DELEITURAS

When he delivers the SOTU tonight, Obama will likely mention his plan to deeply cut (read: dramatically weaken) further America’s already excessively cut nuclear deterrent at a time when Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India are all growing and modernizing nuclear arsenals, and just a day after North Korea tested a nuclear weapon – thus utterly refuting Obama’s notions of a “nuclear-free world”.

Republicans have the duty and the power to stop his cuts of America’s nuclear deterrent while explaining to the public – in their rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU as well as on other occassions – why Obama’s policy is suicidal and treasonous and why America needs a large nuclear deterrent and will need it for the foreseeable future.

The following is offered as advice on how to refute the lies that Obama is likely to make in his remarks.

Obama will likely falsely claim that:

1) “America has more nuclear weapons than needed for national security.”

Yet, on close inspection, this claim is completely false.

A significantly smaller nuclear arsenal will not be able to meet most, let alone all, of America’s defense requirements and those of its allies. It will not be able to effectively deter America’s enemies for the simple reason that it will be too small. Being significantly smaller, it will not be survivable enough and will thus be much easier for both Russia and China to destroy in a nuclear first strike on the US. Even if they refrain from such a drastic action, they will certainly use America’s weakness to intimidateWashington and its allies and to attack American allies and interests around the world. Don’t delude yourself that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would refrain from doing that if they had the opportunity to do so.

The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.

This is because there are simply so many strategic and nonstrategic weapon sites and other important military (and economic) targets in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that being able to target a majority of them will require far more warheads than Obama would allow – not a mere 1000-1100, but at least 1,550, if not more. The Heritage Foundation’s nuclear weapons experts have estimated that about 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads are required for that.

And why is it important to target at least a majority, if not the vast majority, of an enemy’s assets? Because only then will he suffer a truly devastating and prohibitively costly retaliation if he commits aggression. If he loses only a minority of his assets – even if they’re the most important ones – he will not be deterred from attacking. Only if the vast majority of his assets are held at risk will he refrain from aggression.

A small nuclear arsenal could only target Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian population centers, as it would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority of enemy military assets at risk. This would mean a shift from counterforce to countervalue targeting – i.e. targeting innocent civilian populations (which Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian leaders don’t value anyway) instead of enemy warmaking capability. Is this the policy we want? The proponents of arms reduction do.

But such a policy would arguably be immoral, and would not be accepted by most Americans. So the only credible and acceptable policy is counterforce – which requires a large number of warheads.

Yet, Obama and his bureaucrats and apparatchiks don’t care about that. All they care about is disarming the US and creating their pipedream “world without nuclear weapons”, a fiction that will never exist (as NK’s nuclear test yesterday proves).

So instead of reviewing possible targets and then deciding on how many warheads the US needs, they’ll instead impose an ideological, arbitrary warhead cut on the military: no more than 1000-1100 warheads, and the military will have to adapt its targeting strategy to that.

They’ve got it exactly backwards. They’re imposing an arbitrary warhead limit on the military and forcing it to THEN come up with a targeting strategy to fit that limit.

2) “Nuclear weapons are relics of the Cold War.”

This false claim doesn’t even meet the straight face test. Nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’s security environment.

The biggest military threats to America are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The first three have nuclear weapons; Iran is racing to acquire them. The biggest threat posed by these countries is that of a large-scale nuclear or (in Russia’s or China’s case) attack by them.

Russia has a very large strategic nuclear arsenal (2,800 warheads, 1,500 of them deployed and 1,300 in reserve) and the means to deliver it:

• Over 250 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, and 151-171[1] Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a nuclear freefall bomb;
• 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Typhoon class, and 1 Borei class submarine), which can carry 16 ballistic missiles each (the Typhoon class boat can carry 20); these missiles include the 12-warhead Liner SLBM and the 10-warhead Bulava SLBM;
• 434 ICBMs, including (numbers in parentheses refer to the maximum warhead carriage capacity):

1. 58 SS-18 Satan missiles (10 warheads and 30 penetration aids each);
2. 136 SS-19 Stiletto missiles (6 warheads/missile);
3. 171 SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topol) missiles (single-warhead);
4. 74 SS-27 Sickle B (RT-2UTTH) missiles (single-warhead);
5. at least 18 SS-29 (RS-24) missiles (4 warheads/missile).

The Satan fleet alone can carry 580 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s ICBMs are not currently loaded with the maximum possible number of warheads, but can be thus loaded at any time, if the Kremlin so orders.

Russia also has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – far larger than America’s. It is estimated to have at least 1,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – by any measure, far more than the US has (about 500). These are warheads of various types: missile warheads, aircraft bombs, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedo warheads, nuclear artillery shells, etc. They are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including aircraft (e.g. the Su-24, Su-25, Tupolev bombers, and the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family; Russia plans to procure 200 Su-34s), short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. the SS-26 Stone), surface warships, submarines, and artillery pieces.

So Russia alone has a huge nuclear arsenal which America must defend itself and its allies against. It has, in recent years, made repeated threats (over a dozen in the last 4 years alone) to use these weapons against the US or its allies if they don’t succumb to Russia’s demands on various issues.

Thus, the Russian threat, by itself, is huge and justifies the retention of a large US nuclear arsenal.

China has 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, as determined in objective, impartial studies independently by Professor Philip Karber (Georgetown) and Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former Russian missile force chief of staff. Their estimates are based on Chinese fissile material stockpiles, delivery system inventories, potential targets for China, and itsst, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear missiles (which the US has to be able to destroy to be capable of credible retaliation if China attacks). China’s nuclear arsenal is so large and so sophisticated and survivable that General Yesin visited the US last year to warn US policymakers about that fact.

North Korea has about 12 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them to the US, as demonstrated by its successful December 2012 test of a genuine ICBM and the fact that it can mate nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles. North Korea, of course, also has large arsenals of SRBMs and MRBMs.

Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and may have them by next year. It is also developing an ICBM capable of hitting the US, which US intel estimates it may have by 2015, and already possesses ballistic missiles which can hit targets as far away as Warsaw (e.g. the Sejjil missile).

Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself but also for 30 allies, many of whom would otherwise develop their own nuclear weapons. If the US nuclear arsenal is further cut significantly, they (especially Japan and South Korea) will have no choice but to “go nuclear.” This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

3) “Nuclear weapons are too costly to maintain. We can save a lot of money by cutting their number.”

This claim is also utterly false. The entire ICBM leg of the nuclear triad costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn. The total nuclear arsenal and its supporting facilities and workforce cost $32 bn to $35 bn per year to maintain according to the Stimson Center. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the DOD’s annual budget (over $600 bn), the annual federal budget deficit ($1 trillion), or the total annual federal budget ($3.6 trillion).

Eliminating both the bomber and ICBM legs of the triad would “save” a tiny $3.6 bn per year – 0.1% of the total federal budget. It’s nothing. It’s less than a rounding error.

4) “Cutting our nuclear arsenal will convince others to give up their nukes. If we give up ours, North Korea will give up its.”

This false claim is downright laughable. There is zero evidence supporting it. In fact, while the US has been dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal since the Cold War’s end – from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to 5,000 today – two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and fielded ICBMs, while China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal. India and Israel have grown theirs. Moreover, all of these countries consistently refuse to even talk about, let alone give up, their nuclear arsenals. China has recently categorically rejected nuclear disarmament and North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Other countries don’t give a damn about America’s “moral example” or “leadership by example”. They don’t care about American gestures. All they care about is THEIR military strength and how it compares to America’s. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal, they will only see it as a sign of weakness – which it would be. It will never convince them to give up their nuclear arms.

Signing and implementing New START has not convinced other countries to give up their nukes.

Moreover, further cuts to America’s arsenal will not enhance America’s “credibility” in the yes of the “international community” or convince that community to place meaningful pressure on North Korea and Iran; the “international community” has utterly failed to do so.

That Obama (reportedly) plans to cynically use North Korea’s nuclear test to justify further deep reductions in America’s own deterrent is mindboggling, ridiculous, despicable, and outrageous. As North Korea, China, and Russia grow their nuclear arsenals, it is foolish and suicidal to cut America’s. North Korea’s nuclear test is an argument AGAINST Obama’s US nuclear arsenal cuts, not for them.

In sum, there are absolutely NO reasons to cut the US nuclear arsenal. But there are many reasons NOT to do it. Republicans should study the above facts and disseminate them widely to counter the blatant lies that Obama will likely make tonight to defend his indefensible, deep cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and thus America’s deterring power. Republicans also have the power AND the duty to STOP Obama’s gutting of America’s nuclear arsenal.

For more information and analysis of America’s nuclear deterrence needs, check out my website. Recommended reading includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this article.

Also, Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they don’t stop America’s unilateral disarmament by Obama.

A spokesman for Arnold Schwarzenegger said the former governor and famous movie actor is still pursuing his options to sue oil companies for “first degree murder.”

“We’ve had consistent meetings with a team of legal experts who focus on environmental law and ways to sue for pollution, so we have continued those meetings and we’ve definitely made progress,” Daniel Ketchell, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, told Axios on Wednesday.

The statement comes about a year after the moderate Republican governor of California said he hoped to sue fossil fuel companies for contributing to climate change and “killing people” all over the globe.

“I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first degree murder; I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies,” Schwarzenegger said in March 2018. The famous bodybuilder, who has publicly called on President Donald Trump to do more to promote clean energy, expressed interest in treating fossil fuels like tobacco, forcing them to include a warning label. “The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades, that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it,” he said.

Although a lifelong Republican, Schwarzenegger has become an ardent environmental activist and fossil fuel critic since leaving his gubernatorial post. The former bodybuilder founded the R20 Regions of Climate Action, an environmental organization that aims to increase the use of renewable energy sources and reduce the world’s carbon emissions.

Schwarzenegger’s activism has led to clashes with the White House, which has organized a wide-scale deregulation effort and made attempts to revive the country’s coal industry. The famous movie actor publicly rebuked Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the international Paris climate agreement.

In his most recent climate change project, Schwarzenegger announced he is teaming up with California Democrat Kevin de León in an effort to reduce emissions from cars and trucks. The two prominent politicians are launching an initiative alongside activists and researchers that will study how local governments can more quickly adopt cleaner transportation options.

The buyout firms Apollo Global Management, LLC and Metropoulos & Co. have agreed to purchase the Hostess and Dolly Madison cake brands, including Twinkies. Recall that after the Hostess company closed its plants and declared bankruptcy after its unions went on strike in November.

The proposed buyout includes the brands, bakeries and some of the equipment but requires bankruptcy court approval before the sale will be final.

The new buyers promise to bring back the popular Hostess products including Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and HoHos. They also state that they will be providing jobs around the country. However, it is unknown how many of the 18,500 former Hostess workers will find work as the buyers plan to outsource distribution and produce snacks in existing bakeries causing union promises of replacement jobs to be in question.

Read more at ABC.com.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly walked out of a meeting with a group of Democrats discussing anti-semitism Wednesday after facing criticism for not responding to Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments about Israel.

In a meeting with Democratic colleagues, Pelosi was reportedly confronted by a number of members of Congress for not reaching out to the party in regards to Omar’s comments on Israel. In the meeting, Pelosi was challenged for getting her talking points from MSNBC by Freshman Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jahana Hayes, according to Politico.

“Well if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking,” Pelosi reportedly said, before putting down her microphone and walking out of the room.

Omar has faced criticism on numerous occasions for her comments in regards to Israel and Jewish people, causing Democratic members of the House to bring a resolution to the floor, after criticism from Jewish lawmakers, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and others.

“What I’m fearful of — because Rashida and I are Muslim — that a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim,” Omar said during a town hall in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday.

Omar has yet to apologize for any of her comments regarding Israel or Jewish people.

Last night Maren Morris performed her hit songs “80’s Mercedes” and “My Church” on Saturday Night Live.

 

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a top aide appear to control an outside PAC credited with being the central force behind her June 2018 primary victory.
• One former Federal Election Commission member thinks there would be a “serious investigation” if a complaint were filed, noting that the probe could potentially result in civil penalties or even jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff.
• A second former commissioner said there were possibly “multiple violations of federal campaign finance law.”
• Justice Democrats ran campaigns for Ocasio-Cortez and 11 other Democrats, but the New York Democrat was the only one to win her general election.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group, according to corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to “massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said.

Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the FEC that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign, and former FEC commissioners say the arrangement could lead to multiple campaign finance violations. The group backed 12 Democrats during the 2018 midterms, but Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of those to win her general election.

“If the facts as alleged are true, and a candidate had control over a PAC that was working to get that candidate elected, then that candidate is potentially in very big trouble and may have engaged in multiple violations of federal campaign finance law, including receiving excessive contributions,” former Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

And fellow former FEC commissioner Brad Smith told TheDCNF that if “a complaint were filed, I would think it would trigger a serious investigation.” He also noted that such a probe could potentially result in jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff, Chakrabarti.

Republican election attorney Charlie Spies told TheDCNF: “It looks like the campaign and PAC are under common control and the PAC was funding campaign staff and activities as an alter-ego of the campaign committee, which would be a blatant abuse of the PAC rules.”

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti could face prison if the FEC determines that they knowingly and willfully withheld their ties between the campaign and the political action committee from the FEC to bypass campaign contribution limits, according to Smith.

“At minimum, there’s a lot of smoke there, and if there are really only three board members and she and [Chakrabarti] are two of them, sure looks like you can see the blaze,” Smith, a Republican, told TheDCNF. “I don’t really see any way out of it.”

Justice Democrats stated on its website from December 2017 until two weeks after Ocasio-Cortez’s June 2018 primary victory that she and Chakrabarti held “legal control” of the PAC, and corporate filings obtained by TheDCNF show that the two still serve on the three-member board of Justice Democrats on paper.

Political committees are affiliated if they are “established, financed, maintained or controlled by … the same person or group of persons,” federal election law states.

Justice Democrats’ website on March 23, 2018. (Screenshot/Wayback Machine)

Smith said: “The admission makes it open and shut if someone wants to file a complaint with the FEC. I don’t see how the FEC could not investigate that. We’ve even got their own statement on their website that they control the organization. I don’t see how you could avoid an investigation on that.”

And if the FEC concludes that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and Justice Democrats were operating as affiliated committees, “then anyone who contributed over $2,700 total to her campaign and the PAC would have made an excessive contribution,” which is a campaign finance violation, Smith told TheDCNF.

Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and Justice Democrats raised a combined $4.6 million during the 2018 midterm election cycle, FEC records show. There’s a maximum five-year prison sentence for anyone who knowingly and willfully receives a collective $25,000 or more in excessive campaign contributions in a single calendar year.

Justice Democrats raked in far more than $25,000 from individual contributors of over $2,700 after Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti took control, according to FEC records.

“If this were determined to be knowing and willful, they could be facing jail time,” Smith told TheDCNF. “Even if it’s not knowing and willful, it would be a clear civil violation of the act, which would require disgorgement of the contributions and civil penalties. I think they’ve got some real issues here.”

Spies, who served as legal counsel for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, said: “There are a bunch of well-funded groups on the left that file complaints on much thinner grounds than this against conservatives and Republican candidates. I hope that these so-called non-partisan groups file complaints and treat this with the same urgency that they would if it were a conservative candidate.”

Justice Democrats Went All In On Ocasio-Cortez’s Primary Campaign

Ocasio-Cortez credits Justice Democrats for recruiting her to run for Congress in May 2017. She tweeted that the group got her campaign up and running by helping “with all that stuff a normal person would need (what forms to fill out? ect).”

Ocasio-Cortez paid a combined $27,293 to Justice Democrats and to what was effectively its predecessor, Brand New Congress LLC, for administrative, staffing and overhead services from the time she declared her candidacy to her shock primary victory, according to FEC records. Ocasio-Cortez only began paying her staffers directly through her campaign beginning in March 2018, according to her campaign reports.

Justice Democrats supported Ocasio-Cortez throughout her entire primary run. The group, which Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti appear to have legally controlled for much of her campaign, had raised more than $1.8 million by the time she ousted incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley.

Ocasio-Cortez was the only Justice Democrats-sponsored candidate to win her general election. She was also the only Justice Democrats-sponsored candidate to hold legal control of the PAC.

The other 11 candidates propped up by Justice Democrats lost their respective races, according to The New York Times.

Justice Democrats staffers said there were discussions to go all in for Ocasio-Cortez as early as June 2017.

Justice Democrats’ goal was for one of its sponsored candidates to defeat the incumbent, co-founder Corbin Trent told The Washington Post in June 2018, and former Justice Democrats staffer Max Berger tweeted that they established that goal in 2017.

But the PAC was advertising that it sought to replace numerous Democratic members of Congress with progressives.

Ocasio-Cortez And Chakrabarti Obtained Legal Control Of Justice Democrats

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti, who served in multiple leadership roles within her campaign including campaign manager, were serving on the board of the Justice Democrats as early as Dec. 2, 2017, according to an archived copy of the PAC’s website.

Justice Democrats’ board of directors on Dec 2, 2017. (Screenshot/Wayback Machine)

Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski of The Young Turks network were also on PAC’s board in early December 2017, but Uygur was forced out of the organization Dec. 22, 2017, after what Chakrabarti called “extremely disturbing sexist and racist statements” Uygur made in the early 2000s were unearthed.

Kulinski announced on YouTube the following day that he was resigning from Justice Democrats due to the PAC’s “venomous” Twitter statement urging Uygur’s resignation. Kulinski said he had “strong disagreements with the staff” of Justice Democrats, but added that the PAC’s candidates had “nothing to do with this.”

Board members Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti were left in control over Justice Democrats after Uygur and Kulinski’s departures, according to an archived version of its website on March 23, 2018.

“Justice Democrats PAC has a board consisting of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti that has legal control over the entity,” the Justice Democrats website read that day.

Justice Democrats then reported that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti were “governors” of the organization in a document submitted to the Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs on March 28, 2018. A third listed governor was the PAC’s treasurer, Nasim Thompson.

Justice Democrats’ two-year report submitted to the Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs on March 28, 2018. (Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs)

A governor of an organization incorporated in D.C. is any person “under whose authority the powers of an entity are exercised and under whose direction the activities and affairs of the entity are managed,” according to the D.C. Law Library.

The Justice Democrats’ website continued to state that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti held “legal control over the entity” for weeks after Ocasio-Cortez’s shock primary victory over Crowley on June 26, according to a July 10, 2018 archive of its website.

The Justice Democrats’ website currently states that Alexandra Rojas and Thompson hold legal control of the organization, but the PAC hasn’t filed documents to Washington, D.C. where it’s incorporated reflecting the change, meaning that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti currently retain majority control of Justice Democrats on paper.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti listed as governors of Justice Democrats on March 4, 2019, at 12:17 pm. (Screenshot/DCRA)

Politico reported Jan. 16 that Chakrabarti resigned from the board, and Justice Democrat’s website no longer listed Ocasio-Cortez as a board member as of Aug. 8, 2018. TheDCNF received the corporation filing document still showing both as governors on Feb. 25. The D.C. government website showed the same as of Monday afternoon.

Ocasio-Cortez’s office and Justice Democrats did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Forget what you’ve been hearing about the fiscal cliff being averted. Your taxes are going up.

Beginning January 1 your FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare) will return to their 2009 levels. In 2010, in an attempt to jump start the economy, President Obama reduced payroll taxes from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. Congress, in its efforts to keep us from falling off the financial cliff, neglected to continue this reduction and so now all taxpayers will see an increase.

Some will say that we should be glad to see this money returning to the Social Security and Medicare funds; that these programs are in severe need of significant changes if they are to remain funded beyond the next ten years.

This unexpected tax hike isn’t just a blow to working families. It will also be a shock to the economy. Economists have considered the payroll break one of the more effective ways of stimulating the economy because, as working families enjoy larger take home pay, they have more money to spend. That, in turn, helped boost businesses’ bottom lines and spur the fragile economic recovery. Many economists think it’s too early to tell exactly how much the higher payroll tax will hurt the economy, but generally agree that there will be a negative effect.

The initial amounts of the increase don’t sound so bad…after all, it’s spread out over a year. But imagine this: A family making $50,000 per year (not rich by any means) will now see an increase in payroll taxes of $20 per week or $80 per month, $1,000 in total. If you are that family you know that extra money is needed each month to buy groceries, buy winter coats, or maybe pay for the kids to be in a soccer program. It is real money and will be felt by real people.

It’s remarkable that despite the bluster of Team Obama not to raise taxes on the middle class they are doing just such. Did they think we wouldn’t notice?

This month as your Democratic voting friends notice their paychecks are a little smaller ask them first, who they voted for and if they truly believed Obama would keep their best interest at heart?

Do not be a low information voter.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie is furious after a federal union president said that if politicians don’t end the partial government shutdown, federal employees who are veterans will kill themselves.

Edward M. Canales, a local union president with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), told ABC News that he’s received calls from veterans who aren’t able to support their families during the shutdown and who express “no positive outlook on the future.”

Though there is no indication in the story that the employees were suicidal, ABC said Canales referred employees unhappy with the government shutdown to the Department of Veterans Affairs suicide hotline.

“If this shutdown does not stop, we are going to have fatalities. We’re going to have suicides,” Canales, a retired prisons employee and veteran, told ABC. He called the shutdown “shameful” and said it is “slapping every veteran in the face who has served their country.”

Veterans who receive care and services from the VA are unaffected by the partial government shutdown; all VA employees are also being paid on time as normal. The VA is fully funded for fiscal year 2019 and all VA operations continue unimpeded, the department said.

On Monday, Wilkie fired back at AFGE in a letter to national president J. David Cox, saying AFGE was exploiting “the real tragedy of Veteran suicide to make political arguments about the partial Government shutdown.” He went on to dismantle the stereotype of fragile veterans:

One of the most insulting and misleading stereotypes about Veterans today is that of the ‘Veteran as victim.’ … the notion that most Veterans are so fragile from their service that the slightest hint of hardship can push them to the brink of mental breakdown or even self-harm is preposterous, which is why Veterans and Veteran advocates are continuously fighting this shopworn canard.

As leader of the largest union representing VA employees, many of whom are Veterans, you should know how harmful this stereotype is to Veterans, especially those attempting to enter the civilian workforce following their service…

While it is apparent some AFGE leaders consider Veterans as victims, allow me to inform you of the true character traits of those who have worn the uniform.

• Veterans are models of civic engagement, holding stronger ties to their communities and volunteering and voting at higher rates than their non-Veteran counterparts
• The Veterans’ unemployment rate is lower than the national average, in part because companies often look to hire Veterans for complex and demanding jobs, citing their leadership and work ethic.

In short, America’s Veterans are model citizens and leaders, and almost every American recognizes that. AFGE Local President Canales’ attempt to use Veterans as pawns in a political debate while exploiting the serious issue of Veteran suicide is nothing short of disgraceful.

I ask you to apologize publicly for your AFGE colleague’s reckless comments and to outline the steps you plan to take to ensure AFGE leaders demonstrate proper respect for our Nation’s heroes.

In 2016, Cox called the House chairman tasked with overseeing the VA a “fool” and said he would “whoop” the VA secretary’s “ass.”

The AFGE represents employees of federal agencies including the VA. The VA employs 300,000 people and its union is particularly strong, fighting to block the firing of employees whose misconduct has harmed veterans, and securing policies that, for example, in some case give current federal employees preference over veterans for job openings.

When the Department of Defense and the VA merged two of their hospital as an experiment, they found a massive cultural clash between the VA’s unionized, civilian workforce and the DOD’s enlisted hospital employees. The Navy refused to let VA employees treat military men in the ICU, and the VA and DOD co-directors of the hospital were not on speaking terms.

The proposal was supposed to save money by reducing redundancies, but the VA union ensured that no VA employees were laid off even though they weren’t needed, defeating the purpose.

For the first time… ever, I watched an entire video advertisement on YouTube even though I could have skipped it in the first 15 seconds.

BMW has found an engaging way to advertise, although we don’t know yet if it will actually sell enough cars to pay for whatever salaries Clive Owen, Dakota Fanning, Jon Bernthal and Vera Farmiga required for this 13 and a half minutes of … more fame.

Excellent action sequences, chilling drama, a great story and no doubt that the viewer is watching a summer blockbuster quality action flick – but it’s an ad.

So without further adieu, I present BMW Film’s “The Escape”:

Perhaps I’m old, but tripping across this one short film made me look back and realize that BMW Films has been doing this for years! Legendary directors like Guy Ritchie, Tony Scott, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Frankenheimer, John Woo, Ang Lee, and others.

The action is intense, the directing styles varied, but all only require a time investment of 7-15 minutes.

Hostess Brands, maker of the Twinkie and Snowball, returned to bankruptcy court today prepared to begin liquidation of all assets. Instead they announced that the company will enter mediation for one last try with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union.

Whether this was a brilliant marketing ploy or truly ‘a one last chance’ opportunity, it may be that the Twinkie will survive!

The BCTGM workers represent one-third of the Hostess workforce. All 18,500 jobs will be permanently eliminated if the Baker’s Union refuses to reconsider their position. They have only 24 hours to make their decision.

From the Hostess Brands Website: Hostess Brands Inc. announced today that it will follow a request from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to enter a confidential mediation on Tuesday with the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM).

Today’s hearing to consider Hostess Brands’ motion to wind down the Company and sell all of its assets has been adjourned until 11 a.m., EST, on Wednesday.

Production remains shut down.