Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘invasion’

County Officials in Texas to Declare Border Crisis An ‘Invasion’



U.S. authorities continue to enforce the Title 42 rules in Del Rio
REUTERS/Marco Bello


County officials in Texas are set to declare an invasion at the southern border Monday afternoon, Kinney County Spokesman Matt Benacci told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The judges, mayors, attorneys and sheriffs in Uvalde, Kinney and Goliad counties are set to urge Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to join them, but the governor is not yet involved in the effort, according to a Texas county spokesman with knowledge of the situation who spoke anonymously with The Daily Caller News Foundation because they weren’t authorized to speak. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Migrants Evading Arrest Cause Ranchers Near The Border To Pay Significant Costs)


Abbott was considering making the declaration, according to an April report from The New York Times. The U.S. Constitution says that states have the right to protect themselves from an invasion.


“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence,” Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution states.

In addition to Article IV, Section 4, another clause of the Constitution grants states the ability to declare war against an “invasion.”


The group worked with the Center for Renewing America, a conservative organization led by former Trump administration officials, to make the declaration.

“For the first time in U.S. history, several counties in Texas, outside of Congress, have declared an invasion–a Constitutional solution we have been advocating for over a year,” former Trump administration officials Russ Vought and Ken Cuccinelli, both affiliated with the Center for Renewing America, said in a joint statement Monday.


“While it is unfortunate the Biden Administration has aided and abetted the destruction at the border and put Americans last on the world stage, we’re proud to stand with the history-making county judges, sheriffs and attorneys who didn’t rely on the Federal government, or even the governor to protect their families, ranches, and communities. We ask Governor Abbott to follow the example set by the leaders in Goliad, Kinney, and Uvalde counties and stop with media gimmicks and treat the invasion of American sovereignty as such,” they added.

Cuccinelli and Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy will join the local officials at Monday’s meeting, according to a press release shared with TheDCNF.


“To the ‘it’s not an invasion crowd,’ heavily armed Mexican cartels are pushing human beings & fentanyl for profit into America in violation of our sovereignty while expanding their reach into Texas at the expense, increased danger, & harm to Texans. #EndTheInvasion” Roy wrote on Twitter.


The looming announcement comes after 53 migrants died that were being smuggled from the Texas-Mexico border. Authorities discovered an 18-wheeler full of migrants that were suffering from heat-related injuries on June 27, San Antonio fire department chief Charles Hood previously said.

Neither Abbott’s office nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded to TheDCNF’s requests for comment.


Blake Mauro contributed to this report.

Russian state-owned media lays off most employees and shuts down operations in the US

Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | March 03, 2022


The U.S. arm of a Russian state-owned media outlet shut down on Thursday after being expelled from several platforms over the Russian invasion into Ukraine. CNN first reported that Russia Today was ceasing operations and firing most of its staff in the United States. The memo obtained by CNN from the general manager of T&R Productions blamed the shutdown on “unforeseen business interruption events.”

“Unfortunately, we anticipate this layoff will be permanent, meaning that this will result in the permanent separation from employment of most T&R employees at all locations,” wrote Misha Solodovnikov.

The media network had been an outlet for pro-Russian propaganda but was removed from DirecTV this week and then later from Roku streaming services. On Tuesday, Google said that they had blocked mobile apps connected to Sputnik and RT from their app store and from their search tool. Apple made similar moves on its app store.

RT Deputy Editor-in-Chief Anna Belkina issued a statement angrily decrying the bans.

“This collective ‘establishment’ seems to be terrified of a mere presence of any outside voice for the fear of losing their historically captive audience, if that audience encounters a different perspective,” she said.

CNN also detailed a personal meeting between Solodovnikov and the hosts, correspondents, and producers of RT American in the Washington, D.C., bureau on Thursday based on a source who attended it. Solodovnikov told the employees that their jobs were being terminated with two months severance pay. One RT host spoke to CNN under the condition of anonymity about the somber meeting.

“I have never felt more heartbroken as they have nothing to do with this conflict and seriously were just trying to make a decent living to provide for their families,” the host said.

Another source told CNN that people were shocked, and many cried after the announcement.

Here’s more about the effort against Russia Today:

Google blocks RT, Sputnik from Play app store

Ann Coulter Letter: “Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?”

waving flagWritten by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?

Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War?

We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.” 

So I remember the arguments.

Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”

Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.

Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: “Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address …” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:

(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:

– The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)

– The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam’s Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)

– The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)

– Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in Prague shortly before the attack.

We’re not supposed to mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently, our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn’t see 9/11 coming, didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn’t see the Times Square bombing coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING — although they’re pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.

(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush’s father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)

(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them — far more prodigiously than Syria’s Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his “red line” threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad’s WMDs killed about a thousand civilians — 350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam’s WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That’s according to everyone — the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)

(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other — at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.

It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.

(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis — removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men’s genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped — as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.

(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?

(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy — an Arab Israel.

That worked, too. In under two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers country.

But then an innocent 26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military. President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.

The least important reason to invade Iraq — the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations — was that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-bloc with WMDs. It was the equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan — although technically, we didn’t invade because the Taliban were mean to women.

In fact, the only time The New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the “powerful case” made by Secretary of State Colin Powell, “that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions.” (Who cares?)

Liberals didn’t mind Saddam’s sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had disrespected the U.N.!

Far from claiming that estimates of Saddam’s WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great Satan. Thus, for example:

– The New York Times cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions, allowing “terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons.” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

– Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would “use poison gas against U.S. troops.” (Jane Sutton, “Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,” Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)

– In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman warned: “Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may be bombarded with poison gas.” (Steve Chapman, “What Could Go Wrong in the War With Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)

– The Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, “Saddam may well launch missiles with chemical warheads at Tel Aviv.” (Nicholas Kristof, “Flirting With Disaster,” Feb. 14, 2003)

This is why all six of Jeb Bush’s answers to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly — as well as Marco Rubio’s premeditated answer a week later — were ridiculous. It’s annoying enough having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don’t follow the news, can’t they read?

Kelly asked Bush: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”

The correct answer is:

Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America’s victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.

Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.

OARLogo Picture6

New Illegal Aliens Outnumber American Birthrate [VIDEO]


Posted by Michael Becker on Jul 24, 2014

obama-border-is-open-378x257A Texas State Senator hit the nail on the head with his comment about the numbers of illegal aliens who are flooding across our southern border now outnumbering the legal birthrate of Americans.

Oh, and how about those crime statistics that the major media won’t report.

We disagree with the Senator about the “humanitarian crisis.”  It’s not a humanitarian crisis, it’s a crisis of refusal to enforce US immigration law.

Patrick also said law enforcement officials have told him that somewhere between one in five and one in ten illegal immigrants are actually apprehended. 

“Now, we think we catch one out of every five. That means twenty five or thirty thousand are crossing the border, that we don’t catch,” he said. “Don’t focus on the numbers that are apprehended, that’s the ones we catch.”

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more


Add to that another twenty five or thirty thousand coming across the border into the Tucson Sector in Arizona. 

Keep in mind when your hear about the number of illegal aliens who are caught that more than five don’t get caught.  The “eleven million” illegals that the pro-amnesty politicians talk about is probably more like 15 to 20 million, and if they get a comprehensive immigration bill signed into law, every version has a “chain immigration” feature that will allow their immediate family members – who, like the illegals who are already here, are uneducated, don’t speak English, and are unskilled – to legally immigrate.  At a minimum that’s another 30 to 60 million welfare recipients.

Illegal immigration will destroy the United States of America.  At the rate we’re going, if we don’t close the border, and close it with the US military if necessary, the US will be a third world country much like Mexico.


dan patrick

Article collective closing


Putin’s Real Intentions: Re-Establish the “Evil Empire”

Written on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 by David L. Goetsch

Students of World War II are finding dangerous parallels between the events leading up to that war and what is now happening in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is using precisely the same tactics used by Adolf Hitler in the run up to World War II, and like Hitler he is betting on and benefiting from a weak response from the west. As I observe the idle threats being made by President Obama and John Kerry painful memories of a sniveling Neville Chamberlain come to mind. While the West impotently talks about sanctions and even imposes a few, Putin continues to mass troops on the Ukrainian border for what he calls “military maneuvers.”

I fear there is much more at stake here than the Crimea. To understand what is happening in Ukraine it is necessary to first understand Vladimir Putin’s real intentions: He wants to re-establish the “evil empire.” Putin has stated publicly that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s a tragedy President Putin would like to erase from Russian history in the same manner that Adolph Hitler sought to eradicate what he saw as the shame of the Treaty of Versailles following World War I. Just as Hitler wanted to reincorporate land lost to Germany in the aftermath of the Great War—thus the bloodless takeover of Austria followed close on by the forced annexation of the Sudetenland—Putin wants to take back what was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. His Crimean adventure was just the first step along these lines. It won’t be the last.

You can be sure that Putin has studied Hitler’s actions in the years leading up to World War II as well as the weak-kneed, impotent response of the west. Putin seems to know history better than today’s Western leaders who allowed World War II to happen when Hitler could have been easily stopped in his tracks. Neville Chamberlain and other Western leaders thought they could negotiate with Hitler. They were fools. But even a fool knows you cannot negotiate with a hungry bear, and the Russian bear with prodding from Putin is obviously hungry. Unfortunately, President Obama and John Kerry seem to be cut from the same cloth as Neville Chamberlain. They want to negotiate and threaten and talk, talk, talk. If anyone in the Obama administration had an ounce of foreign policy sense they would understand that all a hungry bear ever wants is more.

Community Organizer Two

In the years leading up to World War II, Hitler first brought Austria under the Nazi jackboot with the Anschluss. Anschluss is German for political annexation. It worked like this. First Hitler stirred up pro-German sentiment in Austria. Then he massed troops and tanks along the Austrian border. Finally, he “allowed” Austria to annex itself to Germany in lieu of being invaded by Nazi Storm Troopers and Panzers. If you have been paying attention, the Crimean Region of Ukraine just had its own Anschluss, but this time it was Putin and the Russians who demanded a vote while pointing guns at the voters. Unfortunately, as they did prior to World War II, western leaders—most auspiciously President Obama—are responding with words and weakness. Putin on the other hand is taking action.

Hitler’s next annexation was the Sudetenland, a small sliver of land that was part of Czechoslovakia. Like the Crimea, the Sudetenland had a large contingent of citizens loyal to the invading country. The German speaking, pro-Nazi citizens of the Sudetenland—led by Konrad Henlein—agitated for annexation and, of course, Hitler was only too happy to oblige. Surrounded by Nazi tanks and troops, the Sudetenland acquiesced to Hitler’s demands and became part of Germany. The people of the West adopted a who-cares attitude toward Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. France and Britain were not willing to go to war over a sliver of land in which many of the people spoke German and were loyal to Hitler. The West basically said to Hitler, “You can have the Sudetenland.” This would have been a small enough tragedy had Hitler been content to stop there, but of course he wasn’t. Nor will President Putin be content to stop his expansion efforts with the Crimea. As it did with the Sudetenland, the West has adopted a who-cares attitude toward the Russian annexation of the Crimea. Just as it was with the Sudetenland, this would be only a minor tragedy if Putin’s aggression stopped there. But it won’t, and Western leaders are fools if they think it will.

It is a good bet that Vladimir Putin now has his sights set on Ukraine. If he can bring that sovereign country back into the fold, then there are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; all of which have significant Russian-speaking populations left over from the old Soviet days. These Russian-speaking citizens can be counted on to support Putin in his takeover efforts, and Putin can be counted on to claim that he is invading these sovereign nations for the sole purpose of protecting oppressed Russians. If Putin can manage to re-incorporate these three tiny nations, the bear’s next meal will be the one that finally brought the West to its senses and triggered a military response and, eventually, World War II. That meal is Poland, which is the prize Putin really wants in the first place.

History is repeating itself in part because we have raised several generations of Americans who do not know their history. While American students were being taught how they should be ashamed of the United States and studying the lives of celebrities instead of American heroes, Vladimir Putin and his generation of Russians were studying history—real history. Now he is using that knowledge of history to re-establish what Ronald Reagan called the “evil empire.” With the Crimean annexation, history is simply repeating itself. The only difference is the tyrant who is seeking territory and the weak-kneed Western leaders who are letting him take it.

Romney attacks Obama for ‘faulty judgement’ and accuses the president of naivety over Russia’s annexation of Crimea

  • Failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Romney said Obama could have done more to try and deter Russia’s annexation of Crimea
  • He did acknowledge that such steps may not have been enough though to hold back Russia President Vladimir Putin
  • During the 2012 campaign, Romney took criticism from Obama for saying Russia was America’s ‘number one geopolitical foe,’ rather than al-Qaida

By Associated Press Reporter

Mitt Romney said on Sunday that President Barack Obama is naive when it comes to Russia, has shown ‘faulty judgment’ about Moscow’s intentions and could have done more to try to deter its annexation of Crimea.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee said Obama didn’t have the foresight to anticipate Russia’s moves and should have been working earlier with allies to make clear the penalties that Russia would face if it moved into Ukraine.

Community Organizer Two

Romney did acknowledge that such steps may not have been enough though to hold back Russia President Vladimir Putin.

Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama is naive when it comes to Russia and has shown 'faulty judgment'

 ‘Had we communicated those things, there’s always the potential that we could have kept them from invading a country and annexing it into their own,’ Romney said on CBS’ Face the Nation.

During the 2012 campaign, Romney took criticism from Obama for saying Russia was America’s ‘number one geopolitical foe,’ rather than al-Qaida. Now Romney seems to be claiming the right to say, essentially, ‘I told you so.’

‘There’s no question but that the president’s naivety with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgment about Russia’s intentions and objectives, has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face,’ Romney said.

Community Organizer Two

‘And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia’s intentions, the president wasn’t able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you’re seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you’re seeing in Syria.’

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naiveSen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naive

He said the U.S. should now welcome nations that seek entry into NATO, should forgo cuts to the U.S. military budget and reconsider putting a missile defense system into the Czech Republic and Poland, as once planned.

During the 2012 campaign, Romney had tried to portray the Democratic incumbent as soft on Russia. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, he said that ‘for three years, the sum total of President Obama’s policy toward Russia has been: “We give, Russia gets.”’

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naive.

Durbin, referring to Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB, said Putin is ‘a bully and we’ve got to call him for what he is. But this notion that some sanction is going to stop a former colonel in the KGB from his ambitions of a Russian empire is naive.

Romney also used the appearance to criticize Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s first secretary of state who now is considering a presidential run in 2016.

Failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Romney said Obama didn't have the foresight to anticipate Russia's moves and should have been working earlier with allies to make clear the penalties that Russia would face if it moved into Ukraine

Romney said he couldn’t think of a major country that had greater respect and admiration for the U.S. than it did ‘after five years of the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton.’

‘You look over the past five years and say, “what’s happened?” Good things have not been bursting out all over,’ he said.

Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, said on CBS that Romney suffered from ‘political amnesia.’

‘Osama bin Laden is gone. The war in Iraq is over. Afghanistan is coming to a close. And this president has worked with many of these nations successfully to put pressure on Iran, the sanctions, bringing them to the negotiating table,’ Durbin said.

He said Romney has ‘forgotten those facts.’

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Sanctions Bear Little

Posted on March 25, 2014



Community Organizer Two

John Kerry’s Message to Russia: “Peace Through Weakness”

Minutemennews Banner

15 March 2014

By:  Marilyn Assenheim


The Washington Examiner ran an interesting headline on Thursday: “John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine.” The Examiner continued: “If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue … there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.” Chief among those “steps?” “…the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize (Russia) as legitimate under international law.” That ought to learn ‘em. Yet, unaccountably, The New York Times reported Thursday that, even in the face of Kerry’s paper kitten, Russia is busily massing forces on the borders of Ukraine.

The Washington Examiner quoted Kerry in saying how impressed he was at “… how united our European allies are on the issue…they are very, very committed to make sure there is accountability…” So was the U.N. when they shook their finger at Saddam Hussein for over twelve years. When Senator Lindsey Graham asked Kerry what the administration would do should Russia make further inroads into the Ukraine Kerry responded cautiously but in full pie-in-the-sky mode: “Our hope is not to create hysteria or excessive concern about that at this point in time,” he said. “Our hope is to avoid that, but there’s no telling that we can.” Hope. Hmmm. As the tune says, it seems we’ve heard that song before. Unfortunately for “Clap-For-Tinkerbelle” Kerry, he might have to wrestle with that very eventuality. The New York Times had the breaking story: “Russia’s Defense Ministry announced new military operations in several regions near the Ukrainian border on Thursday… A day after a deputy minister denied any military buildup on the border; the Defense Ministry released a series of statements beginning early Thursday that appeared to contradict that. They outlined what was described as intensive training of units involving artillery batteries, assault helicopters and at least 10,000 soldiers. The operations confirmed, at least in part, assertions by Ukrainian leaders on Wednesday that Russia was massing forces…columns of armored vehicles and trucks in a border village called Lopan, only 30 miles from the Ukrainian city Kharkiv.” The latest estimate of Soviet forces parked on Ukraine’s doorstep is 25,000 troops.

Angela Merkel and the rest of the European adherents of finger-wagging policy have joined America’s Secretary of State, warning Russia off of incurring possible economic and diplomatic sanctions. Europe’s trading ties with Russia, particularly when it comes to oil however, suggest that such a tack might be a case of the EU cutting off its nose to spite its face. Particularly when Russia is in a position to acquire the wealth of Ukraine. One would guess that Putin might be willing to gamble that Europe’s posture might hurt them more than it would hurt him.

Statists have long chosen to pervert what Ronald Reagan really meant by “peace through strength.” Although Reagan did not endorse military conflict he knew that not having a strong military would send a catastrophic signal to cultures that respect only strength. Democrats, believing that what they want makes their desires true, prefer diplomacy and sanctions and ignore the failures of the past. They eagerly neuter U.S. armed forces while providing military aid to nations hostile to America.

Kerry, although he has taken up room on planet earth for over 71 years, has not learned very much. Not surprising considering that Kerry earned a D in history, twice, at Yale. But he has, unfortunately, been foisted on a hapless America as Secretary of State. Even should he be willing to give up junk food to shield his own grades from public view, The Lyin’ King might have looked into Kerry’s political science grade at Yale before appointing Kerry: D. One can’t blame Kerry for everything even if what passes for The Lyin’ King’s ludicrous foreign policy is right up his alley. But embarrassing himself is one thing; making America a perennial clown on the world’s stage is another. And having Europe for company in the overcrowded clown car won’t help should the elephants run amok. Diplomacy is an ineffectual bludgeon; wielding it hasn’t worked throughout all of recorded history. Fear of an opponent’s strength has. Proof of this is rapidly becoming evident. Friday, Kerry met with his Russian opposite number, Sergei Lavrov, in London. After five hours of implementing his sure-fire diplomatic strategy the Kremlin told Kerry to stick an onion-domed minaret where the sun don’t shine. FOX News summed up Kerry’s dismay in the aftermath: “…he said that he came with ‘good faith with constructive ideas’ to address the concerns of both Ukraine and Russia. But he said Putin is not backing down.” Who could have seen that coming?

Europe and the free world used to rely upon America’s military might for safety, allowing them the fantasy of overcoming evil with a Coke and a smile. The world’s bad players may have dawning awareness, however, that America is becoming less of a threat and more Kool-Aid and a rictus grin.

President Clinton and President Obama Promised to Protect Disarmed Ukraine

Rush's Banner

March 05, 2014

RUSH: This is getting out of hand now.  Hillary Clinton is saying that Vladimir Putin is a Nazi, and Putin is saying that the Ukrainians are Nazis, and Tony Kornheiser says that the whole state of Arizona is Nazis.  The only person that’s not a Nazi anymore is me.  This is progress, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s like a Mel Brooks movie.  I mean, everybody is just throwing this name out.  And of course Putin is acting like Hilter did.  You gotta give Hillary that, with what he’s doing here.  I mean, it’s gonna irritate some progressives who think that Putin has the right to do whatever he wants to do.


RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, this is hilarious.  CNN, the rest of the Drive-Bys are all in hysterics that a United Nations envoy was supposedly almost kidnapped and threatened by an armed man in Crimea and told to get out of the country.  “A UN envoy!  That’s unacceptable! Who do they think they are, threatening to kidnap and kick out of the country a UN envoy?” I’m not kidding.  The media is just beside themselves over this kind of an insult.

I want to mention something here that came up late in the program yesterday, and I’m repeating it here at a different time in the program hoping to reach more people with this ’cause the Drive-Bys are not talking about this.  I mentioned yesterday that Bill Clinton in 1994 (and then the Obama administration in 2009, reaffirmed it) gave official diplomatic assurances to Ukraine that their borders would be safe in exchange for the Ukrainians gutting their army and completely doing away with their sizable nuclear deterrent.

This has not been reported other than the UK Daily Mail has now published an article that reminds us that that wasn’t all Obama did for Ukraine.  But the point is… Because the media isn’t telling you, I want to stress this again. As you’re watching what happened, as you watch us act outraged that Putin would do this, there were the number of signatories to this agreement.  The UK, John Major and the Ukrainian prime minister. It was Boris Yeltsin for the Russian Federation, and Bill Clinton, and there was the ChiCom leader.

There were five of them, and they signed. They promised. They promised Ukraine that their borders would not be attacked, that their sovereignty would not be challenged, and that they would be considered for admission to the European Union. There was all this stuff dangling carrots if they would just gut their army and do away with their nuclear deterrent — and Ukraine did.  That agreement was reaffirmed in 2009 by Barack Obama.

So the Ukrainians cannot defend themselves against this encroachment by Russia, which is a violation of that agreement, by the way.


RUSH: I want to close the loop on this Ukraine thing, get into the IRS, and then come back to Ukraine with more details on what’s happening.  But just to remind you, ’cause I think this is huge.  I think Ukraine bought it hook, line, and sinker.  They gave up their military. They had a nuclear arsenal.  They gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact.

Putin wasn’t a signatory, but Boris Yeltsin was, and he signed for the Russian Federation, which is still the governing body before Putin puts the Soviet Union back together.  It was Bill Clinton that got the whole thing started, and this whole thing was reaffirmed in 2009.  Now, the UK Daily Mail today adds information to this.  Their headline is: “Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 TONS of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms and 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Ukraine.”

In addition to the gutting of the military and getting rid of the nukes, it was Obama as a senator who pushed legislation that further weakened Ukraine.  From the article: “As a US senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition — weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.”

Because they don’t really have an army, not much of one. They gutted it.  They didn’t get rid of it; they just gutted it — all on the assurance, reaffirmed again in 2009 by Obama.  Obama reassured them. This was as president. It was as a senator that he engaged in legislation that further weakened them. In 2009 he reaffirmed, “Don’t worry, we will protect you — and so will the ChiComs, and so will the UK, and the Russians have promised that they will not invade you.”

That’s all out the window now, and the media is not reporting that.

“In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.”

Obama and Luger “returned to Washington and declared that the US should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.”  Obama’s been disarming United States as quickly as he can, but he offered money, $48 million to Ukraine to downsize.  At the time, Obama said, “We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.”

Now, stop and think.  Folks, this kind of thing really matters when you’re a guy like Putin and you’re sizing up your advisory, and you’re looking at a guy, and you see Barack Hussein Obama doing this. Now, I have in my Stack of Stuff that Obama was at an elementary school recently.  I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the pictures, and Obama’s latest photo op shows why the global community doesn’t take him seriously.

He’s sitting on a blue, oval-shaped rug, and he’s holding a young student with the teacher sitting nearby, 10 or so other little kids.  He’s in the classroom.  While all this is going on, if you’re Vladimir Putin and you look at this… Remember how a picture of George W. Bush reading to a third grade class? Remember how that was portrayed as, “My God, what kind of guy is this? The World Trade Center’s attacked, and this guy’s reading to kids, and he still reads?”

And look at this.  I’ll tell you what I’ll do.  I’m gonna zoom in on the Dittocam, turn off to do it, zoom out. I’ll just show you this, just so you know.  The reason that I think that this is important is because you always have to look at the way our enemies see this.  The camera’s back on, and there’s be the picture.  In fact, the picture below it is Obama then with his press conference, announcing some things about Ukraine at the same place.

He’s standing on the same rug there that he is sitting on with those kids.  It’s an exact replay of what happened with Bush in the classroom in Florida.  Now, the point is if you’re Vladimir Putin and you know that your adversary is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has personally traveled to Ukraine to disarm them — if you know that your adversary’s Barack Obama who as senator pushed legislation to disarm Ukraine.

He paid money, $4 million to do it, and reaffirmed a 1995 agreement or ’94 agreement pour basically Ukraine to disarm — what are you gonna do?  You know who your adversary. You know he’s not gonna stop you.  All you have to do is look at Syria or anywhere in the world. Look at the way Obama’s handling Iraq or Afghanistan.  Obama’s running around getting us out of every country. Look at Chuck Hagel proposing downsizing US military to pre-World War II levels.

What would you do if you’re a bad guy bent on reassembling your giant Soviet Union?  So the Ukrainians have no way to stop this militarily, if they were inclined.  And Obama after traveling to Kiev and not only affirming the Clinton agreement in ’94, but taking it further by eliminating 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition and then says we need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people.  Now, stop and think.  If you are Vladimir Putin and you hear the leader of the United States equate disarmament with safety, you have gotta be rubbing your hands together so fast that you can’t believe your good luck.  You are up against an adversary who thinks that safety is you disarming.

Let me put it a different way.  You’re Putin, you’re watching Obama, and you’re up against a guy, Obama, who believes his safety is related to him getting rid of his military.  He goes over there and doubles down on Ukrainian weakness, disarmament, and then claims Ukraine is safer.  If you’re Putin, what are you gonna do?  This is absolute lunacy.  This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force; not doctors, nurses, and clean water.  It’s not governed by bipartisanship and UN resolutions and all that happy horse manure.  This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, and Obama is celebrating he’s just made Ukraine stronger and safer by completely disarming it.

Forget Putin’s view; what does that tell you about Obama?  And then this little statement:  We need to eliminate these stockpiles in Ukraine for the safety of the Ukrainian people. What, are they gonna shoot themselves?  By keeping these stockpiles and the Ukrainians out of conflicts around the world.  So I guess it’s the Ukrainians were who Obama thought might begin a worldwide march toward domination.  So he had to disarm them, take every means of defense away from them, after promising ’em they wouldn’t need it, then this happens.  Now, I wanted to go through this all again, because you are not being told this. If your only source of news is the Drive-Bys, you are not being told any of this.

Today’s Political Cartoon


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: