Month: March 2019

This week my mother was talking about ID theft. Several of her friends had their credit card information stolen and used. Fortunately, the credit card companies caught the fraud and helped each cancel the accounts. Mom is worried about her own credit and the safety of her accounts.

And well she should be.

Yesterday it was reported that even the First Lady, Michelle Obama, had her personal information hacked and posted on a website. Some are saying this may be a hoax though it is being reported as valid information. She’s not alone. Similar ID theft has happened to other celebrities including Beyonce, Mel Gibson and even former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Obama’s are fortunate and have the Secret Service investigating. Other celebrities are able to get FBI response but for most of us it’s not so easy.

So, short of getting the Secret Service’s ear what can you do?

• If you do nothing else, you can become more aware of where you share personal information online and elsewhere.
• Make sure your wi-fi connections are secure.
• Monitor your bank and credit accounts. Many banks and credit card providers offer monitoring plans (sometimes at a cost.)
• Be sure to take advantage of the free annual credit reports from AnnualCreditReport.com and monitor your credit  standing along with your free credit scores using Credit.com’s free Credit Report Card.
• For a fee you can enroll in a identity monitoring program.

You can read more at ABC Local andYahoo News. For more prevention tips visit IdentityTheft911.

 

 

Today is May 1st, also called the “International Workers’ Day”, a communist feast par excellence, celebrated by communists and socialists, indeed by Leftists of all stripes, around the world. So I would like to ask you, Dear Readers, if you can recognize which socialist party had the following platform? Whose party platform is it? (No looking it up in Google!)

“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. (…)

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries.

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on landand prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. (…)

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program (…)The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”

Don’t recognize whose platform is it?

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Of China? Of Italy? Of the USA? The French Communist Party? The French Socialist Party? The UK Labour Party? The Argentine Justicialist Party?

Nope, nope, and nope. This is the platform of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), AKA the German Nazi Party, planks no. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21.

You see, despite all the attempts by the global Left to tar the Right with responsibility for and ideological kinship with the Nazis, for all their attempts to stick the Nazi tag to the Right, for all their false claims that the Nazis were “far-right”, the Nazi Party was thoroughly LEFTIST through and through.

Nazism is a mere shorthand for “national socialism”, and that brand of socialism, while being nationalistic, was still SOCIALIST and thoroughly leftist. The Nazis advocated, and implemented, nationalisation, land reform, outlawing child labor, and the division of corporate profits.

Not only that, but their leader, Adolf Hitler, publicly said that he and other Nazis were SOCIALISTS:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

– Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.

No matter how hard leftists around the world deny it, national socialism was a thoroughly LEFTIST ideology, and the Nazis were their ideological, national socialist cousins. The only difference between them and communists is that communists are “international socialists.”

Part 1

Every day we hear more tales of woe from college students who are inundated in debt due to their huge student loans.  Paying off student loans is a factor affecting lifestyle choices for many. More recently, the loans have become a larger influence on graduates, impacting decisions about home buying and even marriage.

Some believe that the sudden jump in college tuition is directly related to the government taking over the student loan program and advertising easier options for students to attend college. Is this so? There does seem to be precedence. Look at the sudden, sharp increase in house prices when so many were able to get non-principle loans through government sponsored programs. Or, the drastic rise in prescription drug costs since the implementation of Medicare Part D. There may be something to this argument. Others will point to the severe financial situation of states which forced them to cut college funding.

No matter the cause, what can be done to fix the problem?

Lower interest rates, which may help in the long run, still leave students with loans and long term repayment plans. (Interest rates for undergraduate loans were approved to remain at 3.4% for one more year in the recently passed Highway Bill effectively kicking the can down the road until after the election.)

In 2007, Public Service and Public Service Loan Forgiveness was enacted. This program allows graduates who work in the public service sector full-time for ten years and make qualifying payments during those years to have the rest of their loan forgiven.

A new House bill The Student Loan Forgiveness Act, introduced by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) offers a unique solution. The Income Based Repayment plan offers: Students pay 10% of their ‘discretionary’  salary for 10 years at which time the remainder of the loan is forgiven. As expected, this bill is wildly popular with college students, especially when so many graduates are competing with experienced unemployed workers resulting in lower pay jobs. In its current form, this bill is retroactive for those who have made qualifying payments; only available for federal loans; and places caps only on future loans.

With many government programs a fairness question causes discord among those who find themselves just outside the benefits of the potential bill. If the bill passes this year students who graduated ten years ago and paid their 10% will find their loans forgiven. Qualified students who graduated over ten years ago will also find their loans forgiven but will have paid a much larger portion of their personal debt. Students who received private loans are not eligible. And students who consolidated their loans may find their repayment plan starts over from the consolidation point.

These forgiveness programs aside, one might ask why the government is responsible for both offering student loans and for offering forgiveness? Wouldn’t it make sense just to offer college at a lesser cost? Some theorize that this is further evidence of the government wanting direct involvement in one’s life choices; including employment and housing options. Some are concerned that the commitment to work ‘for the government’ is part of a hidden socialist agenda; that the more ties one has to the government the more dependent he will be on its benefits.

Fiscal conservatives and those who want smaller government look at these forgiveness programs and ask why taxpayers are again having to foot the bill? Older generations look at today’s young graduates with disbelief. Student loans are not new but were often looked at as a hold on personal growth and something that should be paid back as quickly as possible, even if necessitating working more than one job. Many believe this generation has had high expectations give them; that they should not have to start at a beginning wage for a job. They mistakenly believe they should immediately on graduation be able to afford a new car, a new home and all the good things they grew up with but without having to wait and save as their parents did.

Tuesday, Part 2 of this article will look at some options for the new high school grad: How can a student become qualified for quality employment without wallowing in school debt and how to make common sense decisions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed Saturday that former President Ronald Reagan used certain rhetoric to pit white working class Americans against brown and black working class Americans.

“A perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working class Americans against brown and black working class Americans is Reaganism in the ’80s when he started talking about welfare queens,” the New York Democrat said while speaking at a conference in Austin, Texas.

“So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was … this like really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country,” she continued. “That’s not explicit racism but still rooted in a racist caricature.”

Ocasio-Cortez — who was born nearly nine months after Reagan left the White House — made the comments during an interview at the South by Southwest Conference & Festivals. The swipe against the country’s 40th president was not the only controversial statement she made while speaking to The Intercept’s Briahna Gray.

The self-identified democratic socialist also claimed that “where we are” as Americans amounts to “garbage.”

“So when someone’s talking about ‘our core,’ they’re like, ‘Oh, this is radical,’ but it isn’t radical. This is what we’ve always been,” Ocasio-Cortez said, arguing against the notion that her proposals are too radical. “I think all of these things sound radical compared to where we are,” she continued, “but where we are is not a good thing. And this idea of like, ten percent better than garbage, it shouldn’t be what we settle for.”

Ocasio-Cortez went on to criticize the concept of political moderation.

“Moderate is not a stance. It’s just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh,’” she said. “We’ve become so cynical that we view ‘meh’ or ‘eh’ — we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is requesting an FBI briefing about the circumstances of a pre-dawn raid of Trump confidant Roger Stone’s home in Florida last Friday.

“I am concerned about the manner in which the arrest was effectuated, especially the number of agents involved, the tactics employed, the timing of the arrest, and whether the FBI released details of the arrest and the indictment to the press prior to providing this information to Mr. Stone’s attorneys,” Graham, a South Carolina Republican, wrote FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday.

Graham is requesting a briefing from the FBI by Feb. 5 into the raid, which he asserted matched the tactics typically used to arrest a violent criminal.

He is also demanding to know whether the press was tipped off about Stone’s impending arrest. CNN cameras were rolling as a swarm of armed FBI agents and U.S. marshals stormed Stone’s property shortly before dawn on Jan. 25.

Stone was indicted under seal on Jan. 24 in the special counsel’s investigation.

He is charged with five count of making false statements to Congress, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstructing an official proceeding.

The charges center mostly on Stone’s conversations with associates and Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks, which published emails stolen from Democrats during the 2016 campaign.

Stone is not charged with conspiring with WikiLeaks or Russian government operatives, who are alleged to be behind the hack of Democrats’ emails. He is also not accused of making false statements when he told the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 26, 2017 that he has had no contact with WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange.

Stone, a longtime GOP operative who has known President Donald Trump for 40 years, has complained about what he calls the FBI’s heavy-handed tactics. He’s said that he would have voluntarily turned himself into authorities had his lawyer been contacted by prosecutors.

In an arrest warrant filed under seal on Jan. 24, prosecutors expressed concern that Stone could destroy evidence and that he posed a flight risk. Stone has pushed back on that argument, saying that while he has destroyed no evidence related to the special counsel’s case, he has had two years to destroy evidence if he wanted. He also said that he does not have a valid passport and could not flee the U.S.

Graham wants to know why the FBI chose to raid Stone’s home rather than contact his attorney and if the arrest is consistent with arrests of defendants facing similar charges.

He also wants to know whether anyone at the FBI, Justice Department or special counsel’s office tipped off CNN to the arrest.

CNN has claimed that its reporters saw a flurry of activity at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., last week and guessed Stone may have been indicted. The network claims it dispatched a reporter to stake out Stone’s house in case he was to be arrested.

Stone pleaded not guilty to the charges on Tuesday and says he plans to take his case to trial.

 

Gen. Chang Wanquan, the current Chinese Minister of National Defense. Photo by the Central Military Commission of the PRC.

On Tuesday, May 28th, the Washington Post and the Washington Free Beacon reported, and the DOD confirmed, that designs and performance parameters (and other classified information) for dozens of US weapon systems had been stolen in recent weeks by Chinese hackers, as warned by a Defense Science Board report.

Among the weapons whose designs have been stolen by Chinese hackers are top-drawer systems such as the V-22 Osprey, the THAAD and Aegis missile defense systems, and the F-35 strike jet, as well as some older and obsolete systems like the PATRIOT air and missile defense complex and the F/A-18 naval strike jet.

In any case, this is arguably the biggest breach of classified information – and certainly the biggest theft of US weapon designs – in US (if not world) history, overshadowing the theft of US nuclear weapon designs by Soviet spies in the 1940s and Chinese spies during the Clinton years.

(And yet, lawmakers and the Obama administration want to downgrade and soften the US export control system, to make it even easier to export weapons to China and other hostile countries. Thus, the US is essentially giving China the gun with which to kill American troops.)

The meteoric rise of China’s military might has been partially aided by espionage, including cyberespionage. Sun Tzu, who devoted an entire chapter of his Art of War to spies and believed that knowledge of the enemy can be provided only by citizens and officials of the enemy country, would’ve been amazed by the espionage possibilities that hacking has opened – and Chinese hackers’ success in doing so.

How can the US counter this Chinese cyber onslaught? Here’s how.

Firstly, the US needs to publicly recognize China as an adversary. Top US officials, including the President, need to state this publicly and unambigously, and rally the nation to take action against China. It is time to do away with the suicidal, leftist policy of appeasing China practiced by all administrations of both parties since 1989.

It is time to push aside the leftist propagandists and pseudoanalysts like Henry Kissinger, James Cartwright, Joseph Nye, Dennis Blair, Joseph Prueher, and Eric McVaddon, whose idiotic policy of appeasing China, adopted by all administrations since 1989, led to this disastrous cyberattack – the cyber version of Pearl Harbor – and to China’s dangerous military rise in the first place. China is an adversary of the US and should be treated as such.

Over 23 years of appeasing China and trying to “make it a responsible stakeholder in the international system” and trying to bring it into that system have utterly failed. China has no interest in being a “responsible stakeholder in the international system” – it has a vested interest in expanding its territory (especially at sea), subjugating its neighbors, growing its military and economic power, and pushing the US outside Asia in order to become the uncontested hegemon of that continent.

THAT is why China has amassed all of the anti-access/area-denial military capabilities that Washington is now worried about. Cyberwarfare is one of them.

China is a dangerous adversary. It has the historical grudges of a Weimar Republic, the militant nationalism of an Arab state, and the expansionist agenda of the Soviet Union – all at the same time.

It is also time to cast aside any notions of Sino-American “cooperation” on cyberspace when China is America’s adversary and the perpetrator of most cyberattacks against the US. Naive fools who advocate such attacks, such as Gen. Martin Dempsey, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must be removed from office. It is time to publicly recognize China as an adversary and the perpetrator of these cyberattacks, and to name and shame it.

It is also time to recognize that China’s attacks on the US are but a part of a much greater struggle between China and the US, and it will not end until either side succumbs to the other. It will be a struggle similar to the Cold War. The US needs to develop a long-term grand strategy to win it.

Next, the US needs to leverage all means at its disposal to force China to stop these attacks. The US should start by developing better cyberdefenses. This means extending obligatory protection to all critical industries (or, at minimum, all those that have or want to receive federal contracts), acquiring better protective software (including better firewalls), making passwords on government computers tougher, frequently changing these passwords, signing cyberdefense pacts with allies, and most importantly, finally passing a cybersecurity bill like the CISPA passed by the House this year and last year. There is no excuse for Congress not passing a cybersecurity bill. Such bill must allow for seamless, unlimited sharing of information between the government and private companies.

Also, the US government should hire top IT specialists and consultants, such as Kevin Mitnick, Morpheus, Neo, et al., and even this man.

But mere cyberdefenses will not solve the problem. Defensive war is very difficult, although not entirely impossible, to win (how many wars have been won by staying solely on the defensive and never going on the offense?). That is because in a defensive war, the enemy – the attacker – has the initiative, and war is very difficult (although again, not entirely impossible) to win when the enemy has the initiative. Cyberwars are no different.

Thus, the US should frequently conduct massive cyberattacks of its own against China, especially the PLA, especially its hacking units.

The US should also utilize other, non-cyber, means of pressure. The scheduled, utterly suicidal sequestration defense cuts, and any cuts in the US nuclear deterrent or missile defense systems, must be completely cancelled and prohibited by law. The US military should shift, as quickly as possible, from a short-range force heavily dependent on in-theater bases, satellites, and cybernetworks, to a force wielding primarily long-range weapons and much less reliant on those assets.

Also, Chinese politicians and government officials should be completely barred from entering the US until China completely stops its cyberattacks. The invitation to Gen. Chang Wanquan, the Chinese Minister of National Defense, to visit the US should be revoked.

Moreover, the US should construct an alliance of nations surrounding China in order to counter Beijing. Participants should include, but not be limited to, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, India, and China’s western neighbors (former Soviet republics). These allies should be allowed to buy any weapons they want and receive US defense commitments if they haven’t received them yet. Existing commitments should be reaffirmed.

The US should, if possible, also try to sever Russia’s informal alliance/partnership with China.

Furthermore, the US should impose a complete embargo on Chinese products. China needs the US more than America needs China. Beijing does have a huge annual trade surplus with the US, but it also has a large annual trade deficit with the rest of the outside world.

In other words, Beijing is running huge trade surpluses with America to be able to afford large trade deficits with the rest of the world (outside the US). The US is effectively subisidizing China’s ability to do that. This is because, outside the US and China itself, few people want to buy Chinese products; and most other countries of the world don’t give a hoot about Friedman and Hayek and try – with various degrees of zealousness – to protect their industries.

If the US were to stop buying Chinese products and start buying American ones, China’s economy would suffer dreadfully, as China would now be running huge trade deficits every year. Outside the US, few people in the foreign world want to buy Chinese products.

The latest Gallup polling shows that 64% of Americans are quite willing to pay more for American products – if it means buying American instead of Chinese ones. In other words, 64% of Americans would wholeheartedly support Buy American trade policies.

Thus, America has HUGE economic leverage over China – it just needs to use it. So far, it hasn’t.

And last but not least, the US should continually shame China around the world for its abysmal human rights record and support all opposition groups in China, including the Tibetans, the Uighurs, and the residents of Inner Mongolia seeking to unite with independent Mongolia to the north.

The US has many forms of leverage it can use over China. It just needs to use them. But first and foremost, it needs to publicly recognize China as an adversary. It will never win any kind of competition – let alone Cold War style rivalry – over an adversary it is too afraid to even name.

CNN has bungled another story that was based on leaks the network received while a House Intelligence Committee witness was testifying behind closed doors.

On Wednesday, CNN reported that Michael Cohen provided documents during a House Intelligence deposition showing that President Trump’s Russia lawyers made edits to false testimony that the former Trump fixer gave to Congress in 2017.

In a public House Oversight Committee hearing last week, Cohen said that one of Trump’s lawyers, Jay Sekulow, made changes to the testimony.

“There were changes made, additions — Jay Sekulow, for one,” Cohen said. “There were several changes that were made including how we were going to handle that message, which was — the message of course being — the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive.”

Cohen pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation on Nov. 29 to making several false statements in his House and Senate Intelligence testimony, including that he ended negotiations to build a Trump Tower Moscow in January 2016. Instead, Cohen continued working on the project through June 2016.

CNN’s initial report raised the possibility that Trump’s lawyers suborned perjury from Cohen, who will begin a three-year prison term on May 6.

But at 7:35 p.m., CNN ran an update that drastically changed the implications for its story.

Lanny Davis, an attorney for Cohen, told CNN that Cohen himself, and not a Trump lawyer, claimed in a draft of his 2017 testimony that the Trump Tower negotiations ended in January 2016.

Cohen’s lawyer at the time of his initial testimony, Stephen Ryan, helped him edit the document, according to CNN’s update. Ryan shared the draft with other lawyers who were party to a joint defense agreement with Cohen. Those lawyers provided suggested changes, which Cohen and Ryan approved, CNN’s sources said.

According to the updated report, the lawyers involved in editing Cohen’s testimony had no indication that the initial draft had inaccurate information.

This is not the first time that CNN has published a story in the midst of closed-door House Intelligence testimony that turned out to be wrong.

On Dec. 8, 2017, the same two reporters who worked on the Cohen story reported that Donald Trump Jr. received an email on Sept. 4, 2016, containing a link to a batch of WikiLeaks documents. The story was considered a bombshell because the WikiLeaks emails had not been made public when Trump Jr. purportedly received the email.

But hours later, Trump Jr.’s lawyer released the actual email, which showed that Trump Jr. received the document on Sept. 14, 2016, a day after WikiLeaks published the documents linked in the email.

 

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President – especially in the foreign policy realm – that virtually all Republicans today want to project themselves as the next Reagan and claim that their foreign policy is the same as Reagan’s in order to woo national security oriented voters.

One such politician is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Because his principal rival for the 2016 Republican nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.

Therefore, he has recently launched an attack on unnamed “Republicans” (presumably Cruz) on the Breitbart website, falsely accusing them of “warping” Reagan’s foreign policy.

But in fact, it is Rand Paul, NOT Ted Cruz or other Republicans, who is warping and distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy. Let me demonstrate how.

Rand Advocates Deep Defense Cuts

Rand advocates deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses, including and beyond sequestration; withdrawing US troops from strategically important bases around the world which are needed for power projection; isolationism masquerading as noninterventionism; and opposes even the most modest sanctions on Iran, claiming they would lead to war (a false claim that the anti-defense Left, including the Ploughshares Fund, also makes). Indeed, Rand has said that “not only should the sequester be maintained”, but that government spending, including defense spending, should be cut even further – as if the sequester’s and pre-sequester Obama defense cuts were not deep enough.

As a reminder, in his first two years, Obama killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter (the only aircraft capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese fighters), the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle for kinetic missile defense interceptors, and much more. In 2011, Obama cut another $178 bn from the defense budget under the guise of efficiencies. And in August 2011, Obama demanded and obtained another $1 trillion in defense cuts over the FY2012-FY2012 decade, including a $550 bn sequester that will take defense spending to $493 bn (less than 3% of America’s GDP) next year and keep in there until the mid-2020s!

Yet, Rand Paul thinks these defense cuts are not sufficient and demands even deeper, more crippling, defense cuts. This completely belies his claim that

“I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.”

If the cuts required by the sequester (let alone the deeper cuts Rand demands) are implemented, the US military will be gutted. It will be a paper tiger, not a military force “second to none.”

Reagan would NEVER advocate such idiotic policies, and indeed throughout his entire presidency implemented the very OPPOSITE of the policies Rand advocates. OTOH, Ted Cruz – unlike Rand Paul – does support a Reaganite foreign policy: rebuilding America’s defenses, standing up to dictators like Putin where it matters, but avoiding being drawn into irrelevant or murky jihadist viper pits like Syria.

But it gets even worse. In the Breitbart article cited above, Rand not only distorts the Gipper’s foreign policy, he shows he completely doesn’t understand what that policy was and how it worked, and demonstrates – there, as well as in his recent (Feb. 25th) Washington Post op-ed – that he does NOT support a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy.

He claims that:

“Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.”

Leaving aside the undisputable fact that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has proven to be a foolish mistake, it was Reagan’s toughness, not diplomacy, that won the Cold War. In fact, it was his toughness that brought the Soviet Union back to the arms reduction barganining table in the first place.

The Soviets returned to the negotiating table because they knew the US could keep up the arms race for long, while their own economy was flagging (and in 1991, it collapsed, as did the USSR itself) and couldn’t really sustain the arms race any longer, especially with the costs of the Afghan war, the Chernobyl disaster, and the late 1980s’ oil glut added. (Reagan convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase its oil output to cut global oil prices and thus undermine Moscow’s oil-dependent economy).

I’ll repeat it again: it was Reagan’s TOUGHNESS, his harsh policies towards the USSR, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table and eventually won the Cold War. Not diplomacy, not detente, not nice words, not his friendship with Gorbachev.

Reagan never sheathed the sword – the sword was always hanging over the Soviets’ heads. And that’s PRECISELY why Gorbachev agreed to make concessions.

Rand further claims that:

“Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser.”

But, as demonstrated above, it was Reagan’s TOUGH POLICIES, not diplomacy or nicety, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table. And Gorbachev initially wasn’t in a mood to make concessions. It was not until he understood the US was in a far stronger negotiating position, and when Reagan revealed the documents Col. Ryszard Kuklinski (a Warsaw Pact defector) handed over to the CIA, that Gorbachev began to make concessions.

(At the first Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, in 1985, the Soviet leader was initially as stubborn as his predecessors, not willing to make policy concessions. Then, Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, took his ace out of his sleeve: he gave the maps [stolen by Colonel Kuklinski] of secret Soviet bunkers, built for nuclear war, to Reagan, who gave them to Gorbachev, who in turn gave them to Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, who accompanied Gorby. Akhromeyev was very scared upon seeing the documents, and explained their importance to the civilian Gorbachev. From then on, the Soviets were more willing to make concessions.)

Rand also believes firmly in a soft, appeasement-like policy towards Russia – ignoring the fact that it was such policy that led to the current  Crimean crisis in the first place. He falsely claims in his WaPo op-ed that America’s relationship with Russia should be “respectful” and that:

“There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.”

No. Diplomacy has had its time – and has dismally failed, as usual. Now is the time for FIRMNESS and MANLINESS. Now is the time to impose the harshest sanctions on Russia that are possible and to dramatically increase oil and gas production in the US (ANWR, NPRA, OCS, shale formations, authorizing the Keystone Pipeline) and to export these fuels to Europe to dramatically reduce its dependence on Russia for hydrocarbons. This would strike Russia where it would really hurt Moscow – and accomplish America’s goals without a single soldier and without firing a shot.

As for a “respectful” relationship with Russia – tell that to Vladimir Putin. Lecture him about “respectful” relationships, Mr Paul, not your fellow Republicans. Putin’s Russia has, in recent years:

1. Invaded two sovereign countries on false pretexts, and in reality because they started aligning themselves with the West.
2. Threatened a nuclear attack on the US or its allies at least 15 times.
3. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US and allied airspace (and even into the airspace of neutral Sweden) on many occassions, even once on July 4th,
4. Provided diplomatic protection to Iran, North Korea, and Syria, nuclear fuel and reactors to Iran, weapons to Iran and Syria, and sold tons of advanced weapons to China – weapons which will be used to kill American troops.
5. Murdered journalists and other dissidents (e.g. Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko), and jailed many others, opposing the Putin regime.
6. Conducted a huge military buildup that continues to this day and is slated to continue for long but which long ago has exceeded Russia’s legitimate defense needs.
7. Repeatedly violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying missiles banned by the treaty.

And the US is supposed to have a “respectful” relationship with such a hostile regime, Senator Paul? Are you on drugs? Who is your foreign policy advisor, Pat Buchanan?

In short, Rand has shown, once again, that he is NO Reaganite, that he is virtually indistinguishable from his father on policy matters, and that he clearly does not believe in a “peace through strength” policy. Furthermore, he’s distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy record. Conservatives must not allow him to fool them; he would continue and even double on Obama’s failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America’s adversaries. Just like Obama, Paul advocates appeasement towards the world’s most dangerous regimes, from Russia, to Iran, to Syria. No real conservative would ever vote for him.

It’s no coincidence that hundreds of major companies across the U.S. announced plans to lay off thousands of workers the day after the elections. While the president continues to promote a ‘tax the rich’ approach many don’t realize the difference between taxing income and taxing investment dividends.

This week Maria Bartiromo joined the “Meet the Press” round table for discussion on the fiscal cliff debate currently ongoing and zeroed in on just this issue.

After speaking on the necessity of Social Security and Medicare reform Bartiromo stated: On taxes, you really can’t put all of the taxes into one category. Dividend taxes for one is probably the biggest threat to the markets and the economy right now when you’re just looking at taxes. And dividend taxes are not a rich tax, nor are capital gains. You’re talking about pension funds, 401(k) plans, invest in companies that pay dividends. If you’re expecting a dividend tax to go from 15 percent to 44 percent, that completely removes the opportunity or the incentive to buy dividend paying companies. And that’s going to hurt not just the rich. That’s going to hurt everybody if, in fact we were to see that. That’s very dangerous, and it is going to create a massive selloff.

Investing in businesses comes with inherent risk. The riskier the investment the greater the potential rewards. But with that is the caveat, if the potential rewards are offset by increased taxes more people will look at other places to put their money. If fewer people (including investment/retirement plans, pension funds, etc.) invest in businesses because of the increased taxes on dividends the companies will not be able to grow and expand.

A ‘tax the rich’ mantra is not nearly as simplistic as the president makes it sound.

Click:armored patch cable

 

Do you ever watch reality shows? I am not a fan because most of the participants are ill-equipped to handle the assigned tasks. I mean really, if you have never lived without modern appliances using a wood cook stove is a tremendously difficult way to prepare dinner as in PBS 1900 HouseIf you have never been out of the city you’ll be a greater disadvantage living in the wilderness than the guy who built his own cabin in Frontier House.

So how realistic is the recent challenge to mayors and other celebrities to live off the allotted funds for food stamps? Greg Stanton the mayor of Phoenix did it for a week and complained that he barely had enough to eat, losing four pounds in the week. You can watch the clip below or read his diary on Facebook.

The mayor of Newark is planning to do the same next week. Both want to be able to empathize with families who are living off food stamps alone. It’s a nice gesture but does it have any basis in reality? The article about Mayor Booker states that he makes $13,400 a month. What are the chances that either of these mayors has cooked from scratch or actually purchased grocery staples that a family might use to stretch their food budget?

On the other hand to get a real feel for life on a shoestring budget I talked to Ro over at The Conservative Kitchen about Food Stamp assistance and reality. She has an interesting article on military finances at her November 30, blog.  As an Army wife Ro explained many military families are eligible for Food Stamps, WIC and the like with assistance offices located right on base. They have to choose between needs and wants. Young wives with small children plan their menu before shopping so they can live within their meager budget.  They quickly learn that packaged foods and ‘junk food’ are usually more expensive but still many don’t have cooking skills to make meals from scratch.

I think it’s noble and good that these mayors want to see the challenge of living off government assistance. But is it reality? Are these men able to make the best food purchase choices, remember the Phoenix mayor chose Top Ramen as part of his menu, probably because it was cheap. Did he discover that ramen noodles, popular choice of college students offers little nutrition and even less hunger satisfaction?

Perhaps if these mayors really want to understand living on Food Stamps while trying to feed a family they should eat with one of these military families rather than doing a big show that really doesn’t have much reality.