The Left (including RINOs such as John McCain, George P. Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell) constantly (and falsely) claims that the US needs to continue reducing its nuclear arsenal, even unilaterally, with a view towards ultimate complete nuclear disarmament of the US.

They falsely claim that not only can the US afford to do so, but that it “needs” to do so; that to be secure, it needs to continually cut and eventually completely scrap its arsenal; that any cut in America’s nuclear stockpile, no matter how deep and no matter if unilateral, is “a good thing”; that the elder President Bush’s 50% cut in that stockpile and its associated delivery systems was “a good thing”; that cutting the US nuclear deterrent will make America and the world more secure!

It is on that basis that they demand that America’s nuke deterrent be cut further and eventually scrapped altogether, and it is on that claim – which leftists (including the forementioned RINOs) have elevated to a religious dogma – that all disarmament/arms control treaties and policies are based.

Leftists claim that the US “needs” to cut its weapon arsenals – nuclear and conventional – because it would supposedly make America more secure.

Even some non-RINO Republicans, such as House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mike Rogers (R-AL), have accepted this faulty logic and this utterly false claim and say they’re OK with deep cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent – as long as it’s done by treaty or by an Act of Congress. 13 Republicans, including Johnny Isakson, voted for New START, and Saxby Chambliss said in December 2010 that he “wanted to vote for it”.

But they’re dead wrong. Cutting America’s arsenals of weapons – nuclear, conventional, or otherwise – has never made and will never make America more secure. Read on, and I’ll show you why, in simple terms and with simple examples.

Firstly, history proves that disarmament proponents are dead wrong. No nation that disarmed itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally – became more secure as a result. On the contrary, disarmament and arms control have always made the nations practicing such suicidal policies LESS SECURE.

A classic example is the West during the 1920s and 1930s – Western nations (other than Germany) disarmed themselves, signed a number of “arms control treaties” and honored them, but Germany (from 1933 onwards) and Japan did not and armed themselves to the teeth. Peaceful Western nations (the US, Britain, France) refused to arm themselves even after 1933, after Germany’s and Japan’s aggressive designs were obvious to anyone with half a brain – and as a result, their militaries were too weak and too obsolete to stop German and Japan aggression.

Indeed, after WW2, George F. Kennan, the author of the Containment Doctrine, pointed these facts out after WW2 and strongly condemned the “disarmament will make us safer” fantasy as a distraction that unnecessarily absorbed the West’s attention at a time when Western countries should’ve been rearming and modernizing their militaries. Kennan was likewise highly critical of the calls for disarmament made aftwr WW2; he knew they were lunacies.

Had George F. Kennan been alive today, he would’ve likewise strongly condemned the Arms Control Association, Ploughshares, Global Zero, the “Project on Government Oversight”, and the “Council for a Livable World” and the treasonous unilateral disarmament policies these treasonous, subversive organizations advocate.

George Kennan is best known as the author of the Containment Doctrine, but he would have been the first to admit that the doctrine was based primarily on the power of America’s nuclear deterrent (the US actually had a nuclear monopoly until 1949) and on a global network of military bases surrounding the Soviet Union. In other words, on STRENGTH, not weakness. Because it is STRENGTH that deters aggressors. Weakness only invites aggression. This is another truth that has ALWAYS been proven correct throughout ALL of human history.

The facts are really simple: the fewer nuclear weapons you have, the weaker and more liable to aggression you are, and the fewer enemy targets you can hold at risk (and strike if need be), thus reducing the enemy’s risks should he commit aggression. Also, a smaller nuclear arsenal is less survivable and more liable to an enemy’s disarming first strike.

By making the utterly farcical claim that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent will make America safer, the Left has turned the “peace through strength” method on its head – they essentially claim that weakness makes one secure and the weaker America is, the safer she is!

Of course, common sense alone tells us that this is utter garbage. The actual national security record of “arms control” (read: disarmament) treaties in recent decades has been even more dismal.

Although President Obama has announced his intention to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and is disarming the US unilaterally, NO ONE – no other country – is following America’s lead. Obama’s claim that America must “lead by example” has been exposed as an utter farce. Even Britain and France are (understandably) unwilling to disarm themselves unilaterally or in concert with the US while Russia, China, and others retain their nuclear arsenals.

Meanwhile, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all utterly refuse to cut their nuclear arsenals by even one warhead or delivery system and, in fact, are EXPANDING their nuclear arsenals – North Korea even publicly announced its intention to do so a few months ago.

Russia has, since 2010, been steadily expanding its nuclear arsenal, and plans to continue doing so, as it is allowed to do so by New START. China now has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads (per General Viktor Yesin and Professor Philip Karber, respectively),  enough fissile material for 3,600, and over 3,000 miles of tunnels in which to hide these warheads and their delivery systems. And of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon status.

This, BTW, utterly refutes the Left’s promises that if America were just nice enough to cut its nuclear arsenal, other countries would follow suit, and Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

But it isn’t just America’s enemies who are refusing to disarm and growing their arsenals. Many of America’s allies are capable of going nuclear in several months, and willing to do so if the US continues to cut its nuclear umbrella. They know they can’t afford to bet their security and their very existence on America breaking free of its “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kool-aid by 2016, especially since the US couldn’t do that in 2012 and foolishly reelected Obama.

For example, according to a recent 66.5% of South Koreans believe their country should acquire its own nuclear weapons, and 70% support the reintroduction of US tactical nukes to the peninsula. Japan could go nuclear in months and has recently opened a nuclear fuel processing plant which would allow it to produce 2,000 nuclear warheads per year, as reported by the Center for Security Policy.

Thus, America’s nuclear deterrent is crucial not just for the protection of America and its allies, but also for preventing nuclear proliferation – a problem which will become much worse if that deterrent is cut further.

Over 20 years of deeply cutting that deterrent, usually unilaterally, has done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to improve US national security. It has only undermined it. It has made America much weaker and much less secure, while undermining allies’ confidence in the deterrent, emboldening America’s enemies, and encouraging rather than nuclear proliferation. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal does NOTHING to stop proliferation – it only encourages it.

As the Center for Security Policy rightly says, it is time to stop pursuing that suicidal policy and completely reverse course. For that to happen, however, the Republican Party will have to win back the White House and the Senate.

I am speaking of Barack Obama’s desire to kill off people in general because of his narrow view of the world, and his shallow place in it.

Barack Obama views himself as an intellectual elite.  He thinks that because he has degrees he is therefore wise.  That is not the case, and people should stop suggesting.  Barack Obama is touted as being a good public speaker.  He is not.  He is a popular comedian.  Let me explain, and then get back to the main issue.

Barack bounced around from school to school his entire life.  he was not seeking a better education, but rather an easier education.  Because of his upbringing, which he could control for the most part, Barack learned to seek the easy route.  His desire was not intellect and experience.  It was rather “getting by”.  That is what he fears people would discover if his educational records were released.  He is on the “little below average side” of the intellect scale.

A person that is below average in school, such a Barack Obama, always lean to the weaker skills.  Rather than using reason they use their abundance of words.  If any Barack Obama is abundant in expressing his value to society, when in fact he offers shamefully little toward moving society forward.  A gifted public speaker motivates people to expand their intellect and capacity.  They blend style and content to get people to expand their own horizons.  On the other hand comedians do just the opposite.  They address the absurdities of society and encourage listeners to dwell on those absurdities.

Barack Obama is excellent at pointing out absurdities.  The more his intellect is challenge the more forceful he becomes at pointing out absurdities.  I use as an example his derisive comment to Mitt Romney during one of the later presidential debates.  He offered up a smart-aleck comment about the weapons the navy uses.  Why?  Because he simply didn’t have the intellectual prowess to manage the fact, but only the appearance.

Virtually everything about him reeks of shallowness, based not on a capability to reason, but upon intellectual debris tossed aside by truly learned men.

Now, let’s get to the heart of this article.

During Barack Obama’s buffet of educational options he grasp onto the low-hanging fruit of population control.

Numerous studies have been done that suggest that mankind has dramatically exceeded its maximum occupancy level for the planet earth. (http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable).

As a result of Barack’s reading one or two of these articles he jumped to the confusion that the world needed his shallow intellect to solve the problem.  With a mind of limited capacity to learn or willingness to learn Barack Obama went in chase of a supportable theory of human annihilation.

Having the limited skill of understanding comedy Barack recognized he could not openly advocate human destruction.  he needed to find an alternate joke to tell the American people.  Thus, he came to his premise that eliminate life he saw as disgusting was best portrayed in the comedy of secondary rights.

Secondary rights are those rights which people claim an entitlement to so that they can overrun the rest of society’s primary rights.  Specific to this article is the fallacious secondary right that a woman has the right of choice because it is her body.  Pro-abortion rights are in fact secondary rights.  Secondary rights are an effort to equate irresponsibility with civil rights.  In short they say “My right to make poor decisions supersede your primary right to life”.

Hence, Barack Obama and his comedic followers embrace the slaughter of humanity as a right.  They are wrong!

The “Obamanation” idea that mankind has become saturated and must be culled is not a popular argument…yet.  Hence, his argument became one about rights, when it really is about class destruction.

Here is what Barack Obama is doing with his hidden agenda of culling the herd of humanity;

1. Support abortion
2. Support genocide of the elderly weak.
3. Eradicate religions that encourage population growth…without a strict law entitling slaughter of non-adherents.
4. Encourage policies that focus attention away from the preservation of humanity and toward preservation of the eco-system.
5. Embrace weak science and alarmism, as an alternative to intellect.  and, lastly and more damning
6. Disregard the value of life in the face of political expedience (Benghazi; need I say more).

The current president of the United States of America does and will advocate for the culling of the human element.  In all of his comedy and policy advocacy it is more than apparent to those willing to be educated as well as entertained.

We often repeat the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.  Those leaders with a nihilist view of humanity are quite comfortable fiddling (and playing golf).  However, they, in the end, actually contribute nothing to mankind.  Why do they contribute nothing?  Because solidly, they do not believe mankind is worth anything.

Barack Obama tripped over the idea that the world had reached maximum occupancy.  He then concluded, at the inhalant end of marijuana joint, annihilation of the human race was inevitable.  From there straight forward selfishness was not a major leap at all.

Mankind deserves much better.  Mankind has the capability to adapt and preserve itself.  The most prudent step we can take is to recognize that on various occasions we are over-populated with people like Barack Obama.

For a long time, Russia has strongly opposed the deployment of any US missile defense systems in Europe, claiming that such deployment would undermine its nuclear deterrent, give the US a first strike advantage, and spark an arms race. Western disarmament advocates have been constantly claiming the same. They and Russia’s leaders, with whom they are in complete agreement, have been lobbying the Bush and Obama administrations to cancel such deployments or, at least, sign agreements that would limit US missile defenses and thus their effectiveness.

But at the same time, Russia has been developing, deploying, and perfectioning its own missile defense systems.

Since the early 1970s, the A-35 and later A-135 nuclear-armed missile defense systems have been deployed around Moscow. These were joined in the late 1980s (in violation of the ABM treaty) by the very capable S-300 family of air- and missile defense systems, first the S-300V series and later the S-300P series, described and documented in great detail by air defense expert Carlo Kopp, founder of Air Power Australia. The S-300 (also widely exported by Russia around the world, most recently to Syria) has a range of 200 kms.

In 2007, these were then joined by the much longer-ranged S-400 “Triumf” (SA-21) system, first deployed around Moscow and then in other locations in Russia. Both can shoot down ballistic and cruise missiles (even barrages of them) as well as aircraft. Russia recently agreed to sell the S-400 to China; other countries may receive it as well. For short-range area defense against aircraft and cruise missiles, Russia has Tor-M1 and Pantsir-S1 systems (exported around the world).

Russia is now developing the new S-500 “Triumfator” system, which will have even greater range and the capability to shoot down massive barrages of ballistic and cruise missiles. The S-400 and the S-500 will greatly outperform the PATRIOT and THAAD.

Concurrently, Russia and China are developing laser-based missile defense systems. With its acquisition of S-300 and S-400 systems, procurement of many domestically-produced HQ-9 system batteries, and developments of other systems, China is likewise building a missile defense network of its own.

Such systems, if they continue to be deployed in large numbers, could undermine America’s nuclear deterrent, which the Obama administration is cutting unilaterally. In 2010, President Obama signed and the Dem-controlled Senate ratified New START, which obligates only the US (not Russia) to cut its arsenal by 1/3; between 2010 and 2013 he also unilaterally withdrew nuclear-armed cruise missiles from US submarines, while Russia has not done so and does not intend to ever do so.

But while developing and deploying BMD systems of their own, Moscow and Beijing never cease to protest America’s development of the same and to demand that the US limit or forego the development and deployment of these. Moscow’s and Beijing’s protests and demands are seconded by the American Left, particularly by Western disarmament advocates.

The Obama Administration is currently engaged in secret talks with Russia on an agreement on missile defense “cooperation”; it, like the Bush Administration, has been cravenly trying to appease Moscow on the issue and seeking Russia’s permission to deploy these systems. Some former arms control and missile defense officials, however, have condemned such outreach attempts to a hostile Russia. Former Assistant Secy. of State for Arms Control Paula DeSutter and former MDA Director LTG Henry Obering (USAF, ret.) oppose any deal that would limit America’s missile defense systems and say the US should deploy a full panoply of such systems with or without Russia’s approval.

China tests another anti-satellite missile

On Monday, China successfully tested an anti-satellite ballistic missile, thus proving it can shoot down US satellites and make the US military blind and deaf in the opening stage of any campaign. The missile was disguised as a space exploration rocket, according to the Washington Free Beacon. That newspaper was the first to report its existence (in October 2012) and its planned test (in January 2013). The test itself came just a week after China protested the DOD’s annual report on China’s military power, wherein the DOD mentioned China’s anti-sat missiles.

The missile, designated Dongning-2 and launched from the Xichang Space Launch Center – China’s main space facility, located in southern Sichuan Province –  reached the Earth’s orbit successfully, but it is not know if it hit a target. In 2007, however, China tested an SC-19 ICBM against an obsolete weather satellite, which left thousands of debris pieces still in the Earth’s orbit, posing danger to spacecraft (this debris did not reenter the atmosphere and thus didn’t burn on reentry). Also, several years ago, China blinded a US satellite with a laser, thus committing an act of war against the US.

Pentagon spokeswoman Major Cathy Wilkinson refused to comment: “We don’t have a comment on it as we don’t discuss intelligence.” China Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Hong Lei didn’t deny the test, but claimed that China opposes the militarization of space and advocates its peaceful use: “I am not aware of the development that you described. China has consistently advocated the peaceful use of outer space and is opposed to militarizing and conducting an arms race in outer space.”

The new anti-sat missile is but one part of China’s huge, diverse, sophisticated, and continually growing arsenal of anti-access/area-denial weapons whose purpose is to create, around the Western Pacific and China itself, a zone which US military units won’t be able to enter without suffering prohibitive casualties – a “no-go zone”.

These weapons are intended to cripple US bases and warships in the region, as well as communications and cyber networks (and the satellites on which they depend, including the GPS), in the first few hours of the conflict while keeping US warships and aircraft out with anti-ship missiles, submarines, naval mines, and air defense systems. This would mean striking at America’s current vulnerabilities – overdepence on carriers, short-range nonstealthy aircraft, cyber networks, and satellites, as well as poor anti-submarine and demining capabilities.

The idea comes from ancient Chinese general and strategist Sun Tzu, who, in his famous treatise, The Art of War, counseled strategists to attack weakness, not strength, strike where they’re unexpected, and strike boldly like a thunderbolt or like a falcon that swiftly strikes its prey.[1] China’s deceptive claims of favoring a peaceful use of space and opposing its militarization – while militarizing it with anti-sat weapons – also stem from Sun Tzu’s treatise, wherein deception and total secrecy – which have been the hallmarks of China’s military buildup – are highly advised and recommended as the norm. Sun Tzu believed that “all warfare is based on deception.”

Striking on US satellites, such as those of the GPS constellation, would have severe consequences for US civilians, not just the military. Richard Fisher, a defense analyst, commented to the WFB that:

“This is not merely a threat against some American military satellites, but a threat to a what has become a vital part of the global electronic infrastructure, affecting global commerce and financial flows, to your personal finances that contribute to personal freedom.”

China currently has around 24 ASAT missiles, according to the WFB. These could shoot down US weather, communications, intelligence, and navigational satellites (the latter being used for missile guidance and for military and civilian navigation alike). Thus, for example, American drivers could no longer rely on GPS.

X-47B drone test successful, but China tests its own UCAV

Earlier this week, the Navy celebrated a successful test of its first carrier-capable combat drone, the X-47B, a prototype for future operational Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles. The drone took off from the USS George H. W. Bush and landed at NAS Patuxent River. Later this week, the drone performed touch-and-go landings on the ship. Should carrier-capable drones be proven viable, they would dramatically increase a carrier wing’s combat capability while enabling it to stand off far from the shore of an enemy country.

Currently, the Navy’s longest-ranged strike aircraft is the F/A-18E/F Super Bug, with a 450 nm combat radius. The F-35C’s combat radius will be about 600 nm. That would put Navy carriers well within the range of Chinese and Iranian anti-ship missiles, including the Silkworm, the Moskit, the Yingji family, the FL family, and the Dongfeng-21D, which has a range of 3000 kms (over 1000 nmi).

One DF-21D or one Moskit would be sufficient to sink any ship. Their long range means USN surface ships would have to stay over 1000 nmi away from China’s coast, and thus, their aircraft wouldn’t come even close to that coast, let alone to targets deep inland. The drone, with a combat radius of over 1,500 nmi, will solve that problem, allowing carriers to stand off at safe distances.

It is not clear, however, why the Navy continues to spend money on developing and procuring the F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft that are already obsolete and overtaken by events.

Anti-ship cruise missiles can still be carried by aircraft, however, including China’s Flankers, J-10s, H-6s, and JH-7s, as well as China’s surface ships and submarines, thus extending their range still further. The longest-ranged of these, the H-6K bomber, has a combat radius of 2,200 kms. China also has 36 Tu-22Ms on order.

Moreover, China is not behind the US in drone technology. Last week, it revealed its first domestically-produced UCAV, which is very similar in appearance to the X-47B and the European nEUROn drone. It is not known whether the Chinese developed the technology domestically or stole it.

Richard Fisher, the IASC analyst, told the Washington Times: “This UCAV demonstrates an understanding of current concepts for proportioning and shaping to confer range and low observability, or stealth. The [Chinese military] likely is very pleased that these images of China’s UCAV appear at about the same time that the X-47B is about to commence carrier testing.”

The flights of China’s stealthy manned fighters, the J-20 and J-31, have already demonstrated that China has mastered advanced stealth technology, including shaping, which is the dominant factor in determining low observability. Fisher says the drone is likely being built by the Hongdu Aircraft Group and the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. – the J-31′s constructor.

[1] Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter VI verse 27, Chapter VII verses 13 and 15.

When: Saturday, May 18th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Adrian Moore from Reason magazine joins us us to discuss the IRS scandal and how it might affect US policy in the future. Should the IRS even be involved in looking at any group whether it’s conservative, libertarian or liberal. Also expect talk on the Department of Justice and the AP, plus Taylor’s review of Iron Man 3.

The first question should be who gave the order for the troops to stand down before and during the attack when they were ready with uniforms, guns on their back and ready to board a C-130 to take them to the embassy to help in the seizure. Secondly, Obama was told at 6 pm about the attack. Why didn’t he follow up on it and make a decision? Instead he went to bed and the next morning went out campaigning. Did he and his cohorts think the attack would impede his election? Thirdly, Hillary and Leon Panetta were on it at all times yet neither one had the foresight to keep Obama informed and both testified to that fact at the hearings. Why didn’t they think to keep him appraised of the situation? Members of the state dept. were watching the attack real time in the situatuion room.

The immediate talking points got them right at first then went thru 12 revisions to come up with the excuse that the attack was from this little known You-tube video. Obama went before the U.N. and stated so too. No they’re not liars, they’re just idiots.

At the recent press conference on the IRS scandal a reporter asked Obama how far up in his administration knew about it. Obama replied that he didn’t know a about it until he read the IG report. If I were that reporter I would have followed that up with saying, “I wasn’t referring to you sir, just how far up it went.” OOPPSS. Shades of Nixon’s I am not a crook statement. No They’re not liars. They’re just idiots.

As admitted by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official last week, and confirmed this week by the Inspector General’s (IG) special report on IRS abuses, the IRS, arguably the most onerous and oppressive government agency in the country, was discriminating against conservative, religious, and pro-Israel non-profit groups seeking 503(c) designation. What would normally take 6-12 months for such a ruling was taking up to three years. In addition, the filing requirements of such groups went far beyond the requirements specified for such applications.

To make matters even worse, IRS employees were releasing the confidential filings for such groups to the George Soros-backed liberal propaganda organization ProPublica. They admitted earlier this week, “In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved — meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financialinformation, deeming that they were newsworthy.),” according to ProPublica.

There are clearly five improprieties or crimes under one scandalous umbrella here. First, the systemic targeting of groups thought to be critical of the administration; second the demand for information that was irrelevant to the tax status filing; third, obfuscation and outright lying by IRS officials to Congress and the public about those abuses; fourth, sharing those confidential filings with an opposing political group, ProPublica; and fifth, intentional withholding of information until after the election.

And lest we think these abuses were perpetrated by just a couple of rogue employees, all requests for 503(c) status go through the Cincinnati office. The Inspector General’s Report indicated it was the entire division, referred to within the IRS as the “Advocacy Group.” The IG’s report clearly documents that Washington was aware of what the “Advocacy Group” was doing.

So what’s happening to those involved? Not much. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, has resigned, even though he was already planning on leaving the agency. And Sarah Hall Ingram, who had been serving as commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division from 2009 to 2012, the “Advocacy Group,” is now serving as director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act division. That is the unit that’s responsible for enforcing Obamacare. Now isn’t that comforting?

Although this has been going on for at least three years, if we’re to believe White House Spokesman Jay Carney, Obama only found out about it from press reports, though the IG’s report reveals that Treasury Secretary Geithner’s office knew last summer.

The President seems to know nothing about what’s happening in his administration. From the Fast and Furious gunrunning, to the IRS and the AP phone records scandals, the president knows nothing until he hears “from news reports.” Whether he knows personally about these scandalous activities of his administration or not, it seems clear that since he’s surrounded himself with compatible ideologues and sycophants, that the entire atmosphere of Washington has become an extension of his Chicago-style politics of suppressing dissent, colluding against groups opposed to his agenda, intimidating the opposition, and suppressing damaging news.

Charles Krauthammer said this week, “Obama ran as a man who would not only change Washington but change the essence of politics itself in America as a kind of Olympian historic figure. He can’t even run the bureaucracy, that’s what we’re seeing. There’s arrogance here, of course, but there is incompetence of the highest order. He poses as the bystander. ‘I learned about it in the press.’ This is an indictment of people who believe in big government, want to expand it, have it control healthcare and cannot run the minimal essence of the duties of government.”

Harry Truman famously kept a plaque on his desk that said, “The Buck Stops Here.” If Obama had a plaque on his desk along the same lines, it would likely read, “The Buck Never Gets Here.” It could also include an additional qualifier, “And if it does, I don’t know anything about it.”

On March 7, 2010, Obama famously declared, “Ultimately, the buck stops with me.” On Sept. 23, 2012, in a 60 Minutes appearance, he said, “As president, I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree.” Yet still we have Jay Carney denying the president is responsible for anything. Obama has said of the Benghazi scandal that it’s merely “a side show.” If that is the case, this entire administration is a scandal-ridden three-ring circus, and the president is the ringleader.

Even Commissioner Miller understands the idea of accountability. In his testimony on Friday before Congress, he said, “I resigned, because as the acting commissioner, whatever happens in the IRS, whether I was personally involved or not, stops at my desk. So, I should be held accountable for what happened.” It’s too bad the head of the country hasn’t come to that same realization.

Just two weeks ago at the Ohio State University commencement, President Obama said, “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

How ironic that we’ve seen so much of his administration unmasked by his adulating media so soon after that statement, for the first definition of tyranny is,  “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” And that’s precisely what we’re seeing as the Oz curtain is pulled away revealing the tyranny of the Obama administration.

Whether the president is explicitly complicit in all of these scandals or not, his politics and leadership style have created, and are conducive with, the pattern and atmosphere of corruption and abuse now in full display by the administration.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

At one point, Morgan recalled his confrontations with gun activists and how he thought they were irrational when they referenced the fear of a tyrannical government as a point of justification during their arguments.

The British host then did an about-face and admitted that the behavior of the government throughout these scandals is bordering on tyrannical – particularly the AP scandal and how it attacks the free press.

__

Retiree health care, financed by most California cities on a pay-as-you-go basis, and pension payments based on union agreements pushed Stockton, along with several other California cities into bankruptcy.

New Stockton mayor, Anthony Silva brought with him armor and a helmet (which he donned) during his unique State of the City address this week. The mayor plead with city residents to join him in helping clean up the city both literally and figuratively. The mayor believes raising taxes is the only way the city will be able to improve safety in the crime ridden city. At over 14% unemployment it is expected that Silva will meet opposition among both the council and residents to his plan.

While it might be apparent to those of us on the right, a Massachusetts congressman recently confirmed Democrat policy is largely based in fiction.

Unabashedly using the movie “Skyfall” and its protagonist, James Bond, as a springboard, Rep. John Tierney recently introduced the ridiculous Personalized Handgun Safety Act.

Peppered with references to the latest 007 film, he contended “we should be able to agree on gun safety measures that will make our families and communities safer.”

The crux of his bill lies in requiring gunmakers to install technological components in all firearms rendering them useless when brandished by someone other than the owner.

James Bond “escapes death” in the film, Tierney recounted, because his gun “becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands.”

According to the bill’s specifications, gunmakers would be forced to adhere to the new regulations within two years and existing firearms would be retrofitted with the technology using Justice Department funds.

Nearly half of the bill’s supporters are, like Tierney, from the bastion of leftist lunacy known as Massachusetts. Unsurprisingly, none are Republicans.

Despite being notoriously unreliable in practice, such personalization software could easily result in distressing results. In the event of an armed burglary, for instance, an incapacitated gun owner would mean the rest of the household is left completely defenseless as the firearm is rendered nothing more than a scary-looking paperweight.

Touted as a means to prevent accidental deaths, this transparent attempt to further prune the Second Amendment would do nothing more than making gun ownership more expensive and less effective.

Though he seems keen on using this particular scene as legislative inspiration, Tierney has not yet stated his position on another potential killer – the Komodo dragon ultimately responsible for the villain’s death.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy and laughable lack of self awareness, “feminists” have decided the best way to achieve “equal rights” (that they refuse to understand they already have) and not be seen as “sex objects” is to parade around topless in public. After all, men do it! It’s only fair! And according to low functioning “progressive” leftists, fairness is not only a real concept, but also something we can legislate. So don’t you dare demand anyone behave with a shred of common decency because, dammit, women have the right to be naked in public. It’s all about feelings, folks. And these women are having a crisis of emotion over the tyranny of t-shirts.

New York City police officers have been instructed not to arrest women who’ve chosen to bare it all from the waist up in public, but have instead been told to disperse any crowds that may form around said topless women, even though crowds shouldn’t form because “progressives” are telling us that boobs in your face on Madison Avenue are totally normal because shut up, Woman Hater.

Proponents shriek this is a good step toward eliminating “unconstitutional gender discrimination”, proclaiming little more than the fact that they’ve never bothered to read the Constitution. In their defense though, when would they have time to educate themselves on our actual rights as Americans when they’re so busy creating “rights” they wish we had? Reality is hard, and oftentimes unfair. Is no one thinking of the female nipple’s self esteem?

There’s even a group of women who’ve banded together to organize protests in favor of lewdness and indecency and they’ve managed to summon the audacity to compare it to the right to vote. They call themselves “Go Topless” (creativity is hard) and they fancy themselves modern day suffragettes, but this time they’re marching for a much nobler cause than votes. They’ve decided that a woman’s value should be placed on her sexuality, that she’s no more than the sum of her parts. Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be so proud.

I’m a fan of equality and I’m a fan of boobs. I have both. I’ve used both to my advantage. But, and call me old fashioned if you wish, if modern “feminists” have decided that my having to wear a shirt in public means I’m a victim of a patriarchal society, I will happily embrace that “oppression”. Because fairness.

If I owed money to both the IRS and the Borgias, and had a choice between which got the money, I would pay off the IRS and leave my fate to the cloak-and-dagger Borgias. A slit throat by the murderous Borgias would be far less painful than the way the IRS punishes law-abiding Americans. You knew what was coming with those crazy monarchs. The IRS is more destructive: The suit-and-pen approach spies, takes everything you own, jails you, and destroys your entire life and reputation (you spend years trying repair often to no avail), making your name pond scum if you make one, single mistake on tax forms, or heaven forbid, forget to pay an extra one cent in your taxes.

The IRS is America’s Borgia clan— lying, thieving, whores stealing your earnings and property.

The IRS is unconstitutional, because it is administrative government: It makes rules by whim (think Great Britain) Americans are forbidden knowledge of until it’s too late. There’s no vote or say in what the IRS does. By-the-way, I just described the American government since Woodrow Wilson took office, ushering the United States toward Progressivism, i.e. statism, administrative government, ignoring the Constitution in favor of government control by elitists.

The latest IRS scandal and Friday’s “I don’t know the answer” hearing is further proof  the IRS and Sixteenth Amendment fully violate not only Article I, Sec. 8—the 17 Enumerated Powers of Congress–but the entire Constitution and its Bill of Rights. 

Article I, Section 8. clearly states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States: But all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

Since Article I’s Section 8 was never removed from the Constitution, it continues to stand as Congressional taxation laws, despite Congress signing off on those laws and forgetting what the Seventeen Enumerated Powers are.

Congress abdicates its powers so often, we should rename all undeclared wars and abdicated laws a “Wallis Simpson.”

Congress gave away it’s taxing powers, allowing the administrative IRS to act like the Borgias against the people. But to what extent is Congressional abdication in violation of the Constitution? Thomas F. Eagleton notes that Congress has gone beyond

‘original Intent’ and given away so much power to presidents, which they use to act on whim rather than law. Congress is to ‘provide for the common defense,’ but when it abdicates power over to the Executive, it places the people in jeopardy, because the 17 Powers are now in the hands of the president, who does not hold the power of law-making. So, ‘Has Congress abdicated its power—is an unqualified YES. Congress has in effect, written itself out of the Constitution.’

Government abuses incurred go against the will and rights of the people to know what the elected-by-the-people government–that must act in accordance with the people– is doing. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson and 1913′s sell-out Congress and Senate the people no longer possess any say in taxation matters, because the IRS is not an elected group of people. It is an appointed government entity completely unaccountable to the people, whom it targets and harasses. 

Look what the IRS does to law-abiding citizens.

According to the Washington Post:

[On] June 29, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency official Lois G. Lerner [that woman who's "not very good at math"] in which they described giving special attention to instances where ‘statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run…’ [and then] On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target ‘political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.’”

What I am writing here–exposing the IRS and government– is grounds for the IRS to harass me. Why? Read below.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice, the IRS targeted conservative groups (here is the IRS “criteria” target list obtained by the Inspector General), Tea Party organizations, anyone standing for smaller, limited government, Constitutional taxation versus the IRS, as well as the Reverend Franklin Graham, who criticized Obama’s tactics and spoke out against Islam’s violent beliefs. Rev. Graham says his charities were targeted by the IRS “for political reasons” because Graham told North Carolina voters to vote for the presidential candidate whose morals and principles are biblical based. 

Any organization that refused to vote for Obama and defended constitutional government got the Borgia treatment by the suit-and-pen.

Again, I prefer cloak-and-dagger.

Administrative form of government is nothing more than monarchy, Democrat, British in every sense: Ruling Americans. The IRS is everything our Founders fought to break free from— tyranny.

Now look at the IRS’ Disclosure And Privacy Law Reference Guide admitting it’s filthy. The IRS admits Americans were angry during the pre-IRS government publishing of income tax records:

The history of tax information confidentiality may be traced to the Civil War Income Tax Act of 1862, when tax information was posted on courthouse doors. Act of July 1, 1862…Ambiguities in that provision regarding public inspection led Congress, in 1864, to explicitly permit public inspection of the assessment list: It shall be the duty of the assessor . . . to submit the proceedings of the assessors . . . and the annual lists taken and returned as aforesaid, to the inspection of any and all persons who may apply for that purpose… and sometimes published in newspapers to promote taxpayer surveillance of neighbors. For the next 70 years, there was debate in Congress as to the effect of public disclosure on the tax system and to societal interests in general.

“Promoting taxpayer surveillance of neighbors’ is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the First, Eighth–excessive fines–Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

We have rights that cannot be “disparaged” by government, we have rights to assemble, speak freely without fear that our exercised  rights will not incur government wrath.

States have rights the Sixteenth Amendment overreaches. What people do with their money is their business, not others, not even the government. Americans have rights to keep 100% of their paychecks, as well as land, without having it taxed to the point of forced sale or foreclosure, because one cannot afford excessive property taxes put in place to enrich the government and prevent private wealth.

Now look at today’s tax code written in the Nixon era:

Except for a few periods in our history, taxpayers’ tax information generally has not been available to the public – disclosure has been restricted. Congress has used two basic approaches in determining whether, and under what circumstances, tax information could be disclosed. Under the first approach, taken prior to 1977, tax information was considered a “public record,” but was only open to inspection under Treasury regulations approved by the President or under presidential order. Under this scheme, the Executive Branch essentially created all the rules regarding disclosure…By the mid 1970s, there was increased congressional and public concern about the widespread use of tax information by government agencies for purposes unrelated to tax administration. This concern culminated with the enactment of section 6103, passed as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976… Congress eliminated much of the executive discretion concerning the disclosure of returns or return information…Congress established a new statutory scheme under which returns and return information are confidential and not subject to disclosure except to the extent explicitly provided by the Internal Revenue Code…the basic statutory scheme established in 1976 remains in place today.

Obama apologists keep placing Obama scandals at the altar of Nixon, claiming Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and now the Associated Press scandal, are all equal to Watergate. Okay, I’ll accept that: Obama is doing a bang-up job following in the footsteps of the paranoid spy-in-Chief Richard Nixon, whose “enemies list” was used as a weapon, via the IRS, against everyone Nixon disliked and wanted silenced.

However, the Nixon-era tax code put in place a penalty for IRS thugs and any group, or president, authorizing harassment of the people:

Criminal penalties, including a felony for the willful unauthorized disclosure of returns.” But read further into the handbook and you find 1997 went further in this protection by stating the IRS “[C]reated a misdemeanor for the unauthorized inspection of returns or return information (section 7213A). In addition, in 1996, Public Law 104-294 provided that the unauthorized access of returns or return information in government computer files is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(B). Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110 Stat. 3488 (1996).

Obama forgets Nixon’s lies and cover-ups destroyed Nixon. Presidents cannot misuse laws to grow power and assume corruption will stay hidden. Yet Obama and his corrupt Marxist administration continues getting away with murder while Obama tells the people he has no knowledge of anything.  And now the IRS appears to be aiding and abetting Obama’s cover-ups for its power it now has over Obamacare.

I would rather deal with cloak hidden daggers versus suits with pens. A slit throat is less painful than a trashed life and everything you earned and own stolen by thug bureaucrats because the IRS decided it owns your life.

When: Friday, May 17, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: WOW, what a week, and we plan to cover it ALL! Well, we’ll try, the show is only an hour and a half after all. So, join Stevie and Steve as they discuss Benghazi, IRS, EPA, DOJ, and every other screw up by the Administration in this weeks news. Of course, we’ll open up the phone lines for your take on the various stories.

PLUS…Mock the Week (well that’s sort of a given), the “Getting Hammered Dancers” (ok, I just made that one up), and Story Time With Stevie!!!

So listen, call, or skype…but grab a drink and join the fun ’cause it’s Friday Night at Casa de Hammy’s…the bar is open and we’re Getting Hammered!

Rep. Kathy Lohmer-R, Lake Elmo, Minnesota

Minnesota continues to go in the wrong direction politically, it’s latest disastrous endeavor was to force the unionization of child-care and adult-care workers. Governor Mark Dayton is expected to sign the bill that passed through the Senate with a 35-32 majority.

The Pioneer Press’s “Political Animal” online publication was almost gleeful in it’s reportage of the passage of the bill. In the lead, author Megan Boldt writes,

“After a marathon overnight debate that lasted almost 17 hours, the Minnesota Senate approved a bill that would allow (emphasis mine) child care providers and personal-care attendants to bargain collectively with the state.”

Boldt continues her article mentioning that the bill Dayton signed into law was passed with a 35-32 majority and proceeds to throw four Democrats under the bus that had the good sense and judgment to join Republicans and vote against the lame law. You can read Boldt’s complete article here.

Proponents of the new law say that it will increase access for people seeking childcare and adult in-home health care, and improve working conditions and pay for those who provide such care. Like most Liberal-Progressive brain-children, it will in fact do the exact opposite of what it says, while at the same time increase the money flowing to Liberal union bosses in the state who will continue to use that money to crush political voices of opposition.

Republican Senator Sean Nienow of Cambridge properly described the law in his comments to the Pioneer Press.

Sen. Sean Nienow-R, Cambridge, doing what many DFLers won’t or can’t do – read the bill!

“It receives the dirty diaper award. Few bills stink this bad and I think many members will have to hold their noses to vote for it,” -Nienow

“Many problematic bills have been moving through the legislature during this session.

“Among the very worst proposals that the DFL-controlled House is considering is the unionization of in-home private childcare providers. This legislation represents an unprecedented power-grab by AFSCME and their allies to unionize small business owners.”

Problematic? What an understatement! In her jam-packed, pithy article, it’s hard to pick one paragraph that stands out over the others in her description of how very bad this law will be. I recommend you read the whole thing. Here however, is what I believe the nut-graph of Lohmer’s comments as they appear in the middle of the story.

Lohmer writes,

“Unionizing childcare providers will also lower the quality of childcare. Through the requirement of paying union dues, taxpayer dollars meant for quality childcare programs will be redirected to union bank accounts and political campaign activities. Many providers are concerned that the deduction of dues would require them to stop accepting childcare assistance families or to make drastic cuts to their childcare programs — reducing the quality of care.”

You can read Lohmer’s brilliantly pithy column in it’s entirety here.

Lohmer and Nienow are correct in their assessments of this new law. Liberals in the state continue to blast bad law through the houses of legislature aimed at doing good, but in their naiveté they continue to harm small business owners and the middle class. At the same time they continue to support their one funding source that keeps them in power election after election, the powerhouse liberal labor unions.

Minnesotans need to come to their senses and do what Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did recently, and that is to become a right to work state and end the tyrannous power grab of corrupt unions.

Update: The Childcare Unionization Bill passed the Senate earlier this week. Now it goes to the House for discussion and a vote. The Minnesota Chapter of Americans For Prosperity are encouraging people to go to the capitol and show their opposition. Call your House Representative and make  yourself heard. Saturday is a big day.