Tuesday, February 3, 2009

But there ARE promises 'The One' is willing to keep - UPDATED!..

Turns out that the Washington Post mis-reported the "10% Military Cut" story, and that it was, in fact, an Obama demand that the Military cut their Budget Increase by 10%.

While that's a huge boo-boo for the Post (sounds like they had fact-checkers on loan from the NYT) - MY position on the matter hasn't changed.

The idea of Obama cutting military spending while we're involved in two major campaigns - while trying to convince the American people that the Generational Theft Act "must-be-passed-or-we're-all-doomed" - just shows where his priorities are, and just how deeply flawed.
(... just in case you get the wrong idea about that from the previous post...)

Obama’s 1st Promise…

QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...

OBAMA: "I would.”

And, apparently feeling that it's important to keep his word where capitulation-to-leaders-of-terrorist-countries is concerned...

"Obama has begun discreet talks with Iran, Syria"

"In an interview broadcast Monday, Obama said the United States would offer arch-foe Iran an extended hand of diplomacy if the Islamic Republic's leaders "unclenched their fist."

...but it actually turns out that they got the 'tense' wrong in that statement....

However, even before winning the November 4 election, Obama unofficially used what experts call "track two" discussions to approach America's two foes in the region.

(so, realizing that even Sarah palin wasn't going to be enough to carry McShame to the WH, the junior Senator from Illinois started creating & acting on his own foreign policy... nuthin' to see here, folks - move along - Hope&Change! BigSmile!)

Okay - So, what about that warm response to The One's hand-extended-in-diplomacy?

Surely, now that the Evil BusHitlerBurtonZionistConspiracy is out of power, the Arab/Muslim world must be ready for a big kumbaya with The Messiah - so what was their reaction?

... Nothing if not predictable.

Meanwhile, Iran has taken an aggressive posture with regards to possible direct negotiations with the Obama administration.

Iran's government spokesman Gholam Hossein Ehlam told the Iranian Mehr news agency that the request for direct talks "means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," the Associated Press reported.

"Negotiation is secondary," Elham added. "The main issue is that there is no way but for [the United States] to change."

Characteristically, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took up the challenge by insisting that President Obama apologize for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including apologizing for the CIA's role in the 1953 overthrow of Iranian then-Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and for the U.S. backing of Iraq in the 1980s war Iran fought against Iraq, according to a Bloomberg report.

…So, now that he’s lent every terrorist supporting tin-pot in the ME the credibility of warranting ‘negotiation’, ‘compromise’ and – ultimately – capitulation from the POTUS…

…So, now that he’s gone on Al-Arabiya TV and debased himself and the US as ‘bullying’ and ‘wrong’ – speaking of the American people as low-brow rubes whom he must ‘educate’:

“And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”
(Because everyone knows that us Bitter-Clingers *belch* think them Ay-rabs is all just belly-bombin’ skeet-targets – and we need The One to teach us diff’rint *HaockSpit*)

…So now that he’s committed to closing Gitmo (an act which must eventually lead to the release of those held therein, since they’ll now have access to US civilian courts – unless someone can come up with a US-domestic law that they’ve broken)… and the jihadis will no longer even have to fear imprisonment for attacking US military personnel…

…So now that he’s convinced the terrorist nations that he’s a weak-spined wuss who can be dictated-to, bullied and threatened with impunity....

How does he follow that up?

Well, that brings us back around to the other promise that Obama’s willing to keep:

Obama’s 2nd Promise…

To cut “Tens of billions of dollars” from the military – from missile defense systems to other weapons development that he considers “wasteful”

- slashing the US military budgets so that our “Paper Tiger” has fewer teeth.

Of course, in its place he would “propose worldwide bans on the creation of fissile material”

(put that sentiment into a ‘local’ analogy and what you have is an international version of “gun control”, where the nut-jobs and criminals who WANT to nuke other countries just ignore the ban, while countries who toe the line of 'no-nukes-or-missile-defenses' are left with….”HOPE” – that said whack-jobs will "CHANGE" the order-of-fire - and they’ll be killed ‘last’)

And, apparently feeling that it's important to keep his word where gutting-the-military-defense-capabilities-of-the-US is concerned...

Obama demands 10% defense cuts

“The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.”

Of course, that $55Bn won’t even make a dent in offsetting the embodiment of Obama’s real priorities, also known as the new Democrat Spending Orgy …er, “Stimulus Package” :

• $83 billion in welfare payments (the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax)
• $81 billion for Medicaid
• $66 billion on "education" (being more than the entire Department of Education required just ten years ago)
• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
• $20 billion for food stamps
• $8 billion on "renewable energy" projects (which have a low or negative return)
• $7 billion for "modernizing federal buildings and facilities"
• $6 billion on urban transit systems (dominated by unions and which, almost universally, lose money)
• $2.4 billion for "carbon-capture demonstration projects" (because...Global warming, of course...)
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $1 billion for Amtrak (the federal railroad that's run in the red for 40 years)
• $650 million for "digital TV conversion coupons" (on top of billions already spent)
• $600 million on new cars for government (added to the $3 billion already spent each year)
• $400 million for "global-warming research" (separate from the $2.4Bn 'carbon-capture')
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (because when you want to 'stimulate an economy'...)
Okay - so here's my take-away from all this...

We are faced with a President who outs himself as Weak to those in the world who want to kill us, while simultaneously undermining our military effectiveness at not BEING weak, while simultaneously pushing a spending-budget agenda that is sure to forever bury our already-beleaguered economy in crushing debt and create a whole new sub-class of Americans completely dependent on ever-greater numbers of socialist government programs.

What do you even CALL that?

- MuscleDaddy


  1. If I get an Earned Income Credit, I'm going to use it to build a large fence and buy a new rifle.

  2. @ MD - I call it a spineless fool, and a danger to the Republic. I hear the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" these days, and I fear my eyes may also yet see the "coming of the Lord" heralded with American blood on American soil. God help us all. Oyster out.

  3. This is a curious interpretation of a defense budget cut. My understanding is that the defense budget allocated by Obama for 2010 is $527 billion. The 2009 budget was $514 billion. You cannot call an increase from 514 billion to 527 billion a cut in any meaningful sense of the word.

    The Bush administration itself had penciled in $530 billion as an estimated defense budget for 2010. The cut comes from the total amount submitted as a request from the Pentagon to the incoming administration. The Pentagon seemingly always shoots for the moon with these requests, each service wanting to max out its take of taxpayer dollars to fund all sorts of specialty programs.

    The fact the president has augmented the size of the 2010 defense budget - but refused every dollar of the 584 billion requested by the Pentagon - in no way means he cut the budget. He increased it, but by an amount he and his administration deemed appropriate. This is how such things are generally supposed to be done.


  4. The Obamameister has openly stated that his goals are to advance causes which he believes move forward his social (-ist) agenda at the SAME TIME as the stimulus legislation is introduced. It is a convenient time for the left to pound out their wish list of causes concurrent with 'stimulus.' This mixing of the two is a clever way to claim that jobs are being created whilst also citing the 'neglect' of the leftist programs by prior administrations.

    Out problem as taxpayers is that once such legislation is passed, altering it lates will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

    Woe to the future taxpayers of 2 generations down from me (babyboomer)! They and the nation are screwed.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.