Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Should Global Zero Be U.S. Policy?

Americans concerned about traditional freedoms and the Second Amendment have no difficulty understanding the message of the popular bumper stickers: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It should be just as easy to grasp the corollary: If nukes are outlawed, only terrorist countries will have nukes. But somehow, Barack Obama doesn't get it. In a 2007 campaign speech, Obama promised: "Here's what I'll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Then I find that he endorsed a group called "Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission." This mischievous outfit's goal is "to move toward a world without nuclear weapons," and its publications boast Obama's enthusiastic endorsement. Obama said: "Global Zero will always have a partner in me and my administration." Here are a few of Global Zero's specific recommendations: replace our offensive nuclear missiles with what are called "soft" instruments of power such as multilateral cooperation; reduce the number of our nuclear missiles further than what Obama agreed to when the Senate ratified the New START Treaty in 2011; eliminate "all tactical nuclear weapons" and our "Minuteman land-based ICBM force;" and announce "reciprocal presidential directives." (We know that Obama is a specialist at issuing unilateral directives.)

Here is a really silly statement in the Global Zero Commission's report: "security is mainly a state of mind, not a physical condition." The Global Zero report includes a lame endorsement of anti-missile defense, but it's clear that modernizing our missile defenses system is not a priority. These are dangerous suggestions for U.S. military policy, and it's dangerous to get too close to globalist groups because their ultimate purpose is to get us into global government.

Listen to the radio commentary here:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.