Barack Obama Part Fourteen

OBAMA AND THE MILITARY

(Return to Table of Contents)

Prepared to Cut or Abandon Missile Defense Funding

Obama has consistently opposed America's active pursuit of a missile defense system. In a February 2008 campaign ad, he stated: “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space.”

In June 2009, President Obama submitted to Congress a defense budget for fiscal year 2010 that called for cutting $1.4 billion from the Missile Defense Agency.

On September 17, 2009—the 70th anniversary of the day the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939—the Obama administration, bowing to intense pressure from Russia, abandoned proposals (forged during the Bush administration) to set up a missile defense shield in Europe. CNS News reported: “The move will resonate in Poland and the Czech Republic, where governments weathered domestic unease and Russian fury by signing agreements with the Bush administration in 2008 to host elements of the system.... The ballistic missile defense (BMD) umbrella was aimed at protecting the U.S. and its allies against potential aggression from Iran ... But the Kremlin characterized the BMD plan as a threat to Russian security and threatened retaliatory steps.”

Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardner called the move “an appalling surrender to Russian demands, and the shameful appeasement of an increasingly aggressive regime that is openly flexing its muscle in an effort to intimidate ex-members of the Warsaw Pact.”

Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president, said: “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe. The way we are being approached needs to change.”

Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the system, said: “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”

According to political analyst and retired military officer Ralph Peters, “Obama got nothing in return. No Russian commitments on Iran's nuclear program. No sovereignty guarantees for Georgia. No restrictions on arms sales to Venezuela.”

Obama Privately Tells Russian President: “After My Election I Have More Flexibility”

On March 26, 2012, President Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that if his successor, Vladimir Putin, would hive him “space,” he (Obama) would have more flexibility to strike a missile-defense bargain “after my election.” The remarkably revealing exchange went as follows:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Obama Calls for Cuts in Military Generally, and in Nuclear Arsenal Particularly

Said candidate Obama in 2008: “I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.... I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material….”

From the earliest days of his presidency, Obama signaled his intent to slow defense spending (particularly in terms of modernizing and upgrading existing weapons systems); to cut funding for ballistic missile-defense systems; and to adopt a new arms-control deal with the Kremlin that would drastically reduce the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia alike (as a steppingstone toward Obama’s stated goal of a global ban on all such instruments of war).

In his June 2009 defense budget for fiscal year 2010, Obama proposed limiting the number of F-22 Fighter Jets to 186, well below the 243 that Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz had recently recommended as a bare-bones minimum. He also advocated canceling the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, despite the fact that it was the only program through which the Army could replace most of its tracked vehicles—many of which dated back to the 1970s.

In Obama’s 2010 budget overall, fully 82% of all discretionary program terminations targeted military programs, and 55% of all budget cuts were for military-related items.

Nuclear Arms Reduction Deal with Russia

On April 8, 2010 in Prague, President Obama signed the New START bilateral arms control agreement with Russia, limiting each country's long-range nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,500. (America's existing nuclear weapons arsenal at that time was 5,113.) Constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafley explored the details of this deal and its implications: “It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States.... The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.... The fantasy that our abandonment of nuclear weapons will inspire other nations to follow our example is so foolish that it can only be described as nuts.... The treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, leaving Russia with a 10-to-one numeric superiority, which Russia has threatened to use in regional conflicts. We could build more tactical missiles, but there is no chance Obama will do that. New START gives up the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production that were requirements of previous treaties.”

Added Schlafley: “Obama has made it clear that his eagerness for a nuclear-zero world also means a world without any defense against nuclear weapons. He has cut spending for missile defenses and killed or mothballed the few innovative programs we have to knock down incoming rockets in their boost phase. Ever since President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, the Kremlin has tried to ban all U.S. missile defenses. The Kremlin brags that it achieved this goal in New START. This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles.... Russia explained that ... it will stick with New START 'only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.'”

Under the treaty, both the U.S. and Russia agreed to limits in numbers of warheads, but only America promised to freeze its technology.

After having signed the New START nuclear treaty with Russia, a pact that committed the United States to reducing its arsenal of deployed strategic long-range nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018, President Obama further considered reducing that figure (for America only) to as few as 300. Indeed, in February 2012 the White House directed the Defense Department to examine three levels of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: 1,000 to 1,100 warheads; 700 to 800 warheads; and 300 to 400 warheads (a level not seen since 1950). Many American military officials contend that the 1,550 level mandated by New START is the lowest level that can be used to maintain deterrence of a nuclear attack.

America’s nuclear delivery platforms are already among the oldest in the world. For example, the average age of U.S. nuclear delivery platforms is 50 years for the B-52H bomber; 41 years for the Minuteman III; 28 years for the Ohio-class submarine; 21 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM; and 14 years for the B-2 bomber.

In February 2012, President Obama proposed $487 billion in military spending cuts over a ten-year period. In addition, “sequestration” cuts totaling another $500 billion were scheduled for implementation in January 2013, bringing the total cuts for the decade to nearly $1 trillion. Sequestration alone—i.e., even without the additional $487 billion in cuts—would give the U.S. its smallest number of ground forces since 1940; a Navy fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915; and the smallest tactical fighter force the Air Force has ever had. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly told Congress that the sequestration reductions would create a situation of “very high risk” to national security. “[S]equestration,” said Dempsey, “leaves me three places to go to get the money: operations, maintenance and training. That’s the definition of a hollow force.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said, “No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy.”

Obama Administration Gave British Nuclear Codes to Russia to Help Induce Russia to Sign the New START Treaty

In early February 2011, the website WikiLeaks made public some 1,400 secret U.S. embassy cables which suggested that the U.S. government had covertly agreed to share sensitive information about Britain’s nuclear program—specifically, the serial numbers of every Trident missile the U.S. had supplied to Britain—in exchange for Russian cooperation in signing the New START agreement in April 2010. Although the treaty did not involve Britain, the leaked cables showed that Russia had used the negotiations to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the United States. In 2009 the Obama administration had asked London for permission to supply Moscow with details about the performance of UK missiles, but the UK refused. Britain historically has sought to maintain secrecy regarding its nuclear arsenal because of that arsenal's relatively small size.

Political columnist Thomas Sowell made the following observations about the Obama administration's actions vis a vis the British nuclear secrets: “To betray vital military secrets of this country's oldest, most steadfast and most powerful ally, behind the back of the British government, is something that should set off alarm bells.... Nations that ally themselves with the United States, and who cooperate in many ways to oppose the threat of international terrorism, do so at the risk of their own national safety and even survival. To make America's reciprocal commitments to them contingent on the whims of each new administration is to make other nations have to think twice about allying themselves with the U.S.”

Obama Signals that U.S. May Share Nuclear Defense Secrets with Russia

On January 4, 2012, Bill Gertz reported the following in The Washington Times: “President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.... U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with [Standard Missile-3 velocity] data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal. There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defenses. Officials from the State Department and Missile Defense Agency have discussed the idea of providing the SM-3 data to the Russians as part of the so-far fruitless missile-defense talks with Moscow … Their thinking is that if the Russians know the technical data, it will help allay Moscow’s fears that the planned missile defenses in Europe would be used against Russian ICBMs.”

Russia, China, and Others Aim to Expand Their Nuclear Arsenals

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently said, “We should not lead anyone to temptation by our weakness. That is why under no circumstances will we give up the strategic deterrence potential and we will strengthen it.” In 2011 alone the Russian government announced that it would be buying 36 strategic ballistic missiles, 2 strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles, while also upgrading and expanding its ballistic missiles and Independently Targeted Warheads.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that both Pakistan and India “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” while “expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.”

China is reportedly modernizing every element of its strategic triad for delivering nuclear warheads (submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles, and weapons launched from big bombers). Moreover, there is speculation that China's nuclear arsenal—commonly believed to consist of about 240 nuclear warheads—may actually include an additional 1,000 to 3,500 nuclear devices hidden in a 5,000-mile network of underground tunnels.

OBAMA AND IMMIGRATION

(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama in 2006 Writes That a Vast Influx of Immigrants Could Harm Native-Born Blacks

In his 2006 autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational. The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Opposing Immigration Raids

President Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal immigrants in workplaces or housing units.

“Path to Citizenship”

Obama says the U.S. should “allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” He supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens, so as to “bring people out of the shadows” and allow them “to fully embrace our values and become full members of our democracy.”

Driver's Licenses for Illegals

Obama favors permitting illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. “When I was a state senator in Illinois,” Obama has said, “I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention. The problem we have here is not driver’s licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive. They’re here to work.”

Social Security Benefits for Illegals

As a senator, Obama voted in favor of allowing former illegal aliens who had previously worked at jobs under phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to someday reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have made while they were so employed.

“Family Reunification”

As a senator, Obama voted in favor of an amendment placing an expiration date on a point-based immigration system (i.e., a system that seeks to ensure that people with skills that society needs are given preference for entry into the United States). Obama instead advocates a system focusing on the reunification of family members, even if that means permitting the relatives of illegal aliens to join the latter in America.

The DREAM Act

As a U.S. senator, Obama was a supporter of the DREAM Act, legislation that would allow illegal-alien students to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents, and to earn conditional permanent residency and a path to citizenshipi. He helped to pass a state version of such a law in Illinois during his years as a state senator.

Legalizing Illegal Aliens, to Make Them Eligible for Health Care

On September 18, 2009, The Washington Times reported: “President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.” “Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally,” Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, “... this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”

Obama Lifts HIV Immigration Ban

On October 30, 2009, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise he had made to gay advocates, when he announced the end of a 22-year ban on travel and immigration to the United States by people who had tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Obama's announcement was effectively a declaration that the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) designation of HIV as a "communicable disease of public health significance" was no longer operative, even though: (a) other sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, chancroid, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum remained on the HHS list, and (b) each year, some 16,000 people in the U.S. were dying of AIDS, while another 56,000 were becoming newly infected with HIV.

In making his announcement, Obama derided the longstanding ban as "a decision rooted in fear rather than fact"; a "stigma" that unfairly "treated a visitor living with it as a threat." "[W]e are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people [with] HIV from entering our own country," Obama said. "If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it."

Obama Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

In September 2010, the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his aggressive policies against illegal immigration. In the greater Phoenix area, Arpaio had established a hotline for the public to report immigration violations. He also had conducted numerous crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods, and he frequently raided workplaces in search of people residing in the U.S. illegally.

Changing Deportation Policy

In August 2011, President Obama issued an executive order to prevent potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court from moving forward if they did not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that the agency would launch a case-by-case review of 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the nation to focus on the federal government’s top priority, detaining and deporting criminals and serious violators of immigration law. Immigrants classified as low-priority cases would be eligible to receive a stay of deportation and the chance to apply for a work permit.

Obama Says He Will No Longer Deport Illegal Minors

In June 2012 President Obama, frustrated that Congress had thus far failed to pass the DREAM Act, issued an executive order that mimicked some of the Act's provisions. Most notably, the order stated that the administration would grant a two-year deferral from deportation to young illegal immigrants who had entered the United States as minors if they: (a) posed no criminal or security threat; (b) were successful students; or (c) were serving in the military. Obama's order also allowed those meeting these requirements to apply for work permits, provided they could demonstrate that they had been living in the United States continuously for at least five years.

Stating that children of illegal immigrants "study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said, "it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans."

The Obama administration estimated that the policy change would affect some 800,000 people.

Obama Administration Falsifies Its Deportation Statistics

In August 2012, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the Obama administration had “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost the number of deportations for which it took credit. The Border Patrol and the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are the federal government's two chief immigration law enforcement branches. The jurisdiction of Border Patrol agents runs along America's international boundaries, and the illegal immigrants those agents apprehend are generally returned directly to their country of origin—most often Mexico—rather than put into formal deportation proceedings. Because the Border Patrol's “voluntary returns” carry no significant penalties, people who are removed in this manner commonly try to re-enter the U.S. again, with no little to no risk of punishment. ICE, by contrast, generally handles the more formal deportation proceedings, where penalties can be significant. ICE also handles interior enforcement—i.e., cases involving illegals who have progressed well beyond the U.S.-Mexico border.

Smith’s committee found that the Obama administration for several years had been mixing many Border Patrol apprehensions with ICE's deportation statistics. When the Border Patrol numbers were subtracted, said Smith, deportations actually had declined every year since Obama first took office in 2009, dropping from approximately 395,000 that year to about 330,000 in 2011. Said Smith: “It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals. These ‘removals’ from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year—and counted each time as a removal.”

More Proof That the Obama Administration Has Long Been Falsifying Its Deportation Statistics

On April 19, 2013, National Review reported the following:

It is one of the Obama administration’s favorite talking points on immigration: It has been deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers. That bolsters its credentials on enforcement and supports the argument that, now that we’ve gotten tough on the border, it is time to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

But figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations appears to have declined significantly during the president’s term in office.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, has analyzed a set of largely unpublished official statistics on immigration-enforcement activity over the past five years. Earlier this month, Vaughan testified in court on behalf of a group of U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents who are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. The agents are seeking an injunction against a series of policy directives from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that were designed to regulate the extent to which ICE officers could initiate deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants in their custody.

In her testimony on April 8, Vaughan noted that, contrary to the administration’s claims, the number of illegal-immigrant removals has dropped 40 percent since June 2011, when ICE director John Morton issued the first of several directives outlining significant changes to the agency’s enforcement policies. “There has been a significant decline in enforcement activity as measured by the number of removals,” Vaughan says.

Deportations specifically of illegal immigrants convicted of a crime — individuals the administration says it has prioritized for removal — are similarly down, almost 40 percent since June 2011, Vaughan found. And that decline has occurred despite a significant increase in the number of illegal immigrants referred to ICE after being arrested for crimes. “There are certainly enough illegal aliens out there, especially enough criminal illegal aliens, that their numbers should be going up, not down,” Vaughan says. “So they appear to be giving a lot of free passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally.”

Removals generated by ICE’s Enforcement and Removals division, which is responsible for interior immigration enforcement, have decreased nearly 50 percent since June 2011. Vaughan says the administration has been inflating its deportation statistics by including a greater number of U.S. Border Patrol cases — illegal immigrants picked up at the border and subsequently referred to ICE — as part of its annual statistics. Border Patrol cases accounted for 56 percent of removals reported in fiscal year 2013, up from 33 percent in 2008. Typically, an individual apprehended at the southern border is simply returned to Mexico without being processed as a deportation by ICE.

Vaughan says this undermines the administration’s claim that pursuing criminal cases is its top priority. This was the primary argument that DHS secretary Janet Napolitano put forward in June 2012, when she issued a directive instructing ICE officers to refrain from initiating deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants who might qualify for “DREAM status” — immigrants who were brought here illegally, are currently enrolled in school or the military, and have not been convicted of a serious crime. “They have been justifying policies by saying it enables them to focus more on criminals,” Vaughan says. “What’s happening is actually the opposite. The majority of resources are going toward supporting Border Patrol activity.” ...

“DHS and ICE are knowingly manipulating arrest and deportation data with the specific intent of misleading the American public with regard to the enforcement of illegal immigration in our country,” [Chris Crane, who heads the union representing more than 7,000 ICE agents and officers] told reporters Thursday at a Capitol Hill press conference. “At an alarming rate, ICE arrest and deportation numbers have plummeted since 2008, clear evidence that interior enforcement has in large part been shut down over the last four years.”

Administration lawyers did not extensively challenge Vaughan’s court testimony, other than to introduce a bar graph, based on ICE statistics, showing that convicted criminals accounted for 55 percent of all deportations in fiscal year 2012. That figure is misleadingly high, Vaughan stresses, because it includes a large number of Border Patrol removals referred to ICE. In some cases that transfer process may have led to double counting, further inflating the total number of removals, she says.

Opposing the Border Fence

In 2005 the Bush administration initiated the construction of a virtual border fence, consisting of a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars designed to spot incursions help determine where Border Patrol agents should be deployed. The project was slated to be completed—i.e., to be monitoring most of America's souther border—by 2011. But progress was minimal, and in early 2011 the Obama administration scrapped the plan. Only 53 miles of operational “virtual fence” had been put in place.

Encouraging Immigration for Welfare-Dependent People

In 2012, the Obama administration watered down existing requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government-assistance programs like food stamps, housing benefits, energy assistance, and childcare services. In response, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions remarked, “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived.” Added Sessions: “More than 100 million people in the U.S., including foreign nationals, are currently receiving some form of federal welfare. Yet despite these historic figures, the Administration is aggressively trying to boost the welfare rolls among non-citizens. USDA has even entered into a partnership with the Mexican government to expand enrollment in food stamps and the fourteen other welfare programs administered by that agency. Actions like this threaten the core premise of American immigration.”