Category Archives: 2012 Elections

Tuesday’s Thoughts

Posted on by

The election is a week away. That’s good. With Sandy working over New Jersey, New York and New England, a number of folks are worried that Obama will delay the election.

Ain’t gonna happen!

The date is fixed in federal law. If you listened to Rush yesterday, he quoted chapter and verse. I didn’t write it down but don’t worry, Obama can’t delay the election.  Consider. Why would he want to do that? Check Drudge this morning. As more time passes, Obama is doing worse and worse. Even NPR has Romney ahead of Obama.

It’s the same an many of the state races. Akin is closing in on McCaskill (see yesterday’s post.) I’m sure she’s counting on a sympathy boost due to the death of her mother. But as time passes, Akin does better and better.

***

Speaking of Claire McCaskill, she voted for the Stimulus packages (note, plural.) Here’s another reminder just how effective that wasted money was.

Quarter-billion-dollar stimulus grant creates just 400 jobs

Bankrupt energy business joins list of federally-backed flops

Battery maker A123 Systems vowed thousands of new jobs when it received a nearly quarter-billion-dollar stimulus grant in late 2009, but federal job-tracking figures show only a few hundred positions were created before the company joined a growing list of federally backed energy businesses that ended in bankruptcy.

The latest quarterly report on file with a federal stimulus tracking database shows just seven positions created through the grant from April to June this year. Previous quarters’ job reports contained anywhere from a handful of positions created to more than 100 new jobs.

But even when the quarterly reports are combined, a total of 408 new positions were reported under the stimulus program since 2009, amounting to more than $300,000 spent for each new job reported.

Like Solyndra, green energy isn’t. It isn’t productive, nor profitable without government subsidies. In short, green energy is a fraud.

***

Have you heard this? Two flag-officers were fired because they attempted to help those in peril in Benghazi. Everyone has heard about General Ham who was in command of Africom. Have you heard about Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group in the Med?

Navy Replaces Admiral Leading Mideast Strike Group Because of Ongoing Investigation

Oct 27, 2012 8:27pm

In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East.  The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.

In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette  “pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.”

…

A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.

This is very unusual. Admiral Gaouette worked with General Ham to support a response to Benghazi when he, like General Ham, was summarily relieved by their deputies on orders from the Pentagon.

The whole Benghazi affair gets more and more telling of Obama’s incompetence and pro-muslim policies. Here’s just a couple or three examples.

I think there is more than enough evidence to impeach Obama for malfeasance—at least enough to get an investigation going. However, I’ll settle for booting his butt out of MY White House next Tuesday.

Facebook

ABC…Anybody but Claire

Posted on by

Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.

McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.

But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)

Abortion:

  • Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
  • Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
  • Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  • Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
  • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
  • Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)

You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.

Budget and the Economy:

  • Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
  • $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
  • Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
  • Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

 The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.

In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.

Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.

Corporations:

  • Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
  • Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)

Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid.  Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door. 

If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?

No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth.  Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.

Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.

  • Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).

Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.

  • Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
  • Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
  • Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
  • Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
  • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  • Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)

Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.

She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.

When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.

Facebook

Cass County Candidate Forum #3 and other items

Posted on by

The third Cass County Candidate Forum was held last night. This time it was only the six Commission candidates and the two for Sheriff. There were some minor difficulties. First the sound system failed. That happened at the first forum held at the same location. Second the moderator used a timer app on his phone. The “Bell” was too faint for some to hear. Other than that it all went smoothly.

At first I tried to note my impression of each individual. I came up with some labels: The Conservative, The Pro, Slick, Legal Eagle, Snake-oil Man, Bureaucrat, The Politician. I couldn’t come up with a name for the 8th that could be printed.

There wasn’t anything new that I could determine.  Jeff Cox set the tone. His goals were fiscal responsibility, setting spending priorities, building the emergency fund, and forcing transparency in the Commission’s activities by creating a video archive/streaming video of all Commission meetings with using the internet to publish the working packets and documents for everyone to review. In essence, to duplicate public access methods used by Raymore and Belton.

Cox’s opponent and the other candidates essentially repeated those points. Terry Wilson spoke after Jeff Cox and said, “I agree with Jeff.” He didn’t add anything to Jeff’s comments. My thought was if all he was doing was copying Jeff Cox’s ideas, why bother with Terry Wilson—go with the originator of those ideas.

Terry Wilson has been in office as the appointed Presiding Commissioner since May of this year. The transparency initiatives brought up by Jeff Cox aren’t complicated nor all that expensive. If Terry Wilson is in favor of them, why hasn’t he already implemented some of them? The same applies to South Commissioner Luke Scavuzzo who was appointed in January after the resignation of Commissioner Bill Cook.

Talk is cheap. Actions show intentions. Neither Wilson nor Scavuzzo have acted and that shows they’re just giving lip-service to transparency.

***

The UN has decided they are going to intrude in our Federal election. I’m surprised Obama hasn’t already invited them. He’s their bud.

The Texas Attorney-General, on the other hand, has a contrary view.

Attorney General Abbott Tells International Election Observers to Abide by Texas Election Laws

Texas AG says Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has no jurisdiction over Texas elections

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today advised the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe — a United Nations partner — that groups and individuals from outside the United States do not have jurisdiction to interfere with Texas elections. The Attorney General’s letter comes after the international group — comprised of 56 members including EU nations and other countries—announced they would be sending election observers to sites throughout the United States, including Texas, on Election Day.

The UN and the EU are in Obama’s hip-pocket. The only election violations will come from the dems. Having the UN and EU rubber-stamp dem election fraud does no one any good.

***

My, my! The White House was notified within hours of the Benghazi attack according to internal State Department e-mails. Yet, Obama and the White House continued to blame some obscure 10-minute video as the cause for over two weeks.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

You can find the complete story at the website.

Facebook

George McGovern—then and now

Posted on by

I haven’t heard much about this on the broadcast and print news…George McGovern died. Many of the younger folk won’t know who he was. He was the socialist…democrat candidate for President in 1972 running against Nixon. Nixon was up for his second term after beating Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

He was beaten by Nixon in a landslide. The democrats blamed the fiasco over VP candidate Senator Thomas Eagleton (D-MO). The real reason was not Eagleton’s issues, but the fact that McGovern wanted to appease the Russians and the North Vietnamese. His plan would be an effective disassembly of our military—cutting it in half in the case of the Navy and Air Force. The plan would be a withdrawal of the US forces opposing the Soviet Union, Communist China and the other dictatorships in eastern Europe and around the world.

I remember seeing a chart in Time magazine with the comparative size of our military compared to the Soviets before and after McGovern. It’s my belief that chart destroyed McGovern’s chances for the Presidency.

The before chart was bad. The US Army was 1/4th the size of the Soviet army, The long-range US Air Force bombers was on par with the Soviets. But it was our Navy—a true three ocean Navy that outclassed the Soviets. Except for submarines. There, we had a clear advantage in nuclear subs. The Soviets had many more diesel-electric subs that we did. In fact, at that time, most US diesel-subs were being decommissioned.

The after McGovern chart was horrible. The ground forces situation was worse. The US bomber force was cut in half as well as our land-based ICBMs. The Navy was reduced to nine fleets, if I remember correctly, and the Navy ballistic subs were cut as well. All this at a time the Soviets were pushing all around the world.

McGovern lost handily as he deserved.

Now that you’ve had a history lesson, compare McGovern’s plan with Obama’s. Our armed forces are in disarray and demoralized. The Navy is smaller than our Navy before WW I. We no longer have a long range bomber force. Most of our remaining long-range bombers—the B-52s and B-1bs have been converted to carry conventional bombs. Only a few remain in their original nuclear configuration. Few, if any, are on ramp alert.

And what is happening on the other side of the world? China is preparing to seize the oil and gas rich South China Sea, a territory also claimed by Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippine Islands. Putin just completed an exercise of their nuclear forces and is deploying a new-generation of mobile ICBMs. We, on the other hand, decommissioned our last ICBM upgrade, the Peace-Keeper ICBM, as part of the S.T.A.R.T. treaty. Putin is ignoring the treaty when it suits him.

There are reports that Putin is placing MRBM missile in Cuba as Khrushchev attempted to do 50 years ago. He’s also rebuilding Russian bases around the world.

The world is not a safe place. As our ability to extend a military presence around the world declines, those who oppose us will fill in the gaps left by our withdrawal. The result will endanger us all.

After the debate last night, focus groups said Obama had a better handle in foreign policy than Romney. We are truly in danger if half the country really believes that.

Facebook

Aftermath…

Posted on by

It seems almost obligatory to review last night’s debate.  Frankly, I’m not all that enthused. The outcome was exactly as I expected. Romney faced two debaters—Obama and Crowley. The moderator was biased. We knew that going in. Obama lied and Crowley supported the lies. That was expected as well. The MSM claims Obama won. ‘Pub pundits like Charles Krauthammer agree. The rest of us disagree.

I think Ed Morrisey writing for Hot Air said it best.

Video: Luntz focus group unloads on Obama after debate

posted at 8:41 am on October 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In my estimation, last night’s debate was a draw.  Both men did what they needed to do for the debate, but neither had enough of a breakout performance to make much of a difference in the race. I’d expect to see very little impact to the Mitt-mentum that developed after the first debate, for reasons which I’ll address in a moment.

That wasn’t the conclusion reached by Frank Luntz’ focus group of former Barack Obama voters, and now undecideds, in Nevada.  That panel overwhelmingly chose Mitt Romney as the winner, with observations about Romney’s presidential mien and Obama’s defensiveness and lack of vision for a second term.  But one woman, whom (as Luntz jokes) bears a strong resemblance to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, neatly sums up the status of many undecideds, as well as Obama’s big problem with these debates:

“I was not undecided between Obama and Romney.  I was undecided between Romney and not voting.”

That’s the problem for any incumbent President in the final days of the election.  They get almost four years to make the case for another term.  If voters are still undecided with three weeks left to go, the best an incumbent can hope to do is convince them not to vote at all.  That has been the explicit campaign strategy of Team Obama since Romney wrapped up the nomination in May — to make him so toxic that the protest vote against Obama stays home.

Unfortunately, that strategy collapsed after the first debate, and its collapse made the strategy obvious enough to be offensive.  Last night, Obama finally decided to show some passion about wanting a second term, but he still hasn’t explained why he wants it or what he’ll do with it, even during last night’s debate.  The only case he offered was that he wasn’t Mitt Romney, the same argument that Obama used before the first debate.  And he spent most of the evening speaking with an oddly high-pitched tone, as if he was offended that he even needed to go that far.

Obama gave those undecideds no reason last night to vote for him or to stay home on Election Day.  That’s why nothing that happened in the debate will change the trajectory of the race.

Meanwhile, if you’re unimpressed with a Fox focus group, you can always balance that out with MSNBC’s focus group of undecideds from last night.  Final score there: Obama 1, Romney 1, with the other six abstaining from a choice until after the next debate:

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for an Obama victory claim.

‘Nuff said.

Facebook

Trends

Posted on by

The world came close to nuclear war fifty years ago this week. That crisis was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I was in high school at the time in Southern Illinois and I  remember those times well.

I was reminded of this with the arrival of today’s Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation that spoke of the anniversary of that crisis. That e-mail caused me to remember the runup to that crisis—of reports of Russian bombers and then IRBM missiles being based in Cuba. Those reports were followed by the release of reconnaissance photos by our Ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson.

As the crisis grews, we examined the missile coverage mapped in our local daily paper. I remember noticing St. Louis, 90 miles to our northwest was within range of those missiles. Our local Red Cross distributed plans for building fallout shelters and a number of our neighbors built them.

We also practiced “duck and cover” in school…handy during tornado season but that practice suddenly acquired new meaning. I remember standing in our yard one clear, cool afternoon and watched four B-52s circling far overhead. during lunch-time at school we brought our maps to see where there were likely targets in our area.

To say that everyone was tense was an understatement.

If it weren’t for the events last week, those memories would be just that—a remembrance of a long past event. But, now, we see just how important it is to have competent people as our national leaders. Joe Biden’s maniacal antics last week brought that home.

This idiot—Joe Biden—is next in line to lead us in a crisis!?!?

For all the multitude of reasons to remove Obama, Biden and the democrats from power, the revelation of Joe Biden’s instability is sufficient reason why the nation must wrest power away from the democrats.  We fear that it’s likely in a crisis Obama will do nothing. On the other hand, if Joe Biden rose to the Presidency, he, in a crisis, would do anything!

The revelation of Joe Biden has helped change the trend of this election. That trend shifted after the first Presidential Debate. Biden’s arrogance, disrespect and strange behavior during the VP Debate increased that trend. We all hope and pray that tomorrow’s 2nd Presidential Debate will accelerate the trend towards a ‘Pub win three weeks from tomorrow.

With the increased tensions in the Middle-East, with a resurgent, militaristic Russia, with continued Chinese resource imperialism in the South China Sea, the last thing we need is continuing incompetence in the White House.

Facebook

Thursday’s Thoughts

Posted on by

The election season is heating up. Locally we’re seeing some revelations about a candidate for Cass County Public Administrator. Not all counties have Public Administrators. They are elected public officials whose job it is to oversee the physical care and finances for those unable to do so themselves. Many of the clients are mentally and physically disabled and need someone to oversee their finances and any others needs that may be present.  It is a position that requires trust.

The ‘Pub candidate, Melody Folsom, is the incumbent and views her job as a Ministry of service. Her opponent, Michelle Cornforth, is new to the county. In the first candidate forum a  week or so ago, Cornforth can across to the audience as cold and bureaucratic.

Today, we have addition information about Cornforth that brings into question her ability to manage the funds of the county’s clients. There are allegations that Cornforth filed for bankruptcy shortly after filing to run for Public Administrator.

An elected official who has filed for bankruptcy will cost the county a large amount just to acquire the performance and trust bonds required by the state. According to public documents, Cornforth and her husband have only $20,000 in assets and $210,000 in debts. If the allegations are true, how can we expect Cornforth to manage the assets of the county’s clients when she cannot manage her own?

(h/t to Taken from the Democrat-Missourian newspaper,...Garett Houghton)

It would be nice if the Cass county democrats could run candidates for office who are actually…competent and qualified for the positions and who have the best interests of the county’s residents in mind instead of just receiving a public paycheck while performing the minimum necessary for the job.

***

Many, especially dems/libs, assume Russia is our friend after the collapse of the Soviet Empire twenty years ago. Welcome to the real world, it’s not true.  Russia is as expansionist as it has been for centuries from Ivan the Terrible, through the Romanovs, Lenin, Stalin and now Putin.

Expansionism is enbedded in Russia’s culture. It lives now just as it did earlier centuries. The expansionist attitude of Russia lives in Putin. The libs in the west will not see the threat. It’s contrary to their political doctrine. Obama and Hilliary shout, “Reset!” Unfortunately, there is no reset, just a short break while Russia recovers.

We have parity on the number of nukes with Russia. Obama would like that to be cut further again. As I remember, we and Russia have around 1,000 nukes each. Obama wants to cut that down to 300—less than the number in the Chinese arsenal. Now Putin has declared he won’t renew the limitation treaty.

Russia says it will not renew arms agreement with U.S.

MOSCOW | Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00pm EDT

(Reuters) – Russia will not renew a decades-old agreement with Washington on dismantling nuclear and chemical weapons when it expires next year, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

The death of the 1991 agreement, which had been renewed twice, is the latest in a series of hitches in relations between the United States and Russia and casts doubt on the future of the much-vaunted “reset” in relations between the Cold War-era foes.

“The basis of the program is an agreement of 1991 which, by virtue of the time when it was conceived, the way it was worked out and prepared, does not meet very high standards. The agreement doesn’t satisfy us, especially considering new realities,” Interfax quoted him as saying.

…

The project, intended to dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union, was last ratified by Russia in 2006 and is due to expire in 2013. Aides said it had resulted in the deactivation of more than 7,650 strategic warheads.

Ryabkov said that Russia now had the finances to carry out its own programs and that Moscow was interested in continuing partnerships in third countries.

…

A number of bilateral agreements including the latest START nuclear arms treaty, put in force in February 2011, have built the foundation for the U.S.-Russia “restart” initiated by Washington when President Barack Obama took office in 2008.

That treaty lowers the ceilings on stocks of long-range weapons.

But recently ties have been strained, most notably by Moscow’s decision to close the office of the U.S. Agency for International Development in Moscow, which critics say is part of a broader Kremlin crackdown on pro-democracy groups.

Obama and Hilliary have created the impression of weakness in the US all the while crippling our national security and our ability to defend ourselves at home and around the world. Putin, like the Chinese and others, see this weakness, a real weakness in many cases, as an opportunity to recapture the strategic position once owned by the Soviet Empire.

The Chinese see our weakness as an opportunity to seize the oil and mineral rich South China Sea, an area also claimed by Japan, Viet Nam, the Philippine Islands and Taiwan.  The Chinese have already sent warships into the area, has rattled sabers and issued threats to every nation with interest in the South China Sea.

This is no time to be, or to be perceived to be weak.

Facebook