Destroying our nuclear arsenal will not stop other nations and groups from producing their own. Pictured: a US nuclear missile.

To justify cuts in nuclear arsenals, liberals like President Obama argue that having fewer of these weapons in the US will make the world a safer place. However, this is utterly false. Most developed nations possess large arsenals of nuclear weapons for their own protection, and as the years pass, more and more nations are enjoying access to nuclear technology and weaponry. The spread of nuclear technology is too widespread for the United States to suppress, and because of this, any reductions in US arsenals will not be reciprocated by other nations.

Reducing the nuclear arsenal of the United States will have immediate and devastating impacts upon the ability of our nation to defend itself. The politics of nuclear weapons largely center upon the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Under this theory, two nuclear powers do not attack each other with nuclear weapons due to the imminent threat of complete and utter annihilation on both sides. However, this theory only remains valid if both nuclear powers keep large nuclear arsenals that can effectively blanket the territory of the opposing power and wipe them off the face of the earth. Should one nation abandon nuclear weapons or slash their arsenal dramatically, annihilation would no longer be a concern for the other nation, and thus the nuclear option would be much more tempting in a time of crisis.

In a speech in Prague back in 2009, President Obama called for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons around the world. Although this is surely a noble objective, it is an unrealistic and naive one as well. Nuclear weapons are already widely disseminated throughout the world, and even if all of the nuclear powers in the world participated in a massive global weapons drawdown, nuclear technology would still exist. If Iran or another dictatorial nation illegally acquired or produced long-range nuclear weapons in this scenario, nations like the United States and even Russia would be powerless to stop a massive reign of terror in the Middle East by Iran, which would use its nuclear capability to destroy Israel and subjugate the entirety of the Middle East under its radical Islamic control. A comparative analogy to this is to the Ottoman Empire during the early modern era. As Western Europe developed new military and industrial technologies during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, conservative Islamist leaders in the Ottoman Empire saw this new technology as impure and unnecessary. In their rejection of the most advanced technology of the time, the Ottoman Empire – formerly the hegemonic power of Europe – entered a period of social, economic, and political decline and was disparagingly titled the “sick man of Europe” by other rapidly advancing European nations. Inevitably, the Ottomans’ technological inferiority forced them to depend upon other nations for their protection, and thus the formerly great Ottoman Empire lost its power and authority in the world to other European nations like Britain and France.

The best way to keep America safe is to do what the Ottomans refused to do a few hundred years ago. We must expand our current nuclear arsenal and embark upon a program of modernization to eliminate old, defunct weaponry and to create new, more powerful weapons for our arsenal. This, not utter disarmament, will keep America safe in a world of growing danger.

It is unacceptable for our president to buy votes and campaign donations with taxpayer dollars.

First, it was Solyndra. Then, it was Lightsquared. Then after that, it was the vaccine that we didn’t need. Time and time again, President Obama has displayed his disturbing inclination to spend precious taxpayer dollars on the projects of his campaign’s financial supporters. In another example of outright corruption, our irresponsible leader has given billions of dollars to major campaign organizers through his various stimulus programs.

After pulling support for President Obama back in 2008 through his organization Clean Tech for Obama, Sanjay Wagle received a seat in the inner circle of the Obama administration just as the president embarked upon his massive energy stimulus plan. Interestingly enough, over the next three years, the Obama administration gave a whopping $2.4 billion of funding to companies in which Mr. Wagle’s former employer, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had also invested.

The Washington Post in a Tuesday article about this topic also points out that “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.” Of course, the Energy Department has insisted that none of these grants were political in nature, assuring that the money was given based upon merit. However, I personally put very little stock in this, as the Obama administration blew almost half a billion dollars on Solyndra, the business plan of which was questioned from the very beginning by pretty much everyone except the White House. There is no motive for such a poor investment besides political gain.

By the way, I will have my latest webcast up and running sometime this weekend. Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel to receive updates whenever a video is posted!

“He [President Obama] supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens.”

This statement is deeply concerning. President Obama’s support of a global minimum tax lends credibility to the United Nations’ radical push for a global world tax, which would fund a massive worldwide social welfare program that would strangle economic development and contribute to the very problems that it would attempt to solve. This is a very concerning matter, and I will continue to keep track of it in the coming days and weeks.

In blog news, I will be working on a video commentary to be released on YouTube sometime at the end of this week or next week. To receive updates from my YouTube channel, subscribe to my channel here. If you have any concerns or questions that you would like me to address in this video, please let me know by commenting on this blog post.

Obama's fiscal responsibility in a nutshell. Source: USDebtClock.org

Last night, the White House officially released President Obama’s budget proposal for the year. Sadly, under this plan, excessive spending will continue, and the wealthy will be forced to bear the costs of our government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars. Despite his pledge to soak the rich, President Obama has failed to cut the deficit and has thus broken his promise with the American people. Back in 2009, our leader promised to “halve the deficit” by the end of his presidency. However, under the president’s proposal, the deficit will actually grow from that of the 2011 budget.

President Obama has failed in two main ways. Firstly, he has proven utterly incapable at cutting spending. The president’s proposal cuts $360 billion from entitlements but does so over the course of ten years. Once President Obama is reelected, he could easily pass a second budget that eliminates or reverses these cuts altogether, as a one-year budget plan has no real authority over an entire decade of spending. Beyond this, however, no real cuts exist in his plan. More government subsidies and massive “shovel-ready” infrastructure programs eat up the savings from crippling defense cuts and the end of the Afghanistan War.

President Obama has also failed to create jobs. In spite of his growth of government entitlements and infrastructure projects, the number of people not participating in the labor force has skyrocketed, and officially measured unemployment numbers have only slightly decreased. To top this off, Obama’s stimulus programs and government bailouts have only made the situation worse for the industries they were intended to save. The economy is now sicker than ever, yet President Obama keeps prescribing the wrong drug.

I think that President Obama should try a new approach. He should slash entitlement spending and preserve the integrity of our nation’s defense by keeping defense cuts to a minimum. Along with reiterating his promise to halve the deficit, President Obama should promise to cut taxes across the board and to support a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, our liberally-minded president will never do any of this, but we always have 2012 to look forward to.

Now that Rick Santorum has proven himself as a viable candidate, he needs to weather the increased scrutiny that comes with his new front-runner status. Pictured: Santorum addressing a crowd in Missouri Tuesday.

On Tuesday night, presidential contender Rick Santorum pulled off three stunning victories in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. Although these are all non-binding caucuses, Santorum’s startling wins have given him fresh cash and momentum, both of which will allow Santorum to present a challenge to Mitt Romney in the upcoming Michigan primary (Feb. 28). Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s abysmal performances in these three states have revealed some serious difficulties in his candidacy, while Ron Paul’s continued losses are precluding his ability to become a major player in this race.

Rick Santorum is well-positioned to accumulate a significant windfall of cash between now and Michigan’s primary, which will serve as a test of his ability to challenge Mr. Romney on his home turf. Romney was born and raised in Michigan, and his father served as governor for the state for three terms. However, Santorum’s pro-manufacturing initiatives such as a 0% tax on manufacturing plants and equipment will be received with open arms by Michigan, which is the historical heartland of American manufacturing. Additionally, Rick Santorum has received the backing of the Red White and Blue Fund, a well-funded super PAC that has produced several advertisements in support of the former US senator.

Newt Gingrich’s awful performances in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri for now has relegated him to the bottom tier of candidates. Gingrich’s campaign will have to run on fumes until the next debate, which is later this month. By then, however, it could be too late for Newt to revive his candidacy anyway. Voters are concerned about the baggage Newt carries, particularly regarding his relationship to Freddie Mac, the government mortgage giant. Santorum appears to be a less flawed candidate with a much better chance of succeeding against Romney in Michigan, so it is unlikely that voters will split the vote and give Romney an easy win and Gingrich a second chance.

Santorum is shaping up to be an excellent candidate who has largely been gaffe-free. Hopefully, Mr. Santorum will survive his trip through the media meat grinder and will make it to the Republican National Convention as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

Liberals hate the Constitution because it specifically guards against the construction of an entitlement society. Art by Jon McNaughton.

In a New York Times article yesterday, columnist Adam Liptak proclaims that the influence of the US Constitution is waning. He claims that amending the Constitution is too difficult and that the document itself is too old. Mr. Liptak also bemoans the fact that the Constitution does not defend “rights” such as the right to travel and the entitlements of health care and education. He even cites Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that she would “not look to the United States Constitution” if she were drafting a constitution this year. However, it seems to me that both Mr. Liptak and Judge Ginsburg are completely missing the point of having a national constitution in the first place. In their view, constitutions are meant to govern the people of a nation, while in reality, these documents are meant to prevent governments from suppressing their people.

The reason that the Constitution is difficult to amend is to protect the people of the United States from aggressive government suppression. By providing a nearly immobile set of concrete guidelines for government officials, the Constitution effectively bars the usurpation of the rights of Americans by the government. It is only through a significant majority of the states that the US Constitution can be amended, and thus the average American is well-protected from radical policies and people.

Something I noticed while reading the NYT article was the harshness with which our US Constitution was described. Mr. Liptak referred to the Constitution as “terse and old,” and even had the audacity to proclaim that the document “guarantees relatively few rights,” citing the fact that healthcare and food entitlements are not protected under the Constitution.

Contrary to Mr. Liptak, I agree with the Founding Fathers that the role of government is limited to governing. Government was never intended by our Framers to become a massive entitlement society that scalps the well-off in order to foster the dependency of the masses. Rather, the Founders wanted a government that would ensure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to personally create their own wealth and seek out success. Liberals, on the other hand, want a government that ensures “social justice” by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, the liberal vision of equality never manifests itself in a positive manner. In the Soviet Union, for example, socialist policies equalized the wealth of most Russians, but did so by dramatically reducing the quality of life for all. Meanwhile, the government officials that dictated these social engineering schemes profited enormously. America’s Founders wisely foresaw the devastating crises that accompany entitlement societies, and – consequentially – the Founding Fathers did their utmost to defend the freedom of the individual when they wrote the Constitution.

The Constitution is a timeless document that should not be replaced. By defending the freedom of the individual from the oppressive grip of government, it enables the continued success of the United States and perpetuates the values of freedom that made this country great.

Where does social engineering fit into the UN's principal goal of maintaining "international peace and security?" Pictured: the UN General Assembly

Over the past twenty years, the United Nations has become increasingly devoted to social and economic goals rather than the political ones that characterized the organization’s founding. Continuing this trend, the United Nations’ latest move toward supposed social well-being oversteps its bounds as a peacekeeper and a humanitarian organization. The UN Commission on Social Development, which began this week in New York, has demanded a worldwide tax to pay for a “social protection floor,” which would provide free healthcare, education, housing, and even free income for “needy people.” In other words, the UN would like to force the implementation of a socialist economic model around the globe.

My first major complaint with this proposal lies in the tax itself. The United Nations has consistently attempted to centralize its authority by forcing western nations to bankroll a massive UN slush fund. For example, at a recent UN Climate Summit, the UN proposed a mandate that would require western nations to pay their “climate debt[s]” and pay homage to the “rights of Mother Earth.” Notably missing from these climate talks, however, were calls on China to limit their massive carbon emissions, which certainly overshadow any of the environmental sins of the United States and Europe. Of course, what makes the UN’s fight against global warming even more ridiculous is the fact that man-made global warming is based upon pseudo-science and well-tweaked computer climate models, not actual historical and scientific fact. Clearly, this tax is only the UN’s latest effort to extend its own authority in the hopes of becoming a hegemonic world authority that even overshadows the United States and China.

However, more concerning than the tax itself is what it will supposedly be used for. This world tax is essentially funding a global entitlement program that will take from wealthy, developed countries and nations and give to poor, “needy” nations and people. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, the best economic strategy to lift populations out of poverty is capitalism. When combined with a democratic government, lower classes make more money and the volume of individuals in the middle class increases dramatically. Utopian socialism has never worked for any significant length of time and is lucky to not be plagued with problems from its initiation. Russia is a fine example of this; while the socialism of the Soviet era contributed to the economic destruction and the breakup of the USSR, Russia today is economically powerful thanks to its recent emphasis upon free-market policies. China, a nation dependent upon communism, has lifted millions out of poverty through the enacting of capitalist-oriented policies. Another aspect to consider is that the money provided by this world tax will probably not get far enough to even do much good. Both corruption and needless self-enrichment are rampant in the UN; of the $732 million that was devoted to the Haitian earthquake relief efforts in 2010, only a third was spent on the broken Haitian people. The other two-thirds was devoted to the “salary, perks and upkeep” of UN personnel.

This world tax amounts to a massive social engineering push by the United Nations. Let us hope that developed nations around the globe can stand up against this radical and counterproductive proposal and offer common-sense solutions that are based upon the free market.

This election prediction is based upon President Obama's current approval numbers. Clearly, there's a lot of red.

On the left is an election prediction based upon President Obama’s current state-by-state approval numbers. Clearly, as the sea of red indicates, our president will have some seriously difficulties when the election arrives this November.

In a new Gallup poll, state-by-state results show a dismal situation for President Obama. His approval number, averaged across all the states, is an abysmal 44%, and in swing states, things are similarly awful. In Pennsylvania and Florida – crucial swing states – the president’s approval numbers are 45% and 43% respectively. And it even gets worse for the president: in my notoriously-liberal home state of California, President Obama’s approval barely ekes out a majority, with 50.1% of poll respondents approving of Obama’s performance as leader of the free world. Ouch!

The Gallup poll also made comparisons between President Obama’s approval ratings last year and his ratings this year. Below is an excerpt from the Gallup’s poll analysis:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Even in home-front states like Hawaii, President Obama is having great difficulty holding on to his devoted followers, and only three states posted “marginal increases” from his approval numbers last year. Clearly, what Republicans are doing is working very well thus far. By revealing the utter failures of President Obama’s economic policies, conservatives have greatly increased the knowledge of concerned voters and have put President Obama in a very difficult position. Hopefully, the downward trend of Obama’s approval numbers will continue until he is ousted from office this coming November.