Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.

[texasfisherdude]

Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...7645696465868#


Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Defense Policy: In the middle of a war on two fronts, Barack Obama plans to gut the military. He also wants to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And he wants to keep you in the dark about it.

The Obamatons of the mainstream media have failed to report one of the most chilling campaign promises thus far uttered by the presumptive Democrat nominee for president.

He made it before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting. Here is a transcript:

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

"I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

"Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."

You can bet that Obama will not make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to move to the center in the general election. But this is what he thinks, and this is what he plans to do.

His campaign Web site doesn't list a separate category for military or defense under "Issues." But search shows near-identical language there regarding nuclear weapons.

His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.

While there is fat in the defense budget, defense spending both as a share of GDP and the total federal budget are still at historically low levels, despite the war.

And while cutting fat out of the defense budget is a worthy goal, Obama would cut beyond fat to bone.

Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."

On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.

Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.

In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."

We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.

Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" — essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.

We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.

[Idaho]

Obama and the peace activists of the Left are well meaning, clueless airheads. We live in a very dangerous world that is getting more unstable with each passing day. Just because we live in a peaceful nation does not mean that it is that way around the globe. Can we call this Ostrich Diplomacy?

I don't think we need a 3rd clinton, or second carter term eihter. We aslo don't need a 3rd bush term. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon that "republicans can do no wrong" John McCain scares me because he's too much like bush. I would also like to know who will be president if he has a stroke? I think our choices for president are pathetic.

[oledawg]

+1

[dui546]

I retired from 20 years of military service. I have reviewed the democratic front runner's major accomplishments in life and I don't think he is qualified to lead a bag of plastic army figures from Wal-mart.

[lw]

Originally Posted by dui546

I have reviewed the democratic front runner's major accomplishments in life and I don't think he is qualified to lead a bag of plastic army figures from Wal-mart.

Agreed dui, unfortunately it sounds like he is comfortable relying on a bag of plastic army men to defend the nation, while exponentially exploding welfare giveaways. This combination will render the country Helpless AND Defenseless.

My wife is a life-long democrat, and a teacher, so she is practically badgered by her union to vote democrat. But now that it looks like Hillary is out of the running she refuses to vote for Obama. I told her that if Obama takes Hillary as V.P. and wins, she is still likely to get her wish (Hillary for President) as somebody will likely shoot Obama within his first year in office. She doesn't believe that, but she has no idea how many radical people in this country would totally freak out if Obama became president.

(Of course I've been persuading her to vote Libertarian for 18 years now. Unsuccessfully.)

He can take away my guns (from my cold dead fingers)

Sorry Ringadingh I accidently deleted your post.........Hit the modify button when I meant to hit the quote button.......please post again..

I haven't been across the border recently but I can't imagine the vehicle searches to be very thorough. Assuming your mayors plan does work it doesn't seem like it would be very hard for a Candadian crook to come across the border, get a hold af any gun he wants, stuff about 20 of them inside the spare tire inside the trunk and drive back across.

How about stiffer penalties for criminals like if you kill someone you will be killed??

[VulcanE]

Originally Posted by wolfman

How about stiffer penalties for criminals like if you kill someone you will be killed??

An eye for an eye, Now there's a concept that I haven't heard before

Eyes for an eye, teeth for a tooth. Start getting rid of some of these scum bags. It costs at least $40,000 a year to house 1 inmate. Call it what you want, I just think the punishment should fit the crime. ie. idaho and his daughter getting screwed by "scumbag". Its not enough for him to pay the money back, he should pay extra punitive damages for all the hassle and troube his needless crime caused the innocent.

There was a guy in Utah that just got convicted of his 10th DUI!

He's already killed someone once from drunk driving. He's in his 40's and his dad just bailed him out again!

Personally I'd agree, but it costs to much to execute someone in this country as well.

My thought is this: If it costs us $40k a year, we should contract this out to Mexico and pay them $10,000 a year per prisoner to house all our violent felons. They need the industry, and we'd save money. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about this idea, and there's a lot of precedent in English jurisprudence for "transporting" prisoners of heinous crimes or for repeat offenders.

Maybe the liberals whining about how poorly we treat the Mexicans would soon be whining about how poorly the Mexicans are treating the prisoners. That'd be amusing.

Oops! I forgot the difficulties of "outsourcing" union prison guard jobs. The guards might riot over this one.

[jussmatt]

Originally Posted by LW

Agreed dui, unfortunately it sounds like he is comfortable relying on a bag of plastic army men to defend the nation, while exponentially exploding welfare giveaways. This combination will render the country Helpless AND Defenseless.

+1 to both of ya!!! Simply put...we're screwed!

[Top Cat]

Originally Posted by caddmannq

Personally I'd agree, but it costs to much to execute someone in this country as well.

??? 22 cal. to the back of the head is pretty damn cheap.