I believe the US has not just the sovereign right, but the moral obligation to respond by any and all means at its disposal. To say to the world that we will restrict our response to essentially conventional means is, in my opinion, an open invitation to every wannabe Mussolini or Saladin, to consider hitting us with a major biological and/or chemical weapon, knowing full well that it would take us months before we could mount a major conventional response (the US has long been destroying its biological and chemical weapons, and has signed several international agreements never to use them. That, therefore, leaves only a conventional response).
Never, in my opinion, should the US, or any nation for that matter, take a major economic or military deterrent off the table when it comes to protecting its citizens and resources. Congress should not approve any language to that effect under any circumstances.
The following is an article from a friend of mine, John Buck. John is the Regional Director of the American Federation of Citizen Union Workers PAC. The article deals with Unions and illegal immigration (a topic considered by many, including myself, to be next on Obama’s “To Do” list). I hope you enjoy it.
LABOR UNION SHAME: Consolidated Union Leadership Support Amnesty Without Rank And File Support
by John Buck
As many of us Union members experience the woes of unemployment, more and more of us have begun to question our leadership's stance on Amnesty. I'd like to help answer that question. It is not good news. As a former organizer for the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, let me fill you in on the state of the Unions.
AFL-CIO
In September, Richard Trumka replaced John Sweeney as President of the AFL-CIO. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) includes 57 national and international unions representing 11.5 million members. Since the Sweeney takeover local Union mergers have exploded turning Union locals into what some call mega-locals. We were given many reasons for the mergers such as cost effectiveness and combined political power, but the true reason was to centralize power to squash dissent on a number of issues including: Amnesty and Open Borders.
UNI Global Union
Let’s talk about the Union Networks International (UNI) Global Union. UNI is the Global Union for skills and services. They represent 900 trade unions and 20 million workers worldwide (179 unions in the Americas and 3.5 million workers).
Here’s the question? Why would our leaders, who historically fought the influx of cheaper laborers and prevented illegal foreign labor at every step, start doing the opposite? Why would Union leader stop protecting the American workers? The answer has become clear. Our leadership has decided the mergers aren't over, they will continue, welcome to the UNI Global Union. You may not realize this but your trade may have already been affiliated without your consent or vote. Ask your leadership today!
You are in the process of being told that the only way to fight corporate globalism is a global union... that sounds great for the bosses who will be receiving dues money, and therefore paychecks from the low cost workers overseas to whom so many of our jobs have gone, but what about the American worker? We live here. We work here. The push for Amnesty only paves the road for the Open Borders flow of labor.
Leadership in Question
Joseph T. Hansen, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), President of the “Change to Win Federation”, a coalition of American labor unions originally formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO, is now the International President of UNI Global Union. He met DHS Head Janet Napolitano in a private meeting with 100 leaders of the pro-illegal alien community to discuss Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Amnesty. What is going on with our dues supporting this? Our dues are being spent to organize our replacements whether it is illegal aliens crossing our borders here at home or supporting the factory worker in China. You will be told that bettering the working conditions of those less fortunate is good for all But is it good for us? By the time the pay scale in China reaches even half of our minimum wage our great grandchildren would be ready for retirement. So why the Amnesty push? TO BRING IN A NEW LABOR FORCE WILLING TO WORK AT A FRACTION OF OUR PAY, and to LOWER the standard of living so as to have a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with our UNI Global Union counterparts overseas.
We have fought hard for our standard of living and to let the socialist leadership that hijacked our Union in 1994 force us back into peasant wages is a betrayal of the highest order and must not stand. We must fight Amnesty as a first step towards fighting this UNI Global Union. Courageous Labor leaders such as George Meany, Samuel Gomper, and Cesar Chavez would be disgusted with what has happened in the few short years since the Sweeney-Trumka coup which essentially voided principles held by these champions of the American worker and our way of life. We must demand a congressional investigation into these backdoor affiliations, a full review of the Union election process, and finally an investigation that demands full financial disclosure so we may stop any further donations to our extinction.
Join the Conversation
Login and leave a Comment below!
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/NumbersUSA
Be our Friend on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/NumbersUSAforLowerImmigrationLevels
Poll results
Our last poll asked you what you thought of the Tea Party Movement. Well, here it is, April 15th (also referred to my some as “National Serfdom Day”). So, let’s look at the results. 41% of you thought they were a bunch of crazies, while 5% agreed that they had some good points. The rest of you, 54%, thought the Tea Party Movement was a good thing. Frankly, I agree. They are, for the most part, the “Silent Majority” who have finally had enough and decided not to be silent any longer. They are largely non-partisan, believing instead that both political parties share equally in the mess they’ve created for the American People. I think its time for Americans to “party” like its 1773 all over again! Thanks for voting!
No comments:
Post a Comment