An existential choice 17

America is confronted with an existential choice. If it can no longer afford both strong defense and social welfare – which seems to be the case ever more compellingly – which will it choose? A strong defense ensures survival. Welfare guarantees decline and fall.

Earlier this month, Obama announced his plan for weakening America.

We quote from an article by Arnold Ahlert at Front Page:

The scope of the divestment is daunting. The additional $500 billion in new spending cuts come on top of the $480 billion this president cut out of the military budget his first three years in office. Neither of these cuts reflect the possibility that an additional $500 billion in possible cuts will kick in next January, under “sequestration.” And since the 2012 budget request already calls for the reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the next four years, it is likely those numbers will increase as well.

Critical technology has also [been targeted and], may get axed as well. The Airborne Laser, a project aimed at destroying enemy missiles soon after they blast off was killed 2010, along with the Future Combat Systems, a program deigned to coordinate mobile forces and unmanned vehicles. The latter was killed with the promise that modernization resources would go directly to the Army and Marines. So far it hasn’t happened, and now it may not. The Navy’s hypersonic electromagnetic rail gun, a project designed to intercept anti-ship missiles–like those that could be aimed at our carriers in a fight with Iran or China–lost funding in 2011. Cutbacks could also include the F-35 fighter plane, despite its radar-evading stealth technology that would allow us to maintain our dominance in the air.

Why? Incredibly, the president claimed “the tide of war is receding.” No doubt that would be news to Iraqis who are enduring large-scale attacks and the possibility of a civil war, due primarily to our premature withdrawal. So too for the Afghans, who must now contemplate the return of the Taliban, with whom the Obama administration has seen fit to negotiate, using Islamic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a “key mediator,” despite [no, because of  – JB] rabid anti-Semitism and his issuance of a fatwa urging the killing of American troops. No doubt Iran, fresh from conducting military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz last week, and further maneuvers near the Afghan coast on Saturday, would be equally surprised. And then there’s the multiple threats the Islamist uprisings, nostalgically referred to as the “Arab Spring,” have the potential to engender as well.

[The] administration [is] projecting military budget outlays of 2.7 percent of GDP by 2021. That number is comparable to our military outlays in the year 1940–one year before America’s fatal flirtation with both isolationism and peace literally blew up in our collective faces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

As always, this chain saw approach to the military is what every military cutback has been about for progressives: maintaining the inviolability of the welfare state, for which spending is set to hit nearly 11% of GDP by 2020, before the projected $2.6 trillion slated for ObamaCare – a number that will undoubtedly rise – is factored in. Yet this is where that inviolability inevitably leads:

“Entitlements now account for around 65 percent of all federal spending and a record 18 percent of GDP. The three largest entitlements – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing ever since. If future taxes are held at the historical average, these three entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, leaving no money for the government’s primary constitutional obligation: providing for the common defense.”

Yet it is more than just a desire to expand the welfare state that drives this president and his administration. Mr. Obama is a dedicated progressive who cannot hide his disdain for American exceptionalism. The Hoover Institution’s Shelby Steele explains:

“[The American left] seeks to trade the burdens of greatness for the relief of mediocrity. When greatness fades, when a nation contracts to a middling place in the world, then the world in fact no longer knocks on its door… To redeem the nation from its supposed avarice and hubris, the American left effectively makes a virtue of decline  …”

How far is Mr. Obama willing to go in that regard? His administration recently acknowledged that it is pursuing a policy aimed at giving Russia detailed information about the performance of our offensive and defensive missile capabilities. Ostensibly this will be instrumental in breaking the deadlock in missile defense talks with Moscow, in that it will assure the Russians we mean them no harm. Yet section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending on such a measure, until Congress receives a report on the numerous details involved. Furthermore, the president is required to certify to Congress that Russia will not share the secrets with other nations, or “develop counter-measures” to U.S. defenses. [Trust thine enemy?}

[But] Mr. Obama kicked section 1227 to the curb. In a signing statement, he said he considered the restrictions “non-binding.”

Are Americans willing to completely abandon this nation’s role as the “last best hope of mankind” for a welfare state that will consume 100 percent of government revenue forty years hence?

For those who can’t work out in theory that the welfare state is unsustainable – to use one of the favorite words of the left  – there is the model of Europe to prove it, as one after another the socialist heavens come crashing down.

We would like to see all entitlements abandoned. Let’s have very low taxes instead, allotting the government enough revenue to maintain an extremely strong defense capability and a reliable justice system so that the only necessary function of government, the defense of the nation’s liberty, is thoroughly fulfilled;  allowing it nothing to squander on frivolous and counter-productive extravagances such as welfare and foreign aid.

We expect this opinion of ours will provoke the usual question: if the government stops being the welfare-provider for the nation, how will those who cannot support themselves survive? The answer: on the munificent charity that those who ask the question will not hesitate to provide.

  • George

    Obama must be voted out of office to save America.. What worries me more than ever  is that there are going to be so many conservative ( read – Republican –as far as the reality of the voting situation sits ) competitors that it could very well SPLIT the conservative votes giving Obama ( aka -Otrauma ) the upper hand in majority votes  just like what happened when  Ross Perot threw his hat in the ring long ago.   We need to get behind  ONE conservative representative for America and back him and not let our votes be split  all over the place .  This election is crucial for the future of America and the world.     May rational thinking bless America !!!!!!!             Semper Fi  !

  • Michael F

    This article is utter rubbish and ignores several basic facts of geopolitics.  Has any one in this outfit even seen the inside of a International Relations classroom?  American Defense spending is out of control and has been for several decades.  Piling twice the amount of the rest of the world into armaments is ridiculous, especially when our “greatest enemy” was able to pull off a military victory (9/11) with a shoestring budget. 
          The Soviet union collapsed due to bankruptcy causing by spending on armaments. 
         On top of this, think simple geography;  North America is exasperated by two OCEANS.  There isn’t a nation on this planet which threatens US security.  We’ll be just fine inf we slash our budget by AT LEAST 50%. 
         Whether you believe in the welfare state or not (I believe in some aspects and think we should discard other parts of it.), all of us should agree that its high time we stop throwing all of our dollars down the rathole of  increased national security   

    • Jillian Becker

      Sure, if it takes the oceans to exasperate North America, why should it be anything more than a little irritated by aggressive nations armed with nuclear weapons? 

    • Don L

      Seems you did see the inside of that international relations classroom.  So, now you can wave your flag which indicates: Hey, look at me…I’m stupid!  I’ve passed all the progressive indoctrination exams an can distort, obfuscate and miss the point on everything now! I’m a full fledged fool!

  • wmarkw

    I disagree.  I’m the kind of pre-Cold War conservative who wants a small military and non-interventionist foreign policy.  Our defense priorities should be centered on DEfense of our own territory, and a broad alliance to defend and keep open transportation corridors, in partnership with all nations proportional to their GDP.  Our defense commitments are based on an obsolete model that don’t recognize places like India, Indonesia and Brazil as major nations.

    Of course, first we need a viable alternative to oil.  Its price will plummet once we have the option of not buying it.

    • Jillian Becker

      What statement(s) in the article are you not agreeing with?

    • George

      I agree with you that we need a viable alternative to oil and yes we do need to stop medling in other nations affairs ( excpt to aid our allies and defend our own nation or when a dictator is engaging in genocide of massiive innocent people like those who were slaughtered by Hitler and his henchmen ). 
                           We do not need a small military , so I disagree there. Our enemies are builiding up their military forces while we are cutting back. Weakening our defenses to call ourselves on par in equity with other nations ( some who are bent upon destroying America and threaten us perpetually  ) is totally assinine and puts us in a weak , vulnerable, and  dangerous position of defending ourselves. 
                          While some foreign nations ( such as some Islamic nations ) claim they are against us for being in their nations , the nations we are in are generally because we were either asked by Islamic heads of state for protection ( like Saudi Arabia ) or because massive waves of innocent people are being massacred ( like Syria ) , or they threaten our allies —-like Sadaam did when he invaded Kuwait ).   
                         The number one reason we are over there  is for oil , so  in that respect we need to find alternative sources and we should not have had all the regulatory restrictions to drill on our shores  that put us dependent on Middle Eastern oil in the first place of which much of that money is funding terrorism with weapons , bombs and terrorist regieme funding. 
                     If a bully has a big stick , it’s best that you have a bigger stick. To say it’s best to throw away our bigger stick so that we can have the same size weapon as the bully so that we can be “‘fair” is insanity , foolish and sheer stupidity.    This is “political correctness”  nonsense and you cannot fight a PC war and win.     IT’S  NOT  HAPPENING  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

      • George

        As we said in the Marines ——- ” Peace through firepower superiority”.     America has no intent of anihilating anyone, or oppressing any nation . I do not agree with ALL of our foreign policies ( some which happen to be corrupt ) but our nation is indeed the number one example of freedom anywhere .  Semper Fi    !!

        • Keith


    • Liz

      DEfense is exactly what Obama is trashing!  As is mentioned here, the Airborne Laser, which destroys enemy missiles. Then how about his giving away secrets to the Soviets.  Anyone else doing these things would be in prison for treason by now.

  • President Obama uttered a very interesting comment today that “we are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest….We were built on the idea that we survive as a nation. We thrive when we work together, all of us.”

    His comment underscores just how deeply entrenched Leftism is with traditional Christian values: love your neighbor above yourself, turn the other cheek, and certainly don’t take pride in anything you do. Meanwhile, conservative Christians continue to vilify the very Darwinist values they secretly espouse. As freethinking conservatives, we are well-aware that these values keep our men in uniform armed to ensure that this nation maintains its ecological niche as the strongest, bravest, proudest, freest country on the face of the Earth in all of its billions of years of existence.

    Instead, they tacitly throw their support the way of Obama by embracing his Judeo-Christian fairy tales, ironically serving to strengthen the Islam they so rightly abhor. I guess this nation is screwed after all.

    • Don L

      I sat up too when I heard that collectivist crap gurgle out of Nobama’s  mouth. 

      When the Mayflower and other early setlements where being established on North America…they died in droves as all colonies started off with communal agricultural requirements….they couldn’t work together.  It wasn’t until the colonists were given their own PERSONAL PROPERTY that,individually, the coolonies began to prosper.  As a ‘we’ they resorted to eating the dead and begging from the indians.  As individuals they thrived.  So, I say…shove it Nobama!

  • George

    I read a news article that reported (allegedly ) that Obama’s grandmother stated———  ” I was right here when my grandson was born here in Kenya”.   That fake birth certificate is only a certificate of acclaimed birth that Hawaii allows for anyone to assert under personal declaration that of live birth.   It is NOT proof . If what his grandmother says is true , then we do indeed have an illegal president in office. Notice how the liberal mainstream media covered this all up and buried it and went on the attack of anyone who brought it up. Had the reverse been the case and it had been a conservative Republican candidate in question, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would have been massive waves of liberal left-wing investigative reporters and daily news stories and discussions demanding proof and all sorts of doubts would have arisen.  But they (liberal media) circled the wagons and protected their boy.
                            Obama is weakining our military intentionally. Obama has this twisted logic ( or rather illogic ) that somehow reducing our military capability will show our enemies that we mean good and have no intent of imperalism and therefore our enemies can feel safe and trust us and then we will have world peace and cooperation and then we all can sing—“We are the world ——yada yada yada ”  What utter fools these wacked out mindless people are. I remember the military slogan we had —–” Peace through firepower superiority” .      But not with Otrauma ( err Obama ).   According to Osama ( I meant  Obama ) being a super power is making the world think of us as threatening. Actuality I don’t believe that at all. I believe Obama is weaking us intentionally because he is a stealth supporter of the jihadist Muslims , socialist Marxists, and radical left-wing liberal promulgators as well as those who wish to see America fall. Just my opinion and viewpoint on this but this guy is dangerous and is doing more harm to American national security, our economy and our world status as a super-power and protector of the free world ( although we cannot be the world’s policeman ).
                        If America goes, then world freedom will start to crumble away incrementally. We are the global “icon” of freedom, justice, equality, civility and hope for this planet——–plain and simple   !!!!!

    • George

      In continuation to my previous post————- Here is a writing by  Cicero  that is very brilliant, and it is about TREASON.  

                  Quote——-         ” A nation can survive it’s fools , and even the ambitious. But it connot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates  is less formidable , for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within  the gate freely , his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys , heard in the very hall of government itself.  For the traitor appears not a traitor– he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims , and wears their face and their garments , and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.  He rots the soul of a nation– he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city— he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared  ”  ——-  Cicero , 42 B.C.E      



      (1)     The crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the soverign , or to overthrow the government.
      (2)     A violation of allegiance to one’s soverign or to one’s state.
      (3)     Betrayal


      (1)   Conduct  or speech inciting people to rebelagainst the authority of a state or monarch.
      (2)   Insurrection ; rebellion
      (3)   A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.

      Traitor —

      (1)   A person who betrays a friend , country , principle , etc.
      (2)   One who betrays one’s country , a cause , or a trust , especially one who commits treason.       

      • George

        Our nation and  Constitution allows civil , orderly and peaceful rebellion , such as Freedom of Speech , Freedom of the press, Freedom of assemly , Freedom to march, demonstrate  and voice complaints against political leaders and government actions. Freedom is not free but was fought and won at a price.   

        Since I’m writing this commentary  in English  , here’s another slogan :    ” If you can read English –thank a teacher.  If you can speak English –thank a soldier ” . 

        • George

          Pardon my typos again folks. I’m working on it.

      • Liz

        Treason is right – that is exactly what is going on here.  We should be slapping him in Guantanamo with his buddies, but no, of course no one will lift a finger against him.  Waiting for an election to vote him out is too little, too late.