Granted, lots of folks were unfazed by the revelation that all of
America’s nuclear weapons laboratories, once upon a time, were veritable
open doors of information. I blame that on the mainstream media, which
chose to publish only targeted and wholly incomplete information about
just how badly our national security has been compromised by the
But plenty of Americans were concerned when they found out —
frightened, even — that any White House administration could ever so
blatantly disregard security measures to the point where entire nuclear
weapon systems could be stolen. It takes a real idiot — or Manchurian
candidate — to ignore obvious and specific threats to his own country.
In the aftermath of the Chinese-directed espionage campaign to steal
every U.S. weapons secret that wasn’t nailed down, experts in U.S.
intelligence and defense agencies have since told lawmakers and select
journalists that there is nothing left to steal. The secrets are gone
— forever — and it’s just a matter of time before many of them begin
showing up in the arsenals of foreign, potentially hostile, militaries.
Who’s going to be held responsible for that?
No one, if the latest “intelligence” on nuclear lab security is to be
According to several reports over
the weekend, nuclear weapons lab security has been so dramatically
improved, there is no longer anything to worry about, says Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson. So much so, in fact, that he has admonished
critics of his department to stop complaining about lax security
measures because there aren’t any more lax security measures —
serious ones, anyway.
Oh, good — now that the horse is out of the corral, we finally have
“secure” nuclear weapons labs. Considering that the Clinton
administration has cut much of the funding for nuclear weapons research,
development and testing anyway, this “final measure of security” at our
labs is worse than doing nothing. It is a complete abdication of
responsibility and a typical response from a criminal administration.
My own hypothesis is that all of this talk about “improved lab
security” is a hoax.
Consider that Clinton supposedly issued an “order” in 1997 directing
the country’s nuke labs to get with the program and tighten up security
on their own. I mean, everybody from Clinton himself to National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger has told any liberal idiot with a notepad
and a television camera that “the president (dutifully) ordered these
labs to stop letting every foreign national with education credentials
download our most guarded weapons secrets, and by golly, they did.”
On the other hand, the reports over the weekend said Berger blamed
the slow response of the labs to improve security on “bureaucratic
resistance” and “an institutional unwillingness,” which means that the
labs didn’t do a damned thing about improving security until sometime
within the past few months.
That’s curious, considering the “power” Clinton ostensibly wields,
and the power defense agencies have when it comes to producing and,
hence, guarding the nation’s weapons secrets.
To believe Berger’s excuse, you would have to believe that the
directors of these national laboratories — upon receiving instructions
from the president of the United States to tighten security measures or
else — simply said, “No — I’m not doing it.”
No? Whaddaya mean, “No?” Knowing Clinton’s temper, that kind of
answer surely would have drawn this one: “You do it or else” — as it
In short, there is no logical reason to believe that the most
powerful politician in this country, upon ordering those in
charge of nuclear secrets to guard them properly, would have taken “no”
for an answer. In short, there is no logical reason to believe
that a president’s order to tighten nuclear weapon data security would
have been overtly ignored for something like 20 months.
In short, then, Berger — and probably Clinton — have to be lying
Remember when this scandal first broke. The first response
out of this administration was, essentially, “Hey, wait a minute — the
Republicans did that too!” Like Pavlov’s dog, Clintoncrats went
into full denial mode the instant somebody found out our secrets had
been systematically stolen by Chinese agents since 1992.
Furthermore, the link between Chinese money and Clinton’s
presidential campaigns is now as well known as his dalliances with
anything with a skirt. Who can honestly believe that Clinton either
didn’t know our secrets were being stolen or that any order he would
give to better protect those secrets would be ignored?
As Bill Gertz, ace Washington Times defense correspondent, told the
WorldNetDaily conference audience this past weekend, the Clinton
administration believes the U.S. offensive military capability should
not be superior to — but rather on par with — those of our
potential adversaries. In that way, he said, the administration can
pursue a diplomatic agenda of arms reductions and fantasy weapons
agreements, rather than maintaining safety by wielding a bigger stick.
Better security at our nuclear weapons labs? Harumph. Even
if that fictitious assertion were true, what difference does it make
It doesn’t take a president to “win”
No doubt you assumed my thrashing of the GOP whiners yesterday would
most assuredly garner criticism from the remaining diehards of the
party. Well, you were right.
In fact, yesterday, news broke all over the place that Pat Buchanan
may actually take the Reform Party nomination, if it is offered, and
leave the GOP for good. Republican Party chairman Jim Nicholson is
making a last ditch appeal to
Buchanan to prevent him from leaving, which tells me the Republicans are
serious about how many votes Pat will pull with him from the
After all, if Buchanan’s leaving were as unimportant and
as some would have us believe, then why are the Republicans desperate to
keep him on board?
I’ve heard all kinds of reasons to keep the GOP from further
splintering into a plethora of conservative parties. But none of them,
to me, have merit.
One thing is sure, however — it doesn’t take a president to “win”
in American politics. That’s the simple truth GOP lifers and party
elites refuse to acknowledge — much less discuss — with the American
First of all, why do Americans have to have a Republican
president to get conservative Supreme Court judges? And why do
Americans have to have Supreme Court judges with any political
agendas? Justices — like reporters and journalists — are supposed to
be unbiased. They’re not supposed to have political agendas or
support one political credo over another.
If Congress remains in the hands of the GOP, as party elites are
predicting, then where is the danger? Unbeknownst to many Republicans —
and admitted by few who know better — congressional authority
supersedes the authority of the Supreme Court, not the other way
around. Roe v. Wade — the abortion issue — would have been
(sorry about the pun here) a dead issue long ago if only lawmakers had
the guts and moral courage to overturn the Court’s decision. They have
that power. They don’t use it.
Thirdly, a president is supposed to largely be a figurehead,
not the “head” of the U.S. government. He/she is not a king/queen; yet
the Republicans — like the Democrats — pursue the highest office in
the land as though it were a monarchy, instead of just a third wheel in
the three wheels of the U.S. constitutional system. Were Republicans
honest with their constituents, they’d acknowledge this fact and
concentrate all of their efforts into controlling the House and
Senate instead — where the real power in this country is
supposed to rest.
Republicans talk about “smaller” government, “less intrusive
government,” “states rights,” et al. — but they campaign and strategize
like big government advocates. Their hopes are always pinned to the
Executive Branch, even though they talk like proponents of the kind of
government this nation was born with. That’s hypocrisy, and it’s not
going to work with many Americans this time out.
The fact is it doesn’t take a president in this country to return the
nation to a constitutional way of life. Perhaps smaller, more
constitutional parties ought to realize that too. Let some fool with an
agenda occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if he wants to, but plan on
limiting his power by taking over the branch of government designed to
limit his power: Congress.