Question: Could it be true that the Obama Administration is back to their deplorable politics by pushing to ratify the New START in a lame duck session on the back of a $4 billion payout, especially after the majority of Americans recently sent them an unequivocal message that business as usual must stop and, if this is true, isn’t this action a clear rejection of that message?
This recent article and/or blog post reveals the disturbing and deplorable answer to this question-You Decide:
National Security Shouldn’t Be For Sale-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-On November 16, 2010:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article and/or blog post:
“The Washington Post reports this morning that the fate of a lame duck vote on New START rests on just one man: Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ). According to the Post’s sources, other Republicans in Congress have “kind of delegated” New START to Kyl, meaning that if the Obama Administration wins his vote, the nine total Republican votes needed to reach 67 votes would be easy to find. That is why the White House dispatched General Kevin Chilton to Arizona last Friday, and it is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to meet with Kyl later this week.
In what the Post describes as a “high-octane lobbying” campaign, Gates has already offered Kyl an extra $4 billion in spending on nuclear programs in exchange for his vote. This is on top of the existing $10 billion Administration pledge. This deal is bad policy and deplorable politics.
First of all, the White House has no standing to make this offer. Most of the proposed spending is in the out years beyond President Obama’s term, and the White House does not pass budgets; Congress does. How can any conservative take a White House promise for future funding on faith before the 2012 budget has been written? Instead, the White House has demanded a vote in the lame duck—before even the 2011 budget is approved. Second, the Obama Administration is not drawing this $4 billion from their own domestic priorities; they are shifting it from other defense priorities. The bottom line is that this deal, even if followed through, would just weaken the military elsewhere.
And all this money isn’t going to real nuclear modernization. Remember, President Obama’s goal is to reduce the number of our nuclear weapons to zero, not build new ones. That is why the billions in “modernization” are actually being dumped into federal labs and universities without spelling out a clear military mission for their activities. And there are other problems with the treaty as well.
The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and, specifically, how the Russians interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the rushed process the White House is seeking.
But most importantly, if this $4 billion is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal, then it is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for an effective nuclear deterrent on New START is playing politics with our national security.
Earlier this month the American people sent an unequivocal message to Washington that business as usual must stop. Ratifying New START in a lame duck session on the back of a $4 billion payout would be a clear rejection of that message.”
Question: Could it be true that the U.S. has sold 50% of its uranium to Russia and, if true, what’s wrong with this picture?
This recent article and/or blog post reveals the disturbing answer to this question-You Decide:
Russia set to control half of U.S. uranium output?–Posted on GlennBeck.com-On December 6, 2010:
Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to and/or support the above articles and/or blog posts-You Decide:
The Administration Must Not Bend to Russian Missile Defense Demands–Posted on The Heritage Foundation-On May 21, 2011:
Top 10 Obama Foreign Policy Flubs–Posted on Human Events-By Human Events-On May 21, 2011:
Obama’s New START Would Have Been Reagan Non-Starter–Posted on The Heritage Foundation-On November 19, 2010:
Obama enlists big names to push for nuclear treaty–Posted on Yahoo News-By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press-On November 18, 2010:
Obama’s hopes for Russia nuclear pact fade–Posted on Yahoo News-By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press-On November 16, 2010:
Note: The above articles and/or blog post and videos relate to and/or support my following blog posts-You Decide:
Will The New START Undermine Our Nuclear Security?
What do CAIR, Anna Chapman, and Rep. Mark Siljander have in common?
Nuclear Summit Part of Obama Administration’s ‘Fantasy Foreign Policy’
China Nuclear Deal With Pakistan!
The President Must Stop Voting “Present” on Iran!
Is Shariah Law A Danger To Our U.S. National Security?
FBI Escorts Known Hamas Operative Through Top-Secret National Counterterrorism Center!
The Islamic Infiltration: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets!
Obama’s New OIC Envoy Defended Activist Who Aided Terrorist Group!
Could Steps That Team Obama Has Taken Be Emboldening Terrorists?
Are Intelligence Personnel Empowered to Employ Their Ingenuity and Resourcefulness to Connect The Dots?
Obama and Holder’s Hidden Agenda!
How the EU’s Lisbon Treaty Affects U.S. National Security:
Is Obama and The American Public on Different Pages, if not Different Books?
Ongoing Concerns With This President and His Administration!
Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!
Where Is America Today?
Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!
Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!
A Nation Adrift Theme and Disclaimer:
“Food For Thought”
“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”