Effective Border Security

Unfortunately, "president?" Obama and most Democrats are pursuing actions that is in their best interests and diametrically opposed to our wishes.

Obamacare. Intentionally unsecured borders. Reckless federal spending of money that we don't have. Pork projects. Pro-Muslim/anti-Christian actions including Ground Zero support for a Trojan Horse mosque. ETC.

A majority of Americans strongly support these measures and vehemently oppose the Obama Administration’s position of abdication of its responsibility to protect the borders and secure America.

Florida AG McCollum, Lawmakers Unveil Immigration Bill Modeled After Arizona's
FOXNews.com     8/11/2010

Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.

Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.

State Attorney General Bill McCollum, following the lead of Virginia's top prosecutor, also issued an opinion saying state law enforcement already have the right to ask about immigration status in the course of their duties.

"This legislation will provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the ongoing problems created by illegal immigration," McCollum, a Republican, said in a written statement. "Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."

McCollum helped write the legislation, though Florida lawmakers will be responsible for pushing it in the legislature.

The move comes after a U.S. District Court judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's law. The battle between Arizona and the U.S. government, as well as civil rights groups, could make its way to the Supreme Court -- but while that fight plays out, several states are putting similar legislation on the table.

The Florida proposal would, like Arizona's, require law enforcement officers to check the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant in the course of a "lawful stop."

It would require state businesses to use a national registry to ensure new employees are legal and would increase penalties for illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. The bill would also require non-citizen immigrants to carry immigration documentation or face a misdemeanor charge that could carry up to 20 days in jail.

Though McCollum's office said in a statement that the legislation was adjusted to "strengthen it" against a possible court challenge, the proposal would go beyond Arizona's by letting judges consider a defendant's illegal immigrant status during bond proceedings.

State Rep. William Snyder wrote the bill with McCollum.

The unveiling comes after Virginia State Attorney Ken Cuccinelli last week issued a ruling saying police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops. The move prompted an objection from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, which urged state police to ignore the opinion.

McCollum did something similar Wednesday, releasing an informal opinion to a state lawmaker saying "it appears that state and local law enforcement have the authority to inquire into the immigration status" of anyone detained under state law providing the questioning doesn't "prolong" the detention.

As Cuccinelli said, McCollum clarified that under current law, officers are not required to ask about immigration status.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/11/florida-ag-mccollum-unveils-immigration-modeled-arizonas/

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/mccollum_080710_397x224.gif

Why is Obama choosing such an action against a state whose legislation is nearly identical to the federal law and seeking to uphold it? This is a political gambit without a clear Constitutional basis. His actions are cynical, divisive, hateful and the arguments that he and his Administration have used are specious. This is all for political gain and for ideological goals.

The prime author of Arizona’s immigration legislation, State Senator Russell Pearce, discusses SB 1070, the severity of the illegal alien problem in the state including issues of crime and costs. Most people are not aware of the true severity of the problem which needs to be expeditiously, effectively and thoroughly addressed.

Arizona Immigration Law Author: Failure to Enforce Law Impeachable Offense
Jim Meyers 8/5/2010

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizona’s tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a “huge win” for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.

Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law “scares” the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws — and agrees that Obama’s failure to enforce those laws is an “impeachable” offense.

A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results.

“It’s been a long battle,” he says. “I prepared for the fistfight. I knew it was coming, getting sued by the open border crowd, the left-wing folks who fight you on any effort to enforce the law. So I knew what was coming.

“But we won. It’s a huge win. We won everything we really needed to win.

“The main thrust of 1070 was [against] sanctuary policies” that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws in certain jurisdictions. “They’re actually illegal under federal law. But [federal officials] don’t sue them, they sue Arizona because we decide to enforce the law.

“The other parts that she blocked temporarily were important tools, but what did go into effect, people need to understand, is that sanctuary policies in the state of Arizona are now illegal. She didn’t block that piece. So law enforcement may enforce the federal law to the fullest extent of the law.

“And if they don’t, we the people will sue government — that’s also in the bill. If they block or interfere or limit the enforcement of these laws in any manner, we will sue.

“The other piece that stayed in there is on day laborer issues. It’s a felony to hire them. We’re going to stop the hiring of illegal aliens that take a job from Americans. If you pick up an illegal alien day laborer, you’re going to go to jail. Your car is going to be impounded for 30 days, mandatory. So some significant pieces are still in effect and are huge in this bill.

“This law has teeth. That’s what scares people. That scares the Obama administration, which has a non-enforcement policy.”

Pearce was asked how he reacted to Sarah Palin’s comment that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer “has the cojones that our president doesn’t have.”

“I reacted very well to that comment,” he tells Newsmax. “I appreciate the governor’s vigilance in defense of the bill.

“During the debate over 1070, a good friend of mine was murdered — right after [Janet] Napolitano, your Homeland Security director, said the border is more secure than ever. Simply not true.

“Fifteen Phoenix police officers, just to pick on Phoenix, were murdered or maimed at the hands of illegal aliens. Enough is enough. We spend $2.7 billion a year in Arizona to educate, medicate, and incarcerate. It’s the citizens that pay the price for this illegal alien invasion that can no longer be ignored.”

Pearce cited one Arizona family that has been terrorized by illegal aliens who come across the border, suffering “18 burglaries, three home invasions, multiple vehicles stolen. At night they hear a noise outside and they pray for daylight. They have their doors boarded, their windows boarded. And we have a federal government that stands by and thinks that’s O.K., that’s just collateral damage as they move forward with their agenda of amnesty. Enough is enough.”

Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizona’s footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.

“Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so I’m extremely encouraged. In fact, I’ve talked to 34 states that would like to do it but don’t have a legislature or governor that would sign a bill.

“That’s what scares the Obama administration. They’re not worried about profiling. They’re not worried about anything but enforcement. What scares them is the fact that the laws are actually going to be enforced.”

He says the administration is worried about enforcement for two political reasons.

“First of all you have the open border anarchists who want to change the political makeup of America, and that’s through change in the demographics. Their best hope is open borders.

“Then you’ve got the other side, the corporate oligarchy, the profits-over-patriotism crowd. They want cheap labor. They don’t care what the cost is to America, and they have a stranglehold on Washington D.C., while 70 to 80 percent of Americans say close the borders, enforce the law.”

Pearce agrees with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that the policy established by the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — needs to be changed because it was never intended to be applied to aliens.

Sen. Jon Kyl says that when he asked President Obama to secure the border, Obama’s response was that if he did, it would remove the incentive for Republicans to negotiate on comprehensive immigration reform. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.

“Absolutely,” he declares.

“Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and what’s coming across — 20 percent have criminal convictions — are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. It’s an invasion. It’s in violation of the Constitution. Yes, it’s impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now he’s refusing to do it. It’s impeachable.”

As for reports that a Mexican drug cartel has placed a $1 million bounty on the head of tough Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pearce says “the silence is almost deafening from Washington, D.C.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pearce-immigration-arizona-obama-illegal-federal-border/2010/08/05/id/366757

The following article characterizes the severity of the illegal immigration problem regarding both the scope and magnitude of the crimes and the politicization of the issue. It is a real eye opener.

Immigration enforcement union took a no-confidence vote in its leadership
Joel S. Gehrke Jr. 08/04/10

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.

In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders have “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”

Janice Kephart at the Center for Immigration Studies has the letter, which includes several biting indictments of ICE failures by ICE agents. For instance:

Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.

Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?

While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

Good to know.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/immigration-enforcement-union-took-a-no-confidence-vote-in-its-leadership-99976699.html

Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”.  This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)

Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.

Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.

And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).

Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.

No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!

Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010

Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.

And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.

At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.

But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.

Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.

The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.

In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.

Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.

"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.

"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.

On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.

In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.

Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.

But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.

"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."

Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.

State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.

The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.

The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.

The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.

As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.

Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.

But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.

Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.

But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.

The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.

A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.

In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.

Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.

The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Immigration-Enforcement-Lawsuit/2010/07/07/id/364048

Furthermore, his comments promote divisiveness among the states, specifically encouraging verbal and economic attacks on Arizona which is trying to protect itself from being overrun by the violence of the Mexican drug cartel and gangs and the deluge of destitute illegal aliens who are creating a budgetary crisis  due to the billions of dollars a year that they cost the state.

Obama is the anti-President, one who seeks to divide and destroy rather than unite and protect. Such is the bedrock of his radical anti-American philosophy.

If you questions this assessment, just scrutinize his destructive, freedom restricting, financially reckless, disdainful actions and inactions over his first 18 months in office. To gain further insight, we also suggest that you read the recent bestseller, the Manchurian President by Aaron Klein.

Contrast this to the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt on immigrants from over 100 years ago. Below are some of his thoughts on Immigrants and being an American:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes herein good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
From 1907

"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but
that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go
back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he
should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in
this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American
standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an
industrial asset."

"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him
up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may
well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his
showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us
in raising the level of our common American citizenship."

Roosevelt strongly called for assimilation of these immigrants so they would become equal "Americans". This would be best served with the need for them to learn to speak English which would allow them to advance and become productive citizens. This is a constructive, positive approach.

What does Obama encourage? Essentially a balkanized America where illegal immigrants are granted rights, privileges, and services and allowed to maintain their primary allegiance to their homeland - and with nothing expected in return. Except, of course, their votes as Democrats. A destructive, financially ruinous, welfare dependency approach.

Such actions are suicidal, indefensible and irresponsible. As discussed in the following article, Obama’s thorough disarming of our country will make us infinitely more vulnerable not just to Russia or China but also to North Korea, Iran, small belligerent nations and terrorists groups.

In our opinion, if Obama sets these actions in motion, Congress with public pressure should investigate the possibility of grounds for impeachment.

Dropping The Shield
Investors Business Daily 06/30/2010

National Security: The administration is ready to sign a treaty stripping us of our ability to defend ourselves against enemy nuclear missiles, including Iran's and North Korea's. In space, no one can hear you surrender.

On Monday, the ground-based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, part of the U.S. missile defense shield, successfully shot down a ballistic missile launched from a ship's deck off Kauai, Hawaii. The test simulated an Iranian SCUD launched from the deck of a ship off the U.S. coast, which, if armed with a nuke, could devastate the American heartland.

The simulated Scud was launched from the deck of the decommissioned 603-foot amphibious assault ship Tripoli. U.S. Army soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade from Fort Bliss, Texas, successfully intercepted it with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor.

Missile defense, the dream of President Reagan, is a successful reality. With a layered system of ground-based, long-range interceptors, the sea-based Aegis system and theater systems such as the Patriot and THAAD, we can defend against — rather than just avenge — a ballistic missile attack.

Yet our disarmer in chief, President Obama, stands ready to strip us naked before our enemies by signing a treaty designed to demilitarize space. Since interceptors such as THAAD are designed to hit their targets on the edge of space and can be modified to kill satellites, such a treaty would effectively ban their use.

Almost simultaneously on Monday, the Obama administration unveiled a new space policy that reverses the Bush administration policy of unrestricted access to and operations in space. The Bush policy, released in August 2006, said it "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space." We had a right to defend ourselves.

That right will be surrendered unilaterally by a new space policy under which the U.S. will "consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies."

Such fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and this administration does not have a good track record of enhancing the national security of the United States. For example, it has cut the number of ground-based interceptors planned for Alaska and Hawaii, both within range of North Korea's Taepodong-2.

It has also betrayed our Polish and Czech allies by scrapping plans for a similar system in Europe. And it has scrapped tested and ready systems like the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), a modified Boeing 747-F that can be deployed anywhere in the world, loitering off an enemy's coast to destroy its missiles in their vulnerable boost phase. And it's reusable.

These "proposals and concepts" could come soon in the form of the PAROS (prevention of arms race in space) treaty. Like the nuclear freeze once proposed at the height of the Cold War, these Munich clones are designed not to prevent war, but to disarm America.

Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, among others, would like to see us unilaterally give up our ability to render their huge investments in nuclear missiles irrelevant.

A simple Iranian Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high above the U.S. It would wreak near total devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. The ship could then be scuttled, taking the identity of the attacker with it.

If a hostile power detonated a nuclear weapon high over the U.S., generating an electro-magnetic pulse that would fry virtually every circuit and electronic device in the country, America and its economy could be sent back a century or more.

Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight from ships in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.

Surrendering missile defense through such a treaty amounts to more unilateral disarmament in the face of dangerous and hostile enemies. The president wants us to rally around a white flag.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539037/201006301859/Dropping-The-Shield.aspx