The first time I saw a picture of John Kerry doing the salute I thought of the late Benny Hill: All Joking aside, or maybe I should add one more joke before moving on: Kerry is in the running for the secretary of defense job. Younger Americans are probably not interested in Kerry’s shameful record: The kids who voted for Democrats might like to know that he always opposed a MDS (Missile Defense Shield). Put Kerry in perspective by looking at Hussein’s record: Ratifying the New START Treaty with Russia. Connect that one to Hussein’s open mic slipup after New START was ratified: Do you think there is a chance Kerry’s pals in the Senate will not confirm him? I want to offer a few observations before getting back to Kerry. No aggressor nation makes war until it is convinced it can win. America is not an aggressor nation, yet it is the only power on earth that can declare war on a sworn enemy and be certain of victory. If Islam, or China, or Russia possessed America's military capabilities does anyone believe they would practice restraint? Hussein has said that he will support a MDS if the technology proves workable. In liberal-speak “workable” means stopping every missile fired at America and its allies. In liberal-speak a MDS is not working if 99 missiles are stopped out of a 100 missiles fired. “If it ain’t perfect it’s no good” has always been the argument liberals offered for opposing the MDS. They say the opposite about welfare state programs. If a program works one percent of the time it is good enough for increased funding. When it comes to defensive technology it evolves the same way technology evolves for any weapon that you’d care to name. None of today’s weapons started out 100 percent effective. The military application for WW I fighter planes is the ancestor of long-range bombers. Put evolution in context: America might very well have lost the Cold War were it not for the Strategic Air Command. To reduce or eliminate funding for MDS slows, and even stops, the evolution of missile defense technology. The thing that surprises me the most me is how the Democrats get away with their defense policies decade after decade —— none more dangerous than their MDS policy. Incidentally, Nutty Nancy topped herself in 2003 when she said: That’s from a Democrat who thinks Americans needed socialized medicine that will cost generations of taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars. NOTE: Quadrillion is the next number after a trillion, then comes quintillion, then sextillion, then septillion, then octillion, then nonillion, then decillion, then undecillion, then duodecillion, then tredecillion, then quattuordecillion, and quindecillion (that’s a one followed by 48 zeros). And finally the googolplex; the largest number in the world. I am an old dude, but I may very well live long enough to see Democrats reach googolplex to pay for their entitlements. Yet every dollar spent on defense is too much according to Democrats. Combine Pelosi’s hatred of the intelligence community with her opposition to the MDS, and you have to hope that one enemy missile gets through. The one aimed at San Francisco when she is in town. Biden was right there with Nutso on missile defense and treaties. To even begin to understand those people you gotta read this from 2006: Test Ban Treaties Treaties are a joke, and treaties banning nuclear testing are the biggest joke of all. Treaties promoted by America’s domestic and foreign enemies is the best way to disarm America. That brings me back to Kerry. In 2009 the late Kim Jong Il threatened to fire a test missile at Hawaii on the Fourth of July: North Korea’s missiles may very well be Tinkertoys powered by the Energizer Bunny as some claimed, but then that only means there is room for improvement. It does not mean they are giving up. I hope Secretary of Defense John Kerry can convince Kim Junior to arm North Korea’s ICBMs with pamphlets extolling the virtues of communism rather than nuclear warheads. John Kerry opposed the MDS before North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. North Korea now has the nucleus for long range ballistic missiles. Back in 2004 when John Kerry came out against the MDS, some liberals were saying that a missile shield was useless against suicide bombers. The implication was that a new kind of warfare made things like missile defense shields obsolete. Liberals also implied that Americans need not fear Communist China’s ballistic missiles. In addition to Chinese Communists being portrayed as adorable panda bears on their way to capitalism, there was nothing to fear from the new Russia’s missiles, or so the story went. In one sense North Korea’s missile program did Americans a favor because it reaffirmed the need for a MDS. A hidden benefit to missile defense is that it will also combat missiles fired from China’s submarines while they are submerged. From China’s perspective North Korea is a perfect patsy. “Keep Americans looking at North Korea and they will see its missiles as a bigger threat than our growing fleet of nuclear submarines.” When Kerry ran for president, I assumed he did not know how close North Korea was to joining the nuclear club. Even if Kerry did not know in 2004, he was wrong because he did know that China and Russian had long range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. At the same time Democrats like John Kerry weakened America’s retaliatory capabilities they deliberately downplayed the evolution of defense systems. They had to know that the only difference between anti-aircraft guns and the MDS is that the gunner could see the target he was shooting at. Admittedly, aircraft still got through to their targets, but a lot of them were stopped. I sure as hell want to see as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as possible stopped. In addition to the obvious —— halting the evolution of Missile Defense Shields as Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, et al, called for gave those up-and-coming nuclear regimes like Iran enough breathing room to develop, or buy, intercontinental ballistic missile technology. Terrorist warfare practiced by countries like Iran is also evolving into more conventional warfare. Simply stated: “Evolution” is the critical factor in any debate about funding the MDS. RR President Reagan’s foreign policy was uncomplicated. “We win. They lose.” Star Wars was a practical application of RR’s governing philosophy. On the other hand Hussein dismantles a MDS in Europe and begs the Russians for leeway so he can do more “after the election.” Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviets because he outspent them. Their state-run economy simply could not keep up. Of course, there were other factors involved, but it was RR’s military buildup that administered the coup de grâce to the Soviet Union. It was simple economics. Now, every one of this country’s domestic and foreign enemies would like nothing better than to see America spend itself into becoming a socialist country with a weak military. Every one of those enemies opposes, and fears, America’s military superiority. To Democrats, it is poetic justice to spend America into defeat after spending its way to victory defeating their beloved Soviet Union in the Cold War. Finally, America did not defeat communism, or China, when the Soviet Union imploded. The demise of the Soviet Union caused Americans to drop their guard. The Left encouraged a false sense of security with claims that Americans had nothing to fear because communism was dead. The Left was so successful in announcing the death of communism the country ignored the Clintons while they salvaged communism’s worldwide infrastructure left behind by the Soviet Union. Today, the country has Hussein and his administration full of Clinton people.