Handing over our military advantages; Unsustainable; Dem Phil Hare doesn't care about Constitution

1) START and Beyond: Obama Abandons US Power The New START Treaty that Presidents Obama and Medvedev are going to sign tomorrow in Prague sets the stage for the big show, the April 12-13 non-proliferation summit in Washington. Both events are deeply flawed. Both are theater productions for Obama to push through his unrealistic agenda of “getting to zero”, i.e. attempting to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. The New START is a déjà vu: in the 1980s, the Soviets threatened to withdraw from existing arms control treaties if US deployed missile defense. Now they are doing it again. Foreign Minister Lavrov is putting caveats on the New START. Lavrov clearly stated that the Kremlin reserves the right to withdraw from the Treaty if they deem missile defense deployment in Romania threatening. Why should the US Senate ratify a “conditional” Treaty? If the Treaty is ratified, the US under Obama will not withdraw from it “only” if the Russians do, thus US would be committing to unilateral Treaty compliance, which may be against its national security interests. Moreover, the new Nuclear Posture Review announces that the US will not develop new nuclear weapons. But Russia is doing so, and so are China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Will they stop only because Obama promised not to modernize? Hardly (emphasis mine). See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/07/start-and-beyond-obama-abandons-us-power 1a) Morning Bell: Obama’s False START …President Obama’s New START has other problems as well. The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements (emphasis mine). By focusing intently on numerical arms reduction, it is unclear what ground Obama gave up on verification. There is also legitimate concern that the President has not yet met requirements under U.S. law (sec 1251 of the 2009 Defense Authorization Act) to adequately address the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons and infrastructure before entering into a new arms control agreement. But President Obama’s NPR promises not to develop any new nuclear weapons. That’s an odd promise since Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are all doing so. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/08/morning-bell-obamas-false-start 1b) Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US MOSCOW – The new U.S.-Russian arms control treaty is a much better deal for Russia than its predecessor, but Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from it if a planned U.S. missile defense system grows into a threat, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday. Sergey Lavrov said Russia will issue a statement outlining the terms for such a withdrawal after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the treaty Thursday in Prague. The new accord replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December. Lavrov has said before that Russia could withdraw from the treaty. But his comments at a briefing Tuesday were his most specific yet on how and why a withdrawal could occur. "Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if ... the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces," he said. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear 1c) Obama's national security giveaway Details are scarce on the new START Treaty to be signed in Moscow on April 8th, but if I read accounts correctly, President Obama has given a major American strength by limiting American delivery systems, not just warheads. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a Moscow press conference that: The Treaty envisages that Russia and the United States reduce and limit their strategic offensive arms in such a manner that, seven years after its coming into force and further on, the total amount in possession of each of the sides should not exceed: (1) 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers; (2) 1,550 warheads for these; and (3) 800 deployed and undeployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and heavy bombers. Delivery systems are a US strength and a Russian weakness. These same delivery systems can be used for conventional warheads. The Russians' goal in this exercise was to curb the thing they fear most: US global reach with precision guided munitions (PGMs) with conventional warheads. If we had to conduct an operation similar to OIF, it's possible that in order to retain a credible nuclear deterrence and remain within the limitations, that there would be a commensurate reduction of B-52s and B-2s to deliver JDAMS, and a limitation at some level of cruise missiles to conduct any "shock and awe" operation. So, in one fell swoop, Obama has handed over one of our few military advantages. Imagine OEF, OIF, Kosovo, etc. with limited numbers of cruise missiles, B-52s, B-2s able to deliver PGMs. Or worse, the treaty may be so restrictive that certain numbers systems must be retained for the nuclear mission so that no conventional capability can be deployed. That Gates sings the praises of this treaty is scarier still (emphasis mine). See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/obamas_national_security_givea.html 1d) A Dumb Policy on Nuclear Weapons: Does It Matter? Today President Obama announced a new strategic policy with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. The New York Times reports: President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. ... To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. ... For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. On its face, that is unbelievably stupid. A country attacks us with biological weapons, and we stay our hand because they are "in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty"? That is too dumb even for Barack Obama. The administration hedged its commitment with qualifications suggesting that if there actually were a successful biological or chemical attack, it would rethink its position. The Times puts its finger on what is wrong with the administration's announcement: It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. That's exactly right. The cardinal rule, when it comes to nuclear weapons, is keep 'em guessing. We want our enemies to believe that we may well be crazy enough to vaporize them, given sufficient provocation; one just can't tell. There is a reason why that ambiguity has been the American government's policy for more than 50 years. Obama cheerfully tosses overboard the strategic consensus of two generations (emphasis mine). See: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026004.php 2) Congressional budget office: Fiscal policy is 'unsustainable' Fundamental changes to the federal budget will be needed to rein in unsustainable deficits, Congress’s budget watchdog said Thursday. “U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. …Elmendorf's remarks come a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also called on policymakers to put in place a plan to reduce deficits. “Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in a speech Wednesday. The CBO projects that Obama's policies would produce deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion for the next decade. The deficit would bottom out in 2014 at a level equal to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product, which is higher than the 3 percent level considered to be sustainable by the White House and independent economists. Deficits would again rise after 2014. The debt-to-GDP ratio would go from 63 percent this year to 90 percent by 2020, the CBO said. A “select group of countries,” including Greece, which is facing a fiscal crisis, have debt levels that high, which is “worrisome,” Elmendorf said. See: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/91161-congressional-budget-office-fiscal-policy-is-unsustainable 2a) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sounds a warning on growing deficit Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Wednesday that Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth. …"To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above," he said. …On Tuesday, White House adviser Paul A. Volcker spoke in favor of higher taxes, telling an audience at a New York Historical Society event that the nation may have to consider a European-style sales tax, known as a value-added tax, to close the persistent budget gap. In answer to a question, Volcker said a VAT "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past, according to Reuters. "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he added. Yes, that will do it. By golly, this time I know it will work! When will these people learn that reducing taxes increases government revenues? It works every time it’s tried. Pointing to Volcker's remarks, Republicans in Congress accused Obama of plotting a big tax hike. "To make up for the largest levels of spending and deficits in modern history, the Administration is laying the foundation for a large, misguided new tax, a first-time American VAT," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. Administration officials, however, said Volcker was not speaking for the president, who campaigned on a pledge to protect the middle class from higher taxes. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040703116_2.html 3) Fox News Poll: Health Care and the Midterm Elections Fox News poll finds Obama’s overall job approval rating dropped to a new low of 43 percent -- and finds by a 54 to 39 percent margin, American voters oppose the new health care law. Two weeks after President Obama signed the new health care bill, opposition to it remains strong. In addition, the president’s legislative victory did not help his job approval rating, which hit a new low in a Fox News poll released Thursday. The poll also finds more voters would punish rather than reward incumbents who voted for the health care bill, and that the Democratic win did nothing to energize the party faithful for the midterms. President Obama’s overall job approval rating dropped to a new low of 43 percent. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- disapprove. In mid-March, it was 46-48 percent. His current rating among Democrats (80 percent) and independents (38 percent) are among his lowest ratings with these groups. He is now in single digits among Republicans (7 percent). By comparison, former President George W. Bush’s approval among Democrats went as low as 4 percent. The poll finds by a 54 to 39 percent margin, American voters oppose the new health care law. Just prior to the bill’s passage, 55 percent opposed, while 35 percent favored the overhaul. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/08/fox-news-poll-health-care-midterm-elections/ 3a) CBS Poll concurs…Poll: Most Americans Remain Against Health Care Overhaul The public is increasingly skeptical of the health care reform bill signed into law last week, a new CBS News poll shows. More Americans now disapprove of the legislation, and many expect their costs to rise and the quality of their care to worsen; few expect the reforms to help them. President Obama has continued to tour the country to stump for his new set of reforms. This week he went to Portland, Maine, where he told people it will take more than a week for the benefits of reform to become apparent. The poll, conducted March 29 through April 1, found that so far the president's efforts to build up support for the bill appear to be ineffective. Fifty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of the new reforms, including 39 percent who say they disapprove strongly. In the days before the bill passed the House, 37 percent said they approved and 48 percent disapproved. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001700-503544.html 4) IRS to Withhold Refunds if You Don't Buy Insurance RUSH: Oh. Speaking on your IRS refund. That is the insurance commissioner. This guy was put in there by Bush and Obama kept him, name Shulman. The IRS commissioner says that the way they're going to fine you, because there really isn't a fine he says, although there is -- these guys don't know what's in their own bill. But he says the way they're going to get you if you don't buy health insurance is to withhold your refund. They're gonna withhold a portion of your refund that they are owed as your fine if you don't pay up, if you don't buy insurance. That's what they claim they're going to do, because they're not going to go door to door demanding money. They claim that they're just going to withhold whatever your refund is or a portion of it, whatever they need to pay the fine. Now, the way you counteract this, folks, is to not have a refund. Now, I know a lot of you love having refunds because it's the one time of the year that you have that big a chunk of change in one pile. You can go out and pay off debt with it, or buy whatever you want, muffler. But it's really a lousy use of your money. You're letting the government use your money interest free all year. If you had that money yourself and were investing it, it would be a lot more valuable than what you're getting in a refund. Now, I always try to end up owing a smidgen. I don't want them using any of my money. As I told you, my battle plan is my last check bounces and it's written to the IRS. I got no animus against the IRS, don't misunderstand. They're just the collection agency. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040610/content/01125104.guest.html And: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-05/shulman-says-irs-has-few-punitive-ways-to-enforce-health-law.html 5) Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill - or I should say, one political party passed it - over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much...or whether you don't qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance. This presumptuous reform has put this nation ... once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person ... on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become. Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same: Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people? …Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free? …Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood. All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes (emphasis mine). The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/02/should_america_bid_farewell_to_exceptional_freedom.html 6) Good news! FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality' WASHINGTON – A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers. …But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to sell premium services and manage their systems to prevent certain applications from hogging capacity. Tuesday's unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel was a setback for the FCC because it questioned the agency's authority to regulate broadband. That could cause problems beyond the FCC's effort to adopt official net neutrality regulations. It also has serious implications for the ambitious national broadband-expansion plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs the authority to regulate broadband so that it can push ahead with some of the plan's key recommendations. Among other things, the FCC proposes to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities. This article is so full of spin I’m getting dizzy. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules 6a) Here’s some truth on the matter: RUSH: …The court is saying the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel ... Even though liberal advocacy groups had urged the FCC to take action against Comcast, the agency's vote to proceed was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority 'is sure to doom this order on appeal.'" Now, there are great ramifications for this. This decision could doom something recently announced by Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, which was a national broadband policy. Right now the FCC does not have any regulatory authority over the Internet, and they don't have any over cable TV. They have it over broadcast. They have it over-the-air cell phone transmissions, television and that kind of thing, but they don't have it over the Internet and yet they asserted control. And the court said, "You don't have regulatory authority here. There's no law granting you this." Well, that will be taken care of pretty soon because the regime wants to control everything, particularly Internet content. They want to make sure that what has happened here to talk radio does not happen to the Internet. They want to make sure that their point of view doesn't get snuffed out by the marketplace, which it has here on talk radio. Despite their best efforts, liberals simply have failed to score anything significant in talk radio on the air, and the regime is very unhappy about that. There have been numerous attempts by some of the most supposedly competent, superstar liberals in the history of the country, and still, they get an asterisk as a rating point. Look at CNN. One day a couple weeks ago in the 25 to 54 demographic, Anderson Cooper, 25,000 viewers in an hour. Twenty-five thousand people in the whole country, that's all, were watching CNN. My friends, I, on this program, have 25,000 viewers at the corner of 60th and Madison in New York City. The regime does not want the same thing happening to the Internet, and the net neutrality was to make sure that Internet providers made equal content available to anybody visiting through their portal. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040610/content/01125107.guest.html 7) Congressman Phil Hare, Democrat, says he doesn’t care about the Constitution, and then misquotes it… He is using an example of someone having to take their child to the hospital while not having insurance and being stuck with a hefty medical bill when someone began to ask "Where in the Constitution..." Rep. Hare cuts the man off and says "I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest..." The man begins to laugh, cutting the congressman off, and says "Jackpot, brother." "I care more about the people that are dying every day that don't have health insurance," Rep. Hare goes on to say. "You care more about that than the Constitution you swore to uphold," the man replies. "I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Rep. Hare tells him. That is not in the Constitution, my friends. It is from the Declaration of Independence. The argument continues with the first man telling Rep. Hare that it is "unbelievably clear that the Constitution doesn't matter to you." The two men also argued whether the bill will actually provide insurance to people who don't have it. See: http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display_mobile.php?id=486688 8) Michelle Obama, Birther RUSH: Audio of Michelle Obama has surfaced. Audio from 2008, August of that year in Denver at a luncheon for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender delegates to the Democrat National Convention. There are others? Anyway, here is a portion of what she said, and this is causing quite a sir out there. MICHELLE: Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple. RUSH: Right on, right on, right on, right on, right on. So she called Kenya her husband's home country. So you know this is reverberating all over the place out there. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040510/content/01125115.guest.html