Category Archives: U.S.

New US Pacific Fleet Commander Acknowledges ‘Great Angst’ Among Allies

The new commander of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet is seeking to reassure regional allies that the pivot of American military forces will be sustained amid concerns regarding China’s maritime expansion.

Since taking his post three months ago at the helm of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott H. Swift has gone to the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia to meet with counterparts in their navies.

In every one of those destinations there is “great angst” – due to the worrying “scale and scope” of Beijing’s reclamation projects in the South China Sea, Swift told reporters on Tuesday.

New US Pacific Fleet Commander Acknowledges ‘Great Angst’ Among Allies

The Nuclear Activity You Should Be Paying Attention To

The Iran Deal is the biggest nuclear story of the decade. Yet most Americans are paying little attention. Even the 70th anniversary of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan stirred little interest. Today, nuclear weapons are pretty much “out of sight, out of mind.”

That’s quite a change from the Cold War era, when an entire generation of Americans was raised on worrying about “duck and cover.”

In America, writes Yale professor Paul Bracken, “[n]uclear weapons are considered a relic of the Cold War.” And that’s a dangerous conceit. As Bracken warns:

Even as China, India, and others have reenergized their nuclear weapon programs, the United States refuses to acknowledge this development. US nuclear “forgetting” contrasts with the nuclear learning going on in China, North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, Israel, and others. This is a significant strategic asymmetry.

The Nuclear Activity You Should Be Paying Attention To

How Obama Transformed America – WSJ

The Obama transformation was achieved by laws granting unparalleled discretionary power to the executive branch—but where the law gave no discretion Mr. Obama refused to abide by the law. Whether the law mandated action, such as income verification for ObamaCare, or inaction, such as immigration reform without congressional support, Mr. Obama willfully overrode the law. Stretching executive powers beyond their historic limits, he claimed the Federal Communications Commission had authority over the Internet and exerted Environmental Protection Agency control over power plants to reduce carbon emissions.

When Obama empowered himself to declare Congress in “recess” to make illegal appointments that the courts later ruled unconstitutional, he was undeterred. In an action that Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would have never undertaken, Mr. Obama pushed Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to “nuke” the rights of minority Senators to filibuster judicial nominees and executive appointments by changing the long-standing 60-vote supermajority needed for cloture to a simple majority.

Most important, the American people, who came to embrace the Roosevelt and Reagan transformations, have yet to buy into the Obama transformation. For all of these reasons it appears that the Obama legacy rests on a foundation of sand.

How Obama Transformed America – WSJ

Underneath that foundation of sand sits bedrock of liberal progressiveness. That because the progressives have been able to transform the institutions of America: Schools, labor unions, media, judiciary and more. Congress and the executive branch tip back and forth through time. When Republicans gain office in congress and in the presidency they don’t move us away from progressive ideas. They just move us in the same direction a little slower.

Will the next Republican president repeal ObamaCare? I doubt it. Will they move the country solidly away from progressive ideas? Probably not.

Related Article:

The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party

The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party

“In the end, what is important for Americans to realize is that the experiment with a left-wing president, like Barack Obama, is less an aberration than the logical outcome of the transformation of both the Democratic Party and the American culture.”

Frustration with division and gridlock in Washington lead many Americans to impugn both political parties for the current broken and ineffective state of government. There is plenty of blame to go around, but below the surface there has been a quiet revolution going on in only one of the two parties — the Democratic Party — which is the main source of today’s irreconcilable division and moral confusion.

What’s remarkable is how the political and cultural center of American values has collapsed in the last two and a half decades with the Democratic Party having moved dramatically to the left. Recently, Democratic National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not explain the difference between the modern Democratic Party platform and that of socialism, while at the same time gushing over the prospect of Socialist Bernie Sanders having a prominent place at the 2016 Democratic Party convention.

If people today could somehow be transported back to the time of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy, they would swear those standard bearers were Republicans with little in common with today’s Democratic Party.

America’s two major political parties have always been fundamentally different. The Republican Party has been rooted in the moral principles and transcendent values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Democratic Party acknowledges that the starting point of the country may have been the Declaration and the Constitution, but since Woodrow Wilson many Democratic Party leaders have contended that progress requires constant adaptation, changing morals, and liberal interpretations of law and history.

The progressive philosophy that the Democratic Party has come to embrace now has its roots less in the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of individual happiness and more in the tenets of race and class identity, equal outcomes, and an expanding welfare state. Since individuals vary in talent, ability, and motivation and the free market system produces unequal outcomes of success, a core principle of the Democratic Party is now redressing this disparity through the redistribution of wealth.

In the end, what is important for Americans to realize is that the experiment with a left-wing president, like Barack Obama, is less an aberration than the logical outcome of the transformation of both the Democratic Party and the American culture. And the election of Hillary Clinton, a student of Alinsky and well-schooled and practiced in his teachings of deceit and camouflage would take the United States further along its trajectory of decline. Hillary’s election would effectively constitute an Obama third term.

The big question is whether the nation can survive and prosper if the culture remains fractured with a majority adrift from the heritage, morality and values of liberty and personal responsibility that are at the heart of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Articles: The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party

The election of Barack Obama represents the tipping point for the transformation of America, and the new left won. Well, it’s not over yet, but short of a Depression and/or civil war it is not likely that the new left can be turned around in America. The bigger problem in my view is that these idiots are disarming America and leaving it vulnerable to defeat. If America doesn’t exist then there is surely no hope of turning it around. And I am actually worried that America might not exist before the end of Obama’s term.


China Challenging All Foundations of US Military Power: Ex-US Official | The Diplomat

The former director of the Missile Defense Agency offers a stern warning.

China is challenging all major foundations of American military power, a former U.S. defense official said in a speech Wednesday.

Since the end of the World War II, U.S. military superiority has relied on three major foundations, Trey Obering, the former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), told an audience at the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. These were superior strategic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities (ISR); the ability to project power globally; and an overwhelming dominant technological advantage across a spectrum of conflict.

But China, Obering said, was now challenging all three of these major foundations of American power.

“I believe that China is challenging the United States, specifically targeting our strategic ISR, our power projection capabilities, and our technological advantages with their missile programs,” he said.

China Challenging All Foundations of US Military Power: Ex-US Official | The Diplomat

Anne Applebaum | How Obama Misread Putin’s Aggression | Foreign Affairs

It is possible, of course, that time is on the side of the Western alliance. The Russian economy is in decline, thanks largely to low oil prices rather than the sanctions. Deterrence and containment may well protect Europe, as they have in the past, until Russian policy or Russian leadership changes once again. The great unknown is Putin himself: If he feels his personal authority is truly threatened, how will he react? He may decide that he needs another crisis—perhaps a bigger one—to mobilize the public and stay in power. The most catastrophic scenarios, of course, are the ones that the Russians themselves have been preparing for, through military exercises, during the past six years.

Looking back, Obama’s evolving attitude toward Russia has followed a familiar arc. President Jimmy Carter started with détente and ended up arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan and boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Bush started with seeing Putin’s “soul” and ended up backing Georgia in its war with Russia, at least rhetorically. Obama, likewise, started with a reset and wound up with sanctions. The question for the next president is whether he or she can avoid repeating this pattern and find ways to engage the entire European continent in the long-term project of sustaining the Western alliance and protecting it from what could be a long era of Russian revanchism.

Anne Applebaum | How Obama Misread Putin’s Aggression | Foreign Affairs

CSBA Study Says Modernizing Nuclear Triad Is Affordable

A Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA) study released Aug. 4 disputes the widely circulated theory that modernization of the strategic nuclear triad, including replacing the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and their sea-launched intercontinental missiles, is “unaffordable.”

The study, by CSBA’s well-regarded analyst Todd Harrison, concludes that in the peak years the annual cost of the planned modernization of the Navy’s sea-based leg of the triad, the Air Force’s airborne and land-based legs and the nuclear warheads used on them would amount to less than 5 percent of the total defense budget.

Five percent of the total expected budget “is not unaffordable,” Harrison told reporters at a briefing.

“Is it going to be a challenge? Absolutely! But it’s not a matter of affordability, it’s a matter of prioritization,” he said.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

A Marriage on the Rocks? Saudis Look Beyond U.S. After Iran Deal – Bloomberg Business

Former Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal once compared the bond with the U.S. to a “Muslim marriage,” or one that wasn’t necessarily monogamous.

The kingdom’s recent overtures to other partners suggest the relationship is going through another reappraisal because of the landmark accord with regional rival Iran. After visiting Russia and France last month, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman returned home with $23 billion of aircraft and energy contracts.

“Trust between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. has been damaged by the Iran nuclear deal,” said Paul Sullivan, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University in Washington. “Many in Saudi Arabia feel abandoned by the U.S.”

A Marriage on the Rocks? Saudis Look Beyond U.S. After Iran Deal – Bloomberg Business

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us.

Geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist tells Accuracy in Media, “The Russians became angry and threatening when NATO tried to build a very modest missile defense system to stop an Iranian missile. Yet Russia has over 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABMs for defense against our missiles and will be deploying a new ABM prototype next year.”

He adds, “Russia has potential war winning advantages over the U.S. and NATO—not necessarily in the number of nuclear weapons but in the number of its ABM batteries, and the upgrading of these batteries with a new generation of interceptor rockets while the American side makes no effort in this direction. The U.S. ABMs in Alaska and California would be lucky to stop 12 Russian warheads.”

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

The Iran Deal Will Bring Us Nothing But War and Shame

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement.

While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on.

First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.

Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. Such ingratitude might seem counterintuitive, given the gifts that the Iranians have just received from the Obama administration. But we should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers “worms” and pushed them even further.

China and Russia will never again see any advantage in joining the West in embargoing and sanctioning a would-be nuclear state – not when such a hard-won common front can become utterly nullified at any moment by a fickle United States. Both powers will grow closer to Iran.

In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.

The Iran Deal Will Bring Us Nothing But War and Shame | National Review Online