by William Skink

I’ve been focusing so much lately on the Democratic self-imolation with Hillary Clinton that the current clear and present danger sitting in the White House–Barack Obama–has gone unmentioned in these virtual pages for far too long.

When Obama went to Hiroshima last month, I tried to ignore the media accounts of his visit, knowing doing so would drastically deplete my rage-reserves. Why? Because the topic of Obama and nuclear weapons is so saturated with hypocrisy that I’m almost thinking a new word needs to be created to describe Obama’s Orwellian duplicity.

The joke that is now the Nobel Peace prize was disgustingly bestowed upon Obama seven years ago in part because he said things about saving the world from the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

In all the subsequent years Obama has continued shoveling bullshit from his lying mouth while doing the exact opposite of making the world safer from nuclear annihilation, as reported earlier this year by The Intercept:

The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.

The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”

The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.

Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”

But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.

This is just fucking insane. While Democrats would like us to think the biggest threat to America is Trump’s plans to build a wall and temporarily stop Muslims from immigrating to America, the true threat is sitting in the White House right now, preparing for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Russia.

Mutually assured destruction used to be the dominant rationale keeping the crazy people drunk on power from wiping out half the planet. Unfortunately that has changed, and it was accomplished through Democrats more effectively than through Republicans.

Part of it is the timing of the technology. The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System is ready to go and starting to be deployed in Eastern Europe, which would be alarming if widely reported and given the context this overt escalation of Cold War 2.0 deserves. We of course don’t get that in America save a few cranks who disseminate the “alternative media” of the day to each other.

One of those cranks, The Saker, does a great job scaring the shit out of me with the details of this seemingly inevitable confrontation:

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”, will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy” and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

This backdrop makes the coming political transition in America even more terrifying. With one candidate willing to say anything, and another candidate willing to do anything, who knows what will happen.

When the war goes hot, there may not be anyone left to tell the story of how this country went berserker, taking slow, deliberate steps to keep Russia from emerging with dignity from their collapse and provoking nuclear war.

That is how I’m sure future historians will come to see this time period if given the benefit of time and a world not destroyed by sociopaths.