Obama’s Gas Prices Address: “Malaise II: The Sequel”

Are you old enough to remember what America was like under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter?  If you aren’t, here’s a reminder of what Americans had to endure, as the Carter Administration faced a “Crisis of Confidence”, courtesy of PBS.org:

At the heart of the internal debate over the administration’s future was a memo by Caddell, Carter’s pollster and resident “deep thinker.” “What was really disturbing to me,” he remembered, “was for the first time, we actually got numbers where people no longer believed that the future of America was going to be as good as it was now. And that really shook me, because it was so at odds with the American character.” Caddell argued that after fifteen years filled with assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and a declining economy, Americans were suffering from a general “crisis of confidence.” Address this fundamental problem, he told the president, inspire the country to overcome it, and you will turn your presidency around.

…On the evening of July 15, 1979, millions of Americans tuned in to hear Jimmy Carter give the most important speech of his presidency. After sharing some of the criticism he had heard at Camp David — including an unattributed quote from the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton — Carter put his own spin on Caddell’s argument. “The solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country,” the president said, asking Americans to join him in adapting to a new age of limits.

But he also admonished them, “In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns.” Hendrik Hertzberg, who worked on the speech, admits that it “was more like a sermon than a political speech. It had the themes of confession, redemption, and sacrifice. He was bringing the American people into this spiritual process that he had been through, and presenting them with an opportunity for redemption as well as redeeming himself.” Though he never used the word — Caddell had in his memo — it became known as Carter’s “malaise” speech.

Fast forward to the Obama Administration, which Americans have less-than- affectionately dubbed, “Carter on steroids”.

On April 23rd of last year, npr.org posted the following article, “Gas Prices: Lessons From the Carter Years:

Oil and gas prices are a perennial bane for American presidents. The cycle is familiar by now — they go up, the American people get angry, and they blame the man at the top.

“It’s so visible in our lives,” political consultant Tad Devine tells NPR’s Linda Wertheimer. “Now, through pervasive television coverage, through the Internet and everything else, people are so aware of how much it costs and how quickly it’s rising.”

“There’s growing demand around the world for petroleum products,” Devine says. “China, India — these economies, which are emerging as gigantic competitive economies, are going to rely on petroleum as a principal source of energy.”

“As a result of that competition, I don’t think there is going to be pressure for [petroleum companies] to cut the price,” he says. “I think there’s going to be pressure to raise the price. So we’re really in a fix here.”

No kiddin’, Einstein.

Yesterday, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), stepped to the podium, to address American’s out-of-control gas prices.  To say that his words were less than reassuring is an understatement.

CNBC.com has the story:

President Barack Obama hit back on Thursday at election-year Republican criticism of his energy policy, offering a staunch defense of his attempts to wean Americans off foreign oil and saying there was no ‘silver bullet’ for high gas prices.

Obama sought to deflect growing Republican attacks over rising prices at the pump, blaming recent increases on a mix of factors beyond his control, including tensions with Iran, hot demand from China, India and other emerging economies, and Wall Street speculators taking advantage of the uncertainty.

U.S. gasoline prices have jumped nearly 9 cents in the past week to an average $3.61 a gallon, and are expected to rise further toward the $4 mark through the summer driving season and the approach of the Nov. 6 election.

In a visit to the University of Miami less than nine months before the presidential election in which he will seek a second term, Obama offered a modest series of proposals aimed at diversifying Americans’ fuel supplies and increasing energy efficiency.

“It’s the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,” Obama said.

“What’s harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”

Republicans seeking to dislodge Obama from the White House are seeking to pin the higher prices on the Democratic president’s tax and environmental policies they say have hindered domestic production and kept the United States at the mercy of imports. They cite his decision to block the Keystone pipeline that would transport Canadian oil to refineries in Texas.

Repeating there would be no “silver bullet” for America’s energy crunch, Obama highlighted steps already taken to expand domestic production and improve fuel efficiency.

The trio of proposals announced in Miami included a $30 million competition in natural gas technologies and a $14 million program to development algae-based fuel.

Obama repeated calls to roll back tax incentives for the oil industry, and urged Congress to renew a clean energy tax credit. Yet he acknowledged he was at odds with Republicans in Congress over energy.

Lawmakers are deeply divided and little legislative action is expected this year.

Just a reminder:  when Obama took office on January 21, 2009, gas was $1.84 per gallon.

While this inept, unfunny joke of a president is lining his Green Energy Cabal’s pockets with our money, Americans are coming to grips with the realization that we may have to decide very soon if we’re going to use our hard-earned money to buy food to eat, or if we going to have to use that money for gas so that we can make it to our jobs.

In Mississippi, we’re spending 14.2% of our personal income on gasoline.  And it’s worse in other parts of the country.

With viable “Green Energy” transportation decades away, we may have to walk to the polls on November 6th, but I guarantee, wild horses couldn’t keep Americans away this time.

Dear Ms. Coulter: Regarding Mitt Romney…

Yesterday, Famous Authoress and Conservative Beltway Darling, Ann Coulter, published a column with the title, “What’s Their Problem With Romney”?

While I am not anywhere near as talented a writer as Ms. Coulter, nor am I rich like she is, I am one of “Them”, which I presume to mean the Republican Party’s Conservative Base.

So, please bear with me as I attempt to answer some of Ms. Coulter’s pronouncements concerning the perfect candidate, Former Governor Willard Mitt Romney.

COULTER:  As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn’t do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Per Boston.com:

The Republican managed to slash spending to eliminate a deficit pegged at $3 billion, but he also proposed or presided over a far-ranging series of fee hikes — a strategy that allowed him to maintain the no-new-taxes stance he now boasts about as he runs for president.

In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees and increasing 57 others — enough, he said, to pull in an extra $59 million for the cash-strapped state.

Horseback riding instructors, prisoners, those seeking training to combat domestic violence and used car shoppers were asked to dig a little deeper.

Romney and Democratic lawmakers ended up approving hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines, making it more expensive to use an ice skating rink, register a boat, take the bar exam, get a duplicate driver’s license, file a court case, install underground storage tanks, sell cigarettes or alcohol, comply with air quality rules and transport hazardous waste.

A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney’s first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.

COULTER:  Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

Again, per Boston.com:

In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

COULTER:  Romney’s approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

From Boston.com, December 6, 2007:

The Globe reported yesterday that Romney had continued to employ Community Lawn Service with a Heart to mow his lawn and rake his leaves, one year after the newspaper reported that the company was using illegal immigrants for work on his grounds. Romney fired the company Tuesday night, hours after the Globe inquired about the work at his Belmont home.

COULTER:  Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

From my post “Romney:  Romneycare Good.  Obamacare Bad.”:

…although Mr. Romney promised that his plan would lower costs, the liberal Commonwealth Fund reports that Massachusetts insurance costs have climbed anywhere from 21% to 46% faster than the U.S. average since 2005. Employer-sponsored premiums are now the highest in the nation.

COULTER:  Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He’s had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

A Washington Outsider? Hardly. MSNBC.com reports:

Romney’s fourteen lobbyist bundlers – including representatives from powerhouse D.C. lobbying firms Dutko Worldwide and Ogilvy Government Relations – raised $1.1 million for his campaign in the second half of 2011, according to recent Federal Election Commission filings. Ogilvy chief Wayne Berman, one of Romney’s top bundlers, is also a co-chair of his national finance committee.

But Romney’s connection to elite D.C. operatives don’t end with fundraising.

Ron Kaufman, a former Bush Sr. advisers and now one of Romney’s top advisers was a top lobbyist for Dutko for years, telling the Boston Globe he decertified as a lobbyist just last year.

Team Romney also includes other top-tier Washington power brokers like Charlie Black, a former top adviser to John McCain began advising Romney earlier this year, and Romney’s chief counsel Ben Gingsberg, who held the same role in both Bush-Cheney campaigns, and has represented numerous house and senate campaigns and PACs.

COULTER:  The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by “the Establishment” is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney — and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is anti-Romney – though endorsing no one — as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin — who has also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn’t a former candidate for vice president on a major party’s ticket be part of the Establishment?)

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney — though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.

That’s your opinion, Ms. Coulter.

Here’s mine, which I originally expressed on January 23rd, in a post titled, “Southern Man Don’t Need Ann Coulter Around, Anyhow”:

You see, we average  Americans, here in Dixie, and folks in the rest of the Heartland, are fed up with you Vichy Republicans treating us like the hired help.  We stood by and watched you nominate the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the squishiest of squishes, then held our noses and dutifully voted for them.

Then, we watched you and your buddies, the Democrats, and their lackeys, the Main Stream Media, trash a good Christian American like Sarah Palin, to the point where she and her family said, “Enough of this mess”, which led to her dropping out of the Primary race.

Miz Ann, you need to go on Wheel of Fortune, buy a vowel and get a clue.  The South and rest of the Heartland will vote for whomever we want to, so go get your skinny self a sammich and stuff it.

Besides, why should we trust the judgment of someone who used to date Bill Maher, anyway?

I rest my case.

Santorum: The Devil You Say

Political junkies were abuzz yesterday, as the Democrats dug up, and Romney Supporter Matt Drudge posted, a 2008 interview at a Catholic University where Republican Presidential Nominee Candidate Rick Santorum had the nerve to actually say that Satan, the Father of Lies, had his sights set on the United States of America.

Welllll, Duuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Also, yesterday, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, America’s Pastor, lent his support to Santorum and expressed his doubts concerning the faith of the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

ABCNews.go.com has the story:

Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said on MSNBC Tuesday that he could not verify that President Obama is a Christian. “I just have to assume that he is,” Graham said.

But he has no question about Rick Santorum. “His values are so clear on moral issues. No question about it. … I think he’s a man of faith.”

Santorum’s faith was in the news for another reason, too. The Pennsylvania Republican said in 2008, two years after losing his Senate seat and four years before seeking the presidency, that Satan was attacking U.S. institutions in government and religion.

The comments, not before mentioned during the 2012 election cycle, were the lead item on the Drudge Report Tuesday. Santorum has surged to even or even ahead of Mitt Romney in opinion polls, including in Romney’s home state of Michigan, where Republican voters cast their preference for the GOP nominee next Tuesday.

Santorum, speaking at the conservative Catholic Ave Maria University in Florida, praised the Catholic Bishop Samuel Aquila for pledging to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights and said the matter went beyond politics and was a symptom of Satan’s reach in U.S. society.

Here’s a partial transcript, along with some analysis, courtesy of   RushLimbaugh.com

SANTORUM: The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States, and that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

SANTORUM: Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, “because we’re smart;” and so academia a long time ago fell.

RUSH: Satan conquered academia: Rick Santorum, August 29, 2008. And it was in 2006, September 20th, to be exact, where Hugo Chavez strode confidently to the microphones of the UN and was sniffing around and said, “The Devil came here yesterday. It still smells of sulfur today.” And let’s not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Saul Alinsky, who’s the primary mentor of “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm!” Saul Alinsky, the author of the book Rules for Radicals — a book about which Hillary Clinton wrote her masters or doctoral thesis, whatever it was, when she was at Wellesley. Saul Alinsky, who Obama has studied and implements to this day and whose tactics he taught while ostensibly teaching law at the University of Chicago.

Saul Alinsky dedicated his book that all these leftists love to Lucifer, the Devil! Here’s Alinsky’s dedication: “Lest we forget, at least an over the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology and history — and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which? The first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom: Lucifer.” Saul Alinsky made that dedication in his book Rules for Radicals. So Santorum is just joining the crowd here in discussing this. Here is the final sound bite.

SANTORUM: The next was the church. Now, you say, “Well, wait. The Catholic Church?” No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.

What I believe that Santorum was doing, was calling out those churches who had “lost their First Love”, like the Church at Ephesus in Revelation, Chapter 2, verses 1 – 7.

Those who are nervous about how well Santorum is doing, are hoping that this event from 2008 will somehow damage the momentum he has.

What those who think that they are smarter than average Americans do not understand, is that this subject is something that Americans have heard coming from the pulpit of their own churches for the last 3 years.

And, we believe it.

The Republican Primary: Conservatism is Winning

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh nailed the GOP Establishment to the wall with a frank, spot-on assessment of the Santorum Surge:

Well-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l. How about this, ladies and gentlemen? It looks like the establishment Republicans are very worried that Romney cannot win, even if he is nominated. They’re very, very worried that, even if Romney is nominated, he can’t win, yet they continue to push him. There are a bunch of pieces.

…But, at any rate, it was fascinating to read blog after blog and news story after news story. The establishment Republicans are scared to death. If Romney loses Michigan, his so-called home state, if Romney loses Michigan… In fact, I don’t know if it was a blogger or an actual news network, they talked to an unidentified Republican leader, might have been a Republican Senator, might have been somebody in the upper ranks of the party, not sure which, one of the two. They actually said that if Romney loses Michigan, the party is gonna have to get in gear and try to find somebody else that they can nominate at the convention, ’cause they don’t want Santorum and they don’t want Newt, and they don’t want Ron Paul.

…Here you have the Republican establishment which, by virtue of this admission, that if Romney loses Michigan they think he’s gonna lose the nomination. And that means it’s time to ditch everybody and go find somebody else. That is a tantamount admission that they don’t care what their own voters are saying in all of these primaries, in all of these elections. We are seeing the Republican establishment force a candidate down the throats of the Republican base. The Republican base is obviously saying from primary to primary to primary they’re not really sure, really not all that sold on, Romney. And so the establishment, “Oh, well, okay, well, we gotta find somebody else you don’t like that might be able to win it,” which is what it boils down to.

They are saying, depending on where you go, certain bloggers, certain Republican Party officials, high-ranking elected Republicans are saying that the reason this is happening, the reason that Romney doesn’t catch hold, the reason Romney’s not getting any traction, the reason Romney’s not running away with this, is because of the conservatives who have been challenging him. And they think none of these conservatives can win. Santorum can’t win because he’s too conservative. Santorum can’t win because he’s too big a spender, according to Romney and Paul. The Tea Party needs to stop making demands of Boehner and company. The conservatives are screwing everything up. The Republican establishment is essentially saying that the conservatives are screwing everything up, making a mess of this. That if it weren’t for the conservatives, which is just the party, if it weren’t for the conservatives, Romney would have had the nomination sewn up by now, damn it. If it weren’t for the conservatives, all this would be done and everything would be hunky-dory. It’s funny. It is breathtaking to watch.

According to gallup.com, Conservatives continue to be the largest political ideology in America, with 40% of the population.  35# of Americans claim to be Moderates, and 21% identify themselves as Liberals.

Also, per Gallup, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

The G.O.P. Power Brokers have failed to take into consideration the old-fashioned American system of Faith and Values, that still flourishes in the Heartland.

Frank Newport, PhD, is the Editor-in-Chief of Gallup.com.  Last Thursday, he wrote the following assessment of the Republican Primary, so far:

As predicted, Rick Santorum has moved up in support among Republicans nationwide. Meanwhile Newt Gingrich is down and Mitt Romney has slipped modestly. We are now in a situation in which Romney and Santorum are statistically tied. Santorum’s meteoric rise is, of course, a direct reaction to the results of his Feb. 7 victories in the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota as well as the primary in Missouri.

Now when I say direct reaction, I’m underscoring the fascinating way in which Republican support has played itself out all year. Generally speaking, a sizable segment of Republicans nationally have been willing to shift their preferences from candidate to candidate extremely quickly, based on the latest events on the campaign trail. These events have mostly been debates and actual voting in primary and caucus states.

When Gallup reaches a person by phone who identifies themselves as a Republican or says that they lean Republican, it seems like we essentially find them figuratively scratching their heads and scanning the news environment to figure out whom they support. As in “Hmmmm, I see in the news that Rick Santorum won in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri Tuesday night, so I guess I will support him.” This suggests that Republicans nationally are letting the process provide them with a continuing flow of information that they take into account when constantly adjusting their support preferences. The fact that they are open to this type of movement, of course, allows us to rule out the hypothesis that large numbers (i.e., a majority) of Republicans across the land are excited by Romney and eager to get behind his candidacy.

This is not exactly how the Mitt Romney campaign team had hoped this would play out. They were hoping that Republicans nationwide would coalesce around Romney in the same way the coalesced around John McCain by February 2008. By late February 2008, over 6 in 10 Republicans nationally supported McCain. We certainly have not seen that level of support for any candidate so far this year.

The G.O.P. Establishment are victims of their own pomposity.  They believed that by putting all of their considerable resources behind a clearly Center-Left candidate, that they could force the Conservative Base to compromise their believes, swallow hard, and vote for Mitt “The Legacy” Romney.

So far, it appears they were wrong.

Which Will Come First: $5 Per Gallon Gas or an Iranian War?

When Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated the 44th President of the United States, back in January of 2009, a gallon of gas cost $1.84.

A little over a month before Obama ascended to his throne, his loyal minion, Tom Brokaw, of NBC, made the following suggestion:

Let’s talk for a moment about consumer responsibility when it comes to the auto industries. As soon as gas prices dropped, consumers moved back to the larger cars once again. The SUVs are the big gas consumers. Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallon where people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers: “Those days are gone. We’re not going to have gasoline that you could just fill up your tank for 20 bucks anymore.”

Well, it look like ol’ Liberal Tom is going to get his wish:

CNBC.com has the story:

The world’s top oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, appears to have cut both its oil production and export in December, according to the latest update by the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI), an official source of oil production, consumption and export data.

The OPEC heavyweight saw production decline by 237,000 barrels per day (bpd) from three-decade highs of 10.047 million bpd in November, the JODI data showed on Sunday.

The draw-down was sharper for the actual amount exported, declining by 440,000 bpd, or 5.6 percent, to come in at 7.364 million bpd, the data also showed. The level would still be similar to exports after a steep ramp-up last June.

In its monthly report on February 10, the IEA put Saudi Arabia’s production number for December slightly lower at 9.55 million bpd, a disparity of 260,000 bpd versus the JODI data.

Iran appeared not to have filed data in time for the latest release, providing no additional clues about how many export barrels were already lost in December, as some reports have suggested.

In a related story, courtesy of Reuters.com:

Iran has stopped selling crude to British and French companies, the oil ministry said on Sunday, in a retaliatory measure against fresh EU sanctions on the Islamic state’s lifeblood, oil.

“Exporting crude to British and French companies has been stopped … we will sell our oil to new customers,” spokesman Alireza Nikzad was quoted as saying by the Ministry of Petroleum website.

The European Union in January decided to stop importing crude from Iran from July 1 over its disputed nuclear program, which the West says is aimed at building bombs. Iran denies this.

Iran’s oil minister said on February 4 that the Islamic state would cut its oil exports to “some” European countries.

The European Commission said last week that the bloc would not be short of oil if Iran stopped crude exports, as they have enough in stock to meet their needs for around 120 days.

Industry sources told Reuters on February 16 that Iran’s top oil buyers in Europe were making substantial cuts in supply months in advance of European Union sanctions, reducing flows to the continent in March by more than a third – or over 300,000 barrels daily.

France’s Total has already stopped buying Iran’s crude, which is subject to fresh EU embargoes. Market sources said Royal Dutch Shell has scaled back sharply. Shell had no comment on the announcement.

Among European nations, debt-ridden Greece is most exposed to Iranian oil disruption.

Motor Oil Hellas of Greece was thought to have cut out Iranian crude altogether and compatriot Hellenic Petroleum along with Spain’s Cepsa and Repsol were curbing imports from Iran.

Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said.

By the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban.

And, if ke you lose your breakfast, this probably will.

The Associated Press reports that:

The U.S. and Britain on Sunday urged Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear program as the White House’s national security adviser arrived in the region, reflecting growing international jitters that the Israelis are poised to strike.

In their warnings, both the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague said an Israeli attack on Iran would have grave consequences for the entire region and urged Israel to give international sanctions against Tehran more time to work. Dempsey said an Israeli attack is “not prudent,” and Hague said it would not be “a wise thing.” It was not known whether their messages were coordinated.

Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb – a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how to respond to the perceived threat.

The U.S. and the European Union have both imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. With the sanctions just beginning to bite, they have expressed optimism that Iran can be persuaded to curb its nuclear ambitions.

[As mentioned earlier] On Sunday, Iran’s Oil Ministry said it has halted oil shipments to Britain and France in an apparent pre-emptive blow against the European Union. The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the National Iranian Oil Company has sent letters to some European refineries with an ultimatum to either sign long-term contracts of two to five years or be cut off. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

Israel has welcomed the sanctions. But it has pointedly refused to rule out military action and in recent weeks sent signals that its patience is running thin.

Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its very existence, citing Iran’s support for Arab militant groups, its sophisticated arsenal of missiles capable of reaching Israel and its leaders’ calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Last week, Israel accused Iran of being behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.

There is precedent for Israeli action. In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. And in 2007, Israeli warplanes are believed to have destroyed a target that foreign experts think was an unfinished nuclear reactor in Syria.

So, America, here we are, with our Ship of State on a precipice, looking down into the abyss.

And at the helm, we have our own Dear Leader, who is busily counting all the money he will be able to give to his Green Energy Cabal, after the $5 per gallon gas prices hit.  And, at the same time figuring out how to appease the hungry lion (the Muslim Brotherhood), so that they will eat us last.

That is…if the world doesn’t blow up first.

Santorum: Obama Has a Different Theology

Republican Candidate for their Presidential Nomination, Rick Santorum,  made some remarks about the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that have been been the fodder for conversations around office coolers and Sunday after-church lunches for 3 years now.

Reuters.com has the story:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a “different theology.”

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama’s values run against those of Christianity.

“He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to,” Santorum told reporters.

A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage.

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

So, is President Barack Hussein Obama, a Christian?

For 20 years, Obama sat under the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ .  Let’s look at the background of Rev. Wright, courtesy of freerepublic.com, shall we?

What most people do not know is that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a Muslim and a Black Activist before he became the founding pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology Church.

The rest, you already know.  As a reminder, though, Discoverthenetworks.org gives us the following summation of  Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

  • Longtime pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama
  • Considers the U.S. to be a nation rife with racism and discrimination
  • Blames American racism for provoking the 9/11 attacks
  • “Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize,” he has written. “Islam comes out of Christianity.”
  • Embraces liberation theology and socialism
  • Strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan
  • Likens Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era

But, what is Black Liberation Theology?

Again, discoverthenetworks.org gives us the lowdown:

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

Matthew 7:16 tells us,

You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Think back on the last three years and try to remember some of the actions by President Barack Hussein Obama.

For instance, one of the first things he did when ascending to the throne, err, the presidency, was to lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad.

Per reuters.com:

The Democratic president’s decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.

Now, three years later, Obama has made the headlines in his attempt, through the bureaucratic monster known as Obamacare, to force Catholic Hospitals to go against their Denomination’s beliefs and to make them provide contraception and the morning after (abortion) pill.

Again, think back on everything he has done in between these two specific cases.

Is he a Christian?  

“You will recognize them by their fruits.”

What Happened to “Mr. Inevitable”?

It’s seems like, just the other day, that Mitt Romney supporters, known on Conservative websites as “Mittbots” were insisting that the Nomination of Mitt “The Legacy” Romney as the Republican Presidential Candidate was a fait d’accompli.

Things have changed.

Reuters.com has the story.

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s struggles in Michigan are fueling speculation that Republicans might have to resort to a doomsday scenario and launch a frantic search for a 2012 savior at their nominating convention in late August.

Rare in the modern age of U.S. politics, a “brokered convention” could result in Republicans ditching their current crop of candidates and turning to someone else who they feel would have a better chance of defeating Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

How did Republicans get to this point? Romney’s failure to get conservatives fully behind him and put down yet another challenger in the party – this time it’s Rick Santorum – is causing angst in the party.

Many senior Republicans do not think Santorum, a social conservative caught up in the U.S. culture wars over issues like abortion and contraception, has a chance to beat Obama if he wins the party’s presidential nomination.

When he ran for re-election as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania in 2006, Santorum lost by 18 percentage points. But, nevertheless, he is exposing Romney’s weaknesses in Michigan, where Santorum leads polls ahead of the big Midwestern state’s February 28 primary.

A Romney loss to Santorum in Michigan, the state where he was born and where his father was governor, would only intensify the talk about a weak Republican field and feed demands for someone else as the party’s candidate to challenge Obama.

“It’s hard for me to see how Romney rights the ship if he loses Michigan,” said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. “There is no level of spin that can overcome that disaster.”

Michigan will set the table for “Super Tuesday,” the March 6 jackpot when 10 states hold Republican nominating contests. A loss for Romney in Michigan would raise serious doubts over whether he can rally enough support to have a big day on Super Tuesday and make a big move toward clinching the nomination.

The candidates are engaging in a state-by-state battle to become the Republican nominee. The party will officially pick a nominee at its August convention in Tampa, Florida.

Why is Romney losing in what was once his “home state”, a state where his own father, George Romney, was once Governor?

L.Z. Granderson, in an article published on CNN.com, has a possible explanation:

One very clear reason why Mitt Romney is far from a lock to win the Michigan primary, despite his ties to the state, is that he’s not really tied to the state.

He was born here, he lived here. But he’s not family. Not anymore.

That’s why the characterization of Rick Santorum polling well in Romney’s backyard is a bit misguided. The truth is, many of us disowned that two-faced liar years ago. We remember how, back in 2008, Romney came home promising to do all he could to save the auto industry. And we believed him and voted for him and he won the primary here. Then, after he dropped out of the race, he wrote a New York Times op-ed that carried the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

The opening sentence: “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”

What the he@@?

I thought he said he was one of us.

Later in the piece, Romney talks about why we should let the auto industry go bankrupt. Although he lays out some very sound reasons for this — including an anecdotal story of when his father, George, took over American Motors — at the end of the day he fails to mention the most important thing. Us.

He forgot about the people back home who depended on the auto industry to put food on the table, pay mortgages, send the kids to college. He greeted us like family when he needed our votes, but when he left town he treated us like strangers.

If Romney didn’t think a bailout was the best way to help the state, he should have said that when he came here looking for delegates and let the people at his rallies decide if they agreed with him. Instead he pandered, then kicked dirt in our faces on his way out the door — an all too familiar pattern with Romney.

The reason Santorum is gaining votes in Michigan isn’t because he’s so liked here, though his social conservative rhetoric plays well in the western side of the state. But it’s because we’ve been burned by Romney before. He tells the people in front of him what they want to hear. But when he sets his sights on a new shiny object, he changes the script to fit his new needs.

Unfortunately, for The Legacy, other Americans besides Granderson and the Michiganders have figured out his Karma Chameleon nature, also.

According  to pollster Scott Rasmussen:

…Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has now bounced to a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Santorum with 39% support to the former Massachusetts governor’s 27%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich follows from a distance with 15% of the vote, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul runs last with 10%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Now, I’m just an average American, sitting here outside Memphis, Tennessee (Detroit South) in the Northwest Corner of Mississippi, but it seems to me, as I’ve said before, that average Americans, especially Conservatives here in the Heartland, are a stiff-necked people.

We tend to stand up on our hind legs when someone tries to force something (or in this case, someone) upon us that we really don’t trust, or care for.

For an example, please watch a certain Supreme Court Case coming in a few months, concerning the Constitutionality of forcing everyone in America to buy Health Insurance in order to participate in a Federal Government-run bureaucratic nightmare of a Healthcare System, that the overwhelming majority of Americans remain opposed to, but was shoved down our throats, anyway.

By the way, where did Obama and his Administration ever find a state-run Healthcare System to model Obamacare after?

Oh, yeah.  Romneycare.

You know, that might have something to do with Romney’s campaign tanking, as well.

What do YOU think?

Iran: Those Who Do Not Learn From History…

Since the ouster of the Shah, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the Free World, and, especially, the United States of America.

Are you old enough to remember the Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

 On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of some 300 to 500 “students” who called themselves “Imam’s Disciples,” laid siege to the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, to capture and hold hostage 66 U.S. citizens and diplomats. Although women and African-Americans were released a short time later, 51 hostages remained imprisoned for 444 days with another individual released because of illness midway through the ordeal.

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

Unfortunately, these same barbarians now have new “toys” to threaten us with.

USNews.com has the story:

Iran has the ability to fire missiles at U.S. targets in the Middle East and “temporarily” close a key sea transit route, a senior intelligence official said Thursday. Tehran has a missile arsenal capable of reaching “targets throughout the region and into Eastern Europe,” Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Defense Intelligence Agency director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Iran has … threatened to launch missiles against the United States and our allies in the region in response to an attack” on its nuclear facilities or other targets, he said. What’s more, Iran “could also employ its terrorist surrogates worldwide,” Burgess said. He also noted that “Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz,” the key sea lane used to move oil and other goods to destinations around the globe. The U.S. intelligence community believes Iran “is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack,” Burgess told the panel.

The Leader of Israel has a better grasp of this dangerous situation than the Obama Administration does.  Ynetnews.com reports that

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias signed a search and rescue agreement on Thursday. According to the agreement, in the event of a disaster Israeli aircraft will be authorized to enter Cyprus’ airspace, and vice versa. A similar agreement between the Jewish state and Turkey was revoked recently in light of heightened tensions between the countries. While in Nicosia, Netanyahu also addressed the Iranian nuclear threat, saying the sanctions imposed by the international community on the Islamic Republic “are not working.” Iran is the most irresponsible force in the world, he said, claiming the sactions imposed on the Islamic Republic have not had an effect so far. According to Netanyahu, the regime in Tehran violates every resolution and has no respect for international norms. He added that Iran’s race towards nuclear weapons should concern the US and every other country. Nuclear arms in the hands of the Iranian regime is a cause for great concern to the US and Israel, he said.

The U.S. Senate is concerned, as Freebeacon.com reports:

A bipartisan slate of senators announced this afternoon they would reject “any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.” Drawing a clear line in the sand, the senators – among them Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) – demanded that President Obama reject “any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat,” according to a new Senate resolution set to be unveiled later today. The resolution “warns that time is limited to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapon” and demands that the hostile regime immediately suspend all uranium enrichment activities. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is the resolution’s thorough accounting of the Iranian regime’s hostile behavior. It details, for example, Iran’s connections to terror groups and its various efforts to harm U.S. interests across the Middle East. “Iran has provided weapons, training, funding, and direction to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq that are responsible for the murders of hundreds of American forces and innocent civilians,” the resolution declares. It states unequivocally that Iran and nuclear weapons are simply anathema. “If Iran were successful in acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, it would likely spur other countries in the region to consider developing their own nuclear weapons capabilities,” it reads. Earlier in the week, opponents of tough action towards Iran appeared almost gleeful over reports that lawmakers were having trouble attracting Democrats to the resolution.

Evidently, these Senators opposing tough action, learned nothing from the Hostage Crisis.

Those who do not learn from history…are doomed to repeat it.  

The War Against Christianity: Battleground Your Child’s School

According to a study done by The Pew Forum on Public and Religious Life, completed in January of 2011, and reported in USA Today, the number of Muslims in American will almost double by the year 2030, growing from a mere 1 % of our population to 1.7%.

However, if you read the articles about Muslims in the Main Stream Media, and all the hubbub concerning the poorly received series on TLC, All-American Muslim, an average American would think that they were a vibrant, rapidly growing, sizable minority here in America.

Liberals are bound and determined to push Islam down our American Christian Conservative throats…by indoctrinating our children:

Check out this story from foxnews.com:

A Colorado high school student says he quit the school choir after an Islamic song containing the lyric “there is no truth except Allah” made it into the repertoire.

James Harper, a senior at Grand Junction High School in Grand Junction, put his objection to singing “Zikr,” a song written by Indian composer A.R. Rahman, in an email to Mesa County School District 51 officials. When the school stood by choir director Marcia Wieland’s selection, Harper said, he quit.

“I don’t want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don’t feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song,” Harper told KREX-TV. “This is worshipping another God, and even worshipping another prophet … I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth.”

But district spokesman Jeff Kirtland defended the decision to include the song.

“Choral music is often devoted to religious themes. … This is not a case where the school is endorsing or promoting any particular religion or other non-educational agenda. The song was chosen because its rhythms and other qualities would provide an opportunity to exhibit the musical talent and skills of the group in competition, not because of its religious message or lyrics,” Kirtland told FoxNews.com in an email while noting that the choir “is a voluntary, after-school activity.”

“Students are not required to participate, and receive no academic credit for doing so,” he said.

At an upcoming concert, the choir is scheduled to sing an Irish folk song and an Christian song titled “Prayer of the Children,” in addition to the song by Rahman.

“The teacher consulted with students and asked each of them to review an online performance of the selection with their parents before making the decision to perform the piece,” Kirtland said, and members who object to the religious content of musical selections aren’t required to sing them.

Rahman, who has sold hundreds of millions of records and is well-known in his homeland, has said the song is not intended for a worship ceremony. He told FoxNews.com in a written statement that the song, composed for the move “Bose, the Forgotten Hero,” is about “self-healing and spirituality.”

“It is unfortunate that the student in Colorado misinterpreted the intention of the song,” Rahman said. “I have long celebrated the commonalities of humanity and try to share and receive things in this way. While I respect his decision for opting out, this incident is an example of why we need further cultural education through music.”

The state of Florida is not immune from the Liberals’ plans, either.  Again, Fox News reports:

Parents in Tampa are the latest to protest school officials inviting a controversial Muslim civil liberties advocacy group to speak to students.

Dozens of people showed up at a Hillsborough County school board meeting Tuesday night to complain that a member of Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, spoke to history students at Steinbrenner High School last fall. They cited the group’s alleged ties to terrorist group Hamas. The group, which purports to promote diversity and tolerance of the religion, has met a similar reception in Texas and Georgia in recent years.

“We do not have a problem with Islamic groups speaking with students, but we do have an issue with a group that has ties to terrorism speaking,” Randall McDaniels, head of the Jacksonville Chapter of ACT for America, one of the groups actively seeking to stop CAIR members from speaking to students in public schools, told FoxNews.com

CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor dismissed the criticism as “fear-mongering.” Hassan Shibly, the Florida CAIR member who spoke to the students, said the parents are misguided.

“This hatred and animosity only shows the importance of reaching out to the community,” he said, “It’s insulting to the school and the students to think that one person can influence their beliefs. It’s misleading.”

The group, the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization, also has come under criticism for, among other reasons, being named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror financing case involving the Holy Land Foundation.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute who focuses on the Middle East and terrorism, said concerns about CAIR are not unfounded.

“They have been co-conspirators in a terrorism finance trial and seek to stymie debate rather than safeguard it,” Rubin said. “Almost every day, jihadists on religious Internet forums belie CAIR’s claim that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. Ultimately, there is a battle for interpretation going on inside the world of Islam, and rather than seek to win that debate for the moderates and proponents of tolerance, CAIR acts as the jihadists’ offensive linesmen.”

Parents in the Houston-area town of Friendswood objected to a presentation CAIR made to junior high students in 2008, sparking a furor that led to the principal’s resignation. In 2010, parents in Gwenett County, Ga., forced the school system to disinvite CAIR from holding classroom presentations.

Gosh.  The Liberals’ plans for the Islamic indoctrination of our Schoolchildren, in the name of diversity, are not going so well.  

These Liberal school administrations found out, as President Obama has, facing a backlash over his arrogant plan to force Catholic Hospitals to dispense birth control and the morning after pill, that this country was founded on a system of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and 78% of our citizens (according to gallup.com) still proudly proclaim their Christian Heritage…and they’re not about to give it up.

Obama to Cut National Defense to 1950 Level

When he assumed office, President Ronald Reagan faced the daunting task of rebuilding our National Defense, decimated by his ineffectual predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan, as he always did, went directly to the American people, in a televised speech given on the night of March 23, 1983.

Presidentialrhetoric.com provides the transcript:

…The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression. This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable – quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age. We can’t afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn’t start them and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better prepared, peace might have been preserved.

For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn’t stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven’t stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons- weapons that can strike directly at the United States.

…This is why I’m speaking to you tonight – to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It’s up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.

President Reagan coined a very famous, but simple, phrase describing his Foreign Policy:  

Trust, but Verify.

Evidently,  our 44th president and his Administrative Staff only believe in the first half of that phrase.

LATimes.com reports:

President Obama greeted the Chinese heir apparent in the Oval Office on Tuesday morning, a venue where the U.S. president usually receives only the nation’s closest friends.

But even as the two countries eye one another warily, the Obama administration wants to keep its options open with Vice President Xi Jinping as he prepares to take his place as president next year.

In a joint appearance before their meeting, Obama told reporters that the U.S. relationship with China is based on “mutual interest and mutual respect,” and that such a relationship is in the interests of the rest of the world, too.

The United States welcomes China’s “peaceful rise,” Obama said, which he said has the power to “help to bring stability and prosperity to the world.”

As Al Jolson once said:

Wait a minute…wait a minute…you ain’t seen nothing yet!

According to the Associated Press :

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

All you Americans in your 50s, like me, and older…remember the old “Duck and Cover” films we watched in school?

Well, those things we learned from those films, won’t help now.

I suggest prayer.