President Barack Obama is chairing a session of the UN Security Council. This is a first for a U.S. President. The session will be about nuclear proliferation and disarmament. The timing is a bit odd considering the announcement last week that the United States will not go forward with its missile shield in Eastern Europe.

This news comes from the Guardian in the UK. Apparently Barack Obama has demanded that the Pentagon conduct a "radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine" in order to prepare for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama said that the Pentagon's first draft was "too timid" and wants options more "far-reaching" that are consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Don't you feel safer now, folks?

Elections have consequences.

The healthcare debate was sidelined just a bit yesterday with the news of Obama's plan to scrap the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Let's just take a moment to noodle this one through.

If you'll remember, Obama made a grand speech in Prague back in April. During that speech Obama said that he would proceed with the development of the missile shield as long as Iran posed a threat to US and European security.

So what has changed?

Not only does Iran pose a threat, but in fact just days ago experts at the world's top atomic watchdog agreed that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is well on its way to developing a missile system capable of carrying an atomic warhead.

Sounds like a pretty darn serious threat to me!

So the question is ... what does Barack Obama know that we don't? Here is a fantastic analysis of what Obama could possibly be getting from Russia in return for scrapping the missile shield.

So .. here's more change you can believe in. Countries in Europe that once thought the United States would be there to defend them no longer feel that way. Eastern European countries that felt the U.S. would defend them from Russian aggression no longer believe that to be so. Look for them to become much more friendly to Russian goals and initiatives now.

Elections have consequences. Elections in the U.S. have consequences for the people of Eastern Europe.

During his visit to Russia this week President Obama had something rather interesting to say about our armed forces. He said that "the future does not belong to those who gather armies." Really? Well, I have this question for our Commander in Chief. Which country do you think is more in control of its future ... the country that keeps an army, or the country that does not?

Too easy. Much too easy.

One of the first acts of Obama's administration was to begin the process of shutting down Guantanamo Bay. No one had actually thought about what to do with the prisoners - where to put them, how to try them - but the order to shut down Gitmo nonetheless. Now lawmakers have unveiled a bill to pay for military and diplomatic efforts. It costs well over $90 billion. One of Obama's requests that was not included in the bill was $50 million to relocate prisoners from Gitmo. Democrats in the House decided that they just weren't going to include it. They have no idea what to do with the prisoners, so the plan will go unfunded until further notice.

Don't worry though ... the money could be transferred at a later time, and without a vote that promises to be politically challenging.

I have two great suggestions for relocating the prisoners. Haiti or Berkeley. You choose.

Yesterday I asked the question, how do you think Obama handled this North Korean missile launch. And with the exception of one candyass moonbat who exhibited an intense hatred of the U.S. military, most of you agreed that he failed the test.

Newt Gingrich compared Obama's weak response to that of the Carter years. He says, "This is beginning to resemble the Carter administration's weakness in foreign policy."

So who does look Newt to? Ronald Reagan. He says, "Reagan ... would have been much more skeptical about a plan in an age of North Korean, Iranian and Pakistani nuclear developments. How do you apply his slogan of 'trust but verify' in dictatorships you can't trust and can't verify? ... Reagan felt that keeping a defensive shield alive was more important than a paper deal. The Obama administration is rapidly undermining our missile defense system while describing a fantasy world of trust and cooperation."

And yesterday, just after North Korea launched a missile, our Secretary of Defense stands up and announces cuts to our military weapons program.

Every action an administration takes sends a message. The unmistakable message here is that the United States is weakening. On the very day after North Korea test-fires a missile with intercontinental range, Obama announces a cutback in military spending. He is expanding spending in virtually every segment of government - except defense. The one true absolute function of the federal government is getting shorted while social welfare programs are being doubled in size. Yeah .. we really showed those North Koreans who the boss was, didn't we? Not just the Gargoyle ... but every other country out there that would like to take advantage of American weakness. We are, whether Obama cares to admit it or not, at war with radical Islam. Nations like Russia and China are vying to become the world's dominant military power. The No. 4 military power test fires a missile after we told them to stand down ... and Obama announces a $534 billion cut our defense budget.

There's your change you can believe in, folks. A weakened America in a very dangerous world.

Speaking of responses. Newt Gingrich had his say on what he would have done to handle this situation had he been in the White House. He would have disabled the darn thing before North Korea had the chance to launch it. Clearly, Newt is not living in a fantasy world, built on a fantasy foreign policy based on a world without nuclear weapons. (That would be Barack Obama's world.) Newt recognizes the issues at stake and the pieces of the puzzle that are moving into action: North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Russia.

Barack Obama's response? Call for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security. Obama actually thinks that we can achieve a world without nuclear weapons. Please tell me this man is not that naïve. This can never be. Instead of living with this completely unrealistic pipe dream, we need to create a world where rogue nations and Islamic terrorist groups know that to seek one of these weapons is to guarantee their own destruction.

Here's how Newt would have handled things: "There are three or four techniques that could have been used, from unconventional forces to standoff capabilities, to say: 'We're not going to tolerate a North Korean missile launch, period.' I mean, the world's either got to decide that North Korea is utterly dangerous ... I'd recommend, look at electromagnetic pulse, which changes every ... equation about how risky these weapons are."

Here's the bottom line. Somewhere on this globe some nation or some organization is going to be more powerful than all of the others. Who is going to carry the big stick? Right now the choices seem to be between the United States, Russia, China or the United Nations. Go ahead ... chose one. One of these four entities will be the world's most powerful ... who do you want it to be? Today both Russia and China are making excuses for North Korea's actions. Neither seems willing to do much about it. We know the United Nations isn't going to act. We have to wait for Israel to attack Hamas for the U.N. to get into gear. That leaves - at least among the world's truly powerful nations - the United States. What are we doing? We're asking the U.N. to do something, we're talking about talking, and we're promoting some fantasy about a world free of nuclear weapons.

Obama wants to eliminate weapons from space. Come one here. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that weapons can be eliminated from space? This can't be a serious proposal. As space technology continues some country, somewhere, is going to surreptitiously move weaponry into orbit around the earth. Only when the weapons are in place will we be told of their existence That little news bulletin will come complete with a set of demands and promises of a little spaced-base ugliness if those demands aren't met.

The only thing Obama's efforts will produce will be our finding ourselves flat-footed when space weapons become a reality. Then we'll be playing catch up ... if catching up is even possible.

We'll add this to the closing of Gitmo, the halting of the trials of terrorist detainees, and the promise not to use extraordinary interrogation techniques - including things as benign as the "good cop, bad cop" routine - to the list of signs of weakness shown by the Obama administration.

People are noticing. People we don't particularly like.

This is the day set aside to honor all men and women who have served in our armed forces. Here's a thought for you ... that old man driving that Buick at 20 mph below the speed limit? You know .. the one with the big ears and that driving hat? Give him a break. He might have been one of those who waded ashore on Utah Beach on D-Day. He might have dragged a buddy to safety after seeing him cut down by German fire. We owe these people so much ... whether they saw combat or not. They've been there to defend our freedoms. Now, more than ever, that should mean something to you.

Maybe you'll take the time to read this article from the Wall Street Journal: Soldiers of the Great War.