VIDEO: Tea Party to Obama: Stop Policing the World!

By Chris

See the VIDEO here.

This is a message from the “Godfather” of the Tea Party to Obama. Now that we have captured Osama Bin Laden it is time to end the wars and stop policing the world.

A little bit of history: the Tea Party movement started when Ron Paul raised a record $6 million in 24 hours on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party in December 2007. Here is the USAToday article on that event.

This talk is called “Imagine” and it was given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009. The original text of the talk is below:

“Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.”

CREDITS:

Voice and Music was done by Jeremy Hoop
Video animation was done by Nicholas Bozman and MysteryBox. http://mysterybox.us

Source: Revolution Super PAC. Video was included in original press release.

The Passing of Ambassador Jerome Shestack

Hillary Rodham Clinton

I am deeply saddened by the passing of my friend Jerry Shestack. He was a committed public servant and a dogged defender of human rights. Countless women and men are better off because of Jerry.

Jerry served the cause of human rights for more than half a century. He made a lasting impression as Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission where he launched the UN Working Group to investigate disappearances under oppressive regimes. Under President George HW Bush, he served with distinction on the delegation to the Moscow Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and on the Presidential-Congressional Commission to Improve the Effectiveness of the United Nations. As president of the American Bar Association, and in the years following, he set the standard for how civil society leaders can promote human rights.

He was unwavering in his commitment to the highest of American values and international human rights standards. Jerry was an effective advocate for the causes—and people—he cared about because he had a rare mix of wonderful qualities: optimism, resilience, humor, a thick skin, and a way of making everyone feel at ease.

Today my thoughts and prayers are with Jerry’s beloved wife, Marciarose, and their two children, Jennifer and Jonathan.

Joint Statement by the Quartet

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

The following statement was issued by the Middle East Quartet (United Nations, Russian Federation, United States, and European Union):

The Quartet is greatly concerned by Israel's recent announcements to advance planning for new housing units in Ariel and East Jerusalem, and reiterates its position in this regard, in particular its statement of March 12, 2010. The Quartet reaffirms that unilateral action by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community. Jerusalem in particular is one of the core issues that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, which underscores the urgent need for the parties to resume serious and substantive talks. This comes at a critical juncture with Quartet efforts ongoing to resume negotiations which are the only way to a just and durable solution to the conflict.

The Quartet is determined to pursue its efforts. Ultimately, it is up to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make tough decisions and avoid actions by their governments that undermine the very goals they and we are trying to achieve.

21st Century Deterrence Challenges

Rose Gottemoeller

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control

Omaha, Nebraska

Thank you so much for having me here today. It is always a pleasure to visit STRATCOM and I am honored to be speaking to such a distinguished group of policy and military leaders. Thank you General Kehler, for the invitation: It is a great opportunity for me. I know that many of my colleagues from the interagency have already spoken to you, so I will do my best not to repeat them, but rather supplement and expand on what they discussed.

I was a speaker at this Symposium last summer and I am pleased to report that a lot has changed since last August. Last fall, the State Department underwent some structural reorganization and the Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation became the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance or AVC for short.

AVC leads the Department’s work on arms control, in areas of policy-making, negotiations, treaty implementation, and the Department’s efforts with respect to missile defense, national security space policy, as well as multilateral arms control and disarmament policy.

The new name for my Bureau is more than just a matter of semantics. These changes represent a stronger and more comprehensive approach to arms control and they put us in a better position to carry out the President’s priorities in these areas.

New thinking and innovation is already paying dividends in another area that has changed since the last time I was here.

New START Treaty Implementation

As you all know, the New START Treaty entered into force on February 5th of this year.

The New START Treaty implementation is so far going well. It’s been a bright spot in the U.S.-Russian relationship, and we see it continuing to be an area for positive cooperation.

So far, the process of Treaty implementation has been very pragmatic, business-like, and positive – a continuation of the working relationship we established during the negotiations in Geneva. We are constantly in communication with our Russian colleagues and the implementation process has been precise and efficient.

Negotiators worked hard to find innovative new mechanisms to aid in the verification of this Treaty and the results of that work are already evident. The regime is simpler and safer to implement and, at the same time, it lessens disruptions to the day-to-day operations of both sides’ strategic forces.

On-site inspections have begun and as of today, the United States and Russia together have conducted eight inspections. We are keeping par with each other.

For the first time, we are receiving data about actual re-entry vehicle (warhead) loadings on Russia’s missiles and they receive the same data from us; on-site inspection procedures under New START allow the United States to confirm the actual number of warheads on any randomly selected Russian ICBM and SLBM. This verification task and inspection right did not exist under the START Treaty.

Last March, the United States conducted exhibitions of its B-1B and B-2A heavy bombers and the Russian Federation conducted an exhibition of its RS-24 ICBM and associated mobile launcher. That was the first time we had a chance to see the RS-24, the new Russian mobile missile with multiple warheads.

Just two weeks ago, we passed the 1,000th notification between the United States and the Russian Federation under the New START Treaty. These notifications help to track movement and changes in the status of systems, , including, for example, the notification of every time a heavy bomber is moved out of its home country for more than 24 hours.

In addition, every six months we exchange a comprehensive database. This gives us a full accounting of exactly where weapons systems are located, whether they are out of their deployment or operational bases and gone to maintenance, or have been retired. This semi-annual exchange, along with the continuous updates and mandatory treaty notifications provide, create a “living document,” a comprehensive look into each other’s strategic nuclear forces.

The New START Treaty data exchanges are providing us with a more detailed picture of Russian strategic forces than we were able to obtain from earlier exchanges and the inspections will give us crucial opportunities to confirm the validity of that data. Of course, reciprocal rights apply to the Russian side. Finally, both of us back up the verification regime with our own National Technical Means of verification, our satellites and other monitoring platforms.

We’ve found that concerns regarding New START verification measures during the Senate ratification debate are being assuaged. Our experience so far is demonstrating that the New START Treaty’s verification regime works, and will help to push the door open to new, more intrusive inspections involving warheads or other smaller items of account. Such inspections will be crucial to any future nuclear reduction plans.

Now let’s look to the next steps.

Next Steps in U.S.-Russian Reductions

You’ve heard from my colleagues about the Defense Department’s assessment effort and the DDPR: We obviously are in the midst of some important homework exercises. I won’t repeat what others have said, but I will add a few thoughts.

While we still have much homework to do, we and the Russians can begin talking about some big concepts, important ideas and the definitions that go with them. We are not ready for the negotiating table, but we are ready for a productive conversation.

The United States has made it clear that we are committed to continuing a step-by-step process to reduce the overall number of nuclear weapons, including the pursuit of a future agreement with Russia for broad reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons – strategic, non-strategic, deployed and non-deployed. The President communicated this continued commitment in Prague when he signed the New START Treaty in April 2010.

Indeed, the preamble to the New START Treaty called upon both the U.S. and Russia to pursue further reductions. As part of this process, the President supports the Senate’s call in the New START Resolution of Ratification to seek to initiate follow-on negotiations with Russia that include non-strategic nuclear weapons within one year of the Treaty’s entry into force.

In addition to the conceptual conversation I mentioned above, we would also like to increase transparency on a reciprocal basis with Russia. We are in the process of thinking through how this and other such transparency measures might be implemented. This involves thinking through issues and questions including:

Exactly what kinds of information do we think would be useful and appropriate to share and to seek from each other?

How much detail are we prepared to share regarding numbers, types, and locations of weapons and related infrastructure?

What classes and types of nuclear weapons should be included?

What transparency measures should we consider for the total stockpile, in addition to non-strategic nuclear weapons?

For the United States, what is the best way to consult with Allies on their views to the extent any transparency measures would involve items located on their territories?

What are the legal mechanisms necessary to permit the sharing of sensitive information?

We will consult with our NATO allies and invite Russia to join with us to develop an initiative, including examination of potential reciprocal actions that could be taken in parallel by the United States and Russia.

Our conversation with Russia must include defining what exactly constitutes a non-strategic nuclear weapon and whether or not a single overall limit on all nuclear weapons would be possible. We have a lot of very complicated issues to consider, so the more creative and innovative ideas we have to work with, the better off we will be. For that reason, we are grateful to the community of experts, both government and nongovernment, American, Russian, and international, who are contributing to our work.

Beyond U.S. and Russian Reductions

While the United States and Russia have more steps to pursue bilaterally, it is also time to begin a multilateral dialogue within the P5, as well.

I travelled to Paris last month for a conference where the P5 discussed transparency, verification, and confidence-building measures. The conference was a constructive step in the process of nuclear-weapons states’ engagement on disarmament and related issues, and demonstrated the P5’s commitment to the implementation of the Action Plan that was adopted by consensus at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

All the P5 states recognized the fundamental importance of transparency in building mutual understanding and confidence. We exchanged information on nuclear doctrine and capabilities and considered possible voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures. To this end, we approved the creation of a working group on Nuclear Definitions and Terminology. We will also hold technical consultations on verification issues later this year in London.

In order to ensure that these conferences evolve into a regular process of P5 dialogue, we agreed to hold a third conference in the context of the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee to continue our discussions.

The United States is proud to be at the leading edge of transparency efforts – publically declaring our nuclear stockpile numbers; participating in voluntary and treaty-based inspections measures; and working with other nations on military to military, scientific and lab exchanges, and site visits.

We hope that all countries will join in the common effort to increase transparency and build mutual confidence. Confidence-building, at its very core, is a shared effort.

Conclusion

This entire process of next steps in arms control will require some big ideas and some out-of-the-box thinking and we are glad to be engaging the STRATCOM community in this process.

We have seen an evolution in nuclear policy thinking over the past sixty-five years, from policies of massive retaliation to strategies of nuclear war-fighting to our current conversations on strategic stability and predictability.

It is absolutely imperative that we continue to adapt and evolve our thinking to match the circumstances around us. Anticipating and preparing for changes in deterrence will be necessary for the continued security of our nation.

Thanks again for your time and attention. If time permits, I am happy to take a few questions from the audience.

Admonition of the Protestors of the Intervention in Libya

By Zach Foster

Part 1: The Libyan Civil War and the No Fly Zone ARE NOT Iraq and Afghanistan

There has been intense criticism of President Obama’s involvement of the United States military in the Libyan Civil War.  Fringe elements from both major sides of the political spectrum are up in rhetorical arms against the President, screaming about how the U.S. will get bogged down in another desert Vietnam.  They’re not wrong to criticize the President for the intervention, but they are wrong for justifying their criticisms with weak and faulty partisan-motivated rhetoric.  However, before the correct criticisms are expounded on, people need to understand how the operations in Libya differ from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the right, many ultraconservatives are taking a short break from still trying to disprove the President’s natural-born status in order to recycle the popular liberal arguments against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and reapply them to the 2011 intervention in Libya.  Many also revile him for being a Muslim whose only aim is to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  A well-reasoned, intelligent, and balanced argument proving this theory has yet to be produced.

Strangely enough, many on the left are also using the same recycled 2003 arguments that the ultraconservatives are enjoying, though the latter seem to have forgotten their origins.  All over the political spectrum, people have themselves in a frenzy and are totally convinced of Libya’s imminence as a desert Vietnam.  At this point it is important for people to ask themselves: which of the two current American wars is a desert Vietnam?

Iraq could have been thought of as such several years ago, for between 2004 and 2007 the conflict did seem to be a quagmire with American troops caught between fighting sectarian militias in some city neighborhoods and Al Qaeda in others, with little or no progress appearing to be made.  That, however, changed significantly after the 2007 troop surge whereupon American troops.  Nowadays, American combat troops have been withdrawn and the involvement of American soldiers in combat operations is miniscule.  The Iraqi army and police are standing their ground against terrorism, which has dramatically shrunk in Iraq.

The only country undergoing nation building whose future is uncertain is Afghanistan.  Progress has been made and this month seven strategic areas are to be completely turned over to the Afghan military and police.  These steps toward stability would never have been possible under previous Afghan governments throughout the three-plus decades of civil war.

On the international stage, Vladimir Putin has harshly criticized the United Nations intervention as a Crusade in the Middle East.  This accusation immediately warrants several responses.  First and foremost, the Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christian and Muslim armies over control of Biblical cities and countries.  Libya was neither in the Bible nor the Koran, and no Christian armies—not even Western armies—have invaded Libya.  Second, let it not be forgotten that the United States military was not the first invading army in Afghanistan.  Who preceded the U.S.?  Ah, yes, it was the Soviet Union!  The same Soviet Union of which Mr. Putin—the accuser-in-chief—was head of the KGB who had troops in Afghanistan operating in conjunction with the Soviet Army.  While the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was a direct defensive response against the 9/11 attacks, orchestrated by Al Qaeda with the help of the Taliban, what was the defensive measure of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?  The current silence is broken only by crickets chirping.  The author of this article also just sneezed, and the sneezing cry almost sounded like “Chechnya!”

To another man’s credit, Dmitry Medvedev showed evidence of growing a spine by publicly and sharply criticizing Putin’s comments.  Well done Mr. Medvedev!

Continued in Part 2: The CORRECT reasons to criticize the intervention

Explosion At Domodedovo Airport

By Hillary Clinton

I join President Obama in strongly condemning today's terrorist attack at Moscow's Domodedovo Airport. We stand with the people of Russia in this moment of sorrow and we offer our deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those injured and killed.

The United States condemns terrorism and all forms of violence against the innocent, wherever it occurs. We stand with the victims of these crimes and we will continue to work with the international community to combat violent extremism that threatens peace-loving people everywhere.

The United States remains ready to support the Russian government as it seeks to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Senate Approval of New START

By Hillary Clinton

Today the Senate took a great step forward in enhancing our national security by providing its advice and consent to ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation. I congratulate the Senators of both parties who worked tirelessly to ensure that New START was approved, and I thank all the Senators who voted for this treaty for their commitment to our national security.

Once this Treaty enters into force, on-site inspections of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons facilities can resume, providing us with an on-the-ground view of Russia’s nuclear forces. The information and insight from these inspections forms the core of our ability to "trust but verify" compliance with New START. A responsible partnership between the world’s two largest nuclear powers that limits our nuclear arsenals while maintaining strategic stability is imperative to promoting global security. With New START, the United States and Russia will have another important element supporting our "reset" relationship and expanding our bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have been unwavering in their dedication to this treaty to both strengthen our domestic security and reduce the international threat of nuclear weapons. This day would not have been possible without their leadership or the efforts of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. I also thank President George H.W. Bush and all the former Secretaries of State who added their support to this Treaty and worked to see New START approved. I and all my colleagues at the State Department look forward to working with our Russian partners to conclude the approval of New START in Russia, bring the Treaty into force, and deliver the global and national security benefits of New START.