About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

THE TURNING POINT FOR OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR FREEDOM

 





"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall
Despite the plethora of talk radio and TV commentary shows. No one except Glenn Beck is questioning if the way Congress and president Obama are spending money and grabbing powers that are not delegated to him in the Constitution, whether or not our once strong and proud Republic will fail and we will loose our personal freedom to a "nanny" state?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently warned Congress, again, that the trajectory of the federal budget is on an unsustainable course.[v] For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will reach the largest deficits--annual budget short falls--as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since the close of World War II.[vi] The national debt--the sum of all previous deficits--is set to reach 60 percent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 2010.[vii] The CBO warns that these "Large budget deficits would reduce national savings, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy."
A country burdened by such a massive debt must be dependent on foreign Countries to support that debt, and some who now hold our "paper" are not what I would call friends. Communist China for example!
While the deficit and debt is driven largely by entitlement spending--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--the proposed spending by the Youth PROMISE Act and all other new programs being advocated in Congress only move the nation closer to fiscal insolvency. Not including "such sums as necessary" authorizations for the PROMISE Implementation Grants (Section 215) and "Mynisha's Law" (Section 505), the five-year cost of the Act is just shy of $1.3 billion from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. However, the version of the Youth PROMISE Act from the 110th Congress (H.R. 3864) set the budget authority for the Implementation Grants at $2 billion per year. Therefore, a more credible estimate of the cost of the act is $11.3 billion from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. This estimate does not include the cost of "Mynisha's Law" that funds comprehensive gang prevention and relief areas.

Too often, the focus of Congress and grant-making bureaus is the easy and wide dissemination of grants to constituents. As a result, the number of mediocre programs funded under the Youth PROMISE Act will vastly outnumber the number of exceptional programs receiving funding. In addition, the Office of Justice Programs has had difficulty monitoring and evaluating grant-funded programs to ensure that the funding is not being wasted.

Congress should contemplate the fact that government's intervention in the lives of youth can cause more harm than good. SOURCE:THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Then we have the distinct possibility of a militarist Russia as was demonstrated by the presence of at least two Akula class nuclear submarines two hundred miles off the coast of Georgia. Who knows how close they came to our coast line only GOD knows!

To combat the threat of a belligerent Putin led Russia,a nuclear North Korea, and a very soon nuclear Iran. We must have the best available nuclear and stealth submarines in the world.
Most countries have the missile capability of destroying any surface ships we send to combat any aggressor, but the nuclear sub can deliver more fire power than a fleet of air force bombers, by launching it's nuclear missiles.
Unfortunately many of our first line attack submarines are old by today's standards.

The U.S. submarine fleet has declined by 41 percent in just a decade. Only by upholding the long-held SSN standard and moving to a two-per-year built rate by the next fiscal year will the Navy's submarine fleet meet combatant commander requirements that have only increased since 9/11.
The Heritage foundation's recommendation to the Defense Department is that Congress appropriate monies for one new SSN submarine be built in 2010 and then two be built each year after until our submarine fleet is capable of defending our freedom and our allies, if we still have any!

The U.S. Navy's requirement for its undersea fleet is 48 nuclear attack submarines (SSNs); however, the backbone of this fleet, the Los Angeles-class boat, is aging quickly, while overall SSN numbers are projected to drop to the low 40s by the 2020s

If we have 3 billion dollars to spend on supporting the automobile dealers in the "clunkers" scheme, we sure should have enough money to defend ourselves when, not if, an enemy attacks the USA! One Virginia class submarine costs 3.4 billion dollars, and they last a lot longer than any car, and will save us when we need saving!

If Congress doesn't stop spending like our tax dollars are MONOPOLY money, the days of freedom from oppressive taxation and Federal Government regulations will come to a grinding halt, and we will be like any other third World Country whose citizens rely on government largess for scraps of our daily bread!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let’s Not Place Budget-Cutting Solely At The Feet Of Our Military.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009




President Obama’s 2010 budget amounts to an eye-popping $3.7 trillion, and opens the floodgates to a projected $42 trillion in the next decade. This is the largest domestic-spending increase in history. The interest on the national debt will be $800 billion in 2014 — more than we currently spend on national defense.

Obama is using his sending more troops to Afghanistan to delude the American public that are not members of the "OBAMESSIA" congregation. But the real trouble to come our way is the growing nuclear threat from North Korea(China's puppet) and the rapidly approaching nuclear weapon capability of Iran.

This point is supported by the fact that U.S. Defense Secretary Gates said the momentum in Afghanistan is with the Taliban, who are inflicting heavy US casualties( not reported by the New York Times or Washington Post like when Bush was in the Oval Office) and hold de facto control of swaths of the country. The defense chief has been moving aggressively to salvage the war in Afghanistan, signing off on the deployments of 21,000 American military personnel and recently taking the unprecedented step of firing the four-star general who commanded all US forces there. Mr. Gates, speaking in his cabin on an Air Force plane, said the administration is rapidly running out of time to turn around the war. Source: Wall Street Journal

To defend both our allies in the Middle East and parts of Europe against nuclear missiles launched from Iran, and to keep South Korea safe from North Korean hegemony. We need sophisticated missile defensive weapons. The "star wars" program is a good start toward the goal of protecting ourselves and our allies, but it needs more research and development.

Unless we continue expenditures on anti-missile defense systems we will be a "sitting duck" to those who would rather see our capitols in flames then the way they are today.

But the spendthrift Obama has begun a drive toward pacifism and diplomacy that does not include any money to advance some of the weapons systems that we will need if Iran or especially Korea make aggressive advances.
Obamas' budget does not include any money to continue the F-22 Raptor fighter bomber, designed to be the most advanced and capable fighter jet in the sky.

The Obama budget calls for terminating the F-22 Raptor program after only a dozen or so more are built, and “replacing” them with the more standardized but less capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-22 is far and away the most advanced plane ever built. Its combination of stealth technology, maneuverability, and survivability makes it essential to maintaining air superiority, which enables the use of less-capable assets in our inventory. Attacking the enemy and protecting our own troops demands air superiority, and compromising that goal is a mistake.

Also critical to maintaining unquestioned air supremacy in a theater of conflict is the Air Force’s fleet of aerial refueling tankers, which are nearly 50 years old and need to be replaced. The cost of doing so is in the neighborhood of $40 billion, that is less than 0.1 percent of projected federal spending over the next decade.
Critics complain that the F-22 is expensive and superfluous. But the F-35 is the most expensive program in Pentagon history, with a projected cost of nearly $1 trillion. Additionally, the F-35 was not designed to do what the F-22 can do in establishing air superiority in situations that require high levels of stealth, speed, and range. And as any one who understands the history of modern warfare realizes, air superiority is what wins wars. Despite what naysayers say about "boots on the ground". The ability to resupply the ground troops with ammunition and supplies requires air superiority! They are complementary, not interchangeable.


American military superiority in Europe, Asia and the Middle East depends on the ability of the U.S. military to threaten and, if necessary, to use military force to defeat any regional challenge.
It connet let Russia in the ETO and North Korea or Communist China to become super powers or we will be once again living in daily peril from nuclear attack at either coast!
Is the Change Americans want, the return of the "Cold War"?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A TEST WE MUST NOT FAIL!

IS A PACIFIST A WISE CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT?












There was no mention in the liberal press in the United States about this issue, but an obscure article in the January 31, 2008 issue of the Moscow Times web page tells a frightening story.

The Russian Military Leaders believe there is a real risk that terrorists could lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction in the near or immediate future. To counter this, the alliance "may consider suppressing the enemy with nuclear weapons.

Under the 2000 doctrine, Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons not only in retaliation against a nuclear attack, as was previously the case, but in response to "a large-scale conventional aggression in a situation critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and it's allies!

Though the report is likely to cause controversy in NATO countries, the authors appear to be merely echoing an idea originally broached by Russian Chief of General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky. Speaking at a meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences on January 19, "Gen. Baluyevsky declared that force should be used not only in the course of hostilities, but also to demonstrate the readiness of leaders to uphold their national interests".
"We are not going to attack anyone," he reassured his audience, "but we want all our partners to realize that Russia will use armed force to defend its own and its allies' sovereignty and territorial integrity. It may resort to a pre-emptive nuclear strike in cases specified by its doctrine."

To do this, the leaders of Russia's Armed Forces would have to establish a permanent readiness to re­solve tasks militarily - by offensive ope­rations in an indefinitely vast number of directions. This implies the permanent enhanced combat readiness of all units,world wide without exception. Otherwise the very idea of a pre-emptive strike will not work. "For such a policy to be effec­tive, Russia should be ready to deal this strike from a broad diversity of geographical locations on its own territory, in neutral air space, and on the world's oceans.
If Baluyevsky's words are heeded, Russia will have to equip all their armed services with permanently combat-ready nuclear weapons. It is any body's guess who will use them first"


If you believe the words of General Baluyevsky, you have to wonder what kind of security the USA would have if Russia should revert to the war-like power it was during the cold war, and we had a President who believes we can talk our way through all threats?. Obama is the person to whom I am referring.

For once I agree with Chris Matthews. The following is a quote from the friday Morning Joe show on MSNBC, 3/24/08: MATTHEWS: "I loved the speech by Barack Obama. I -- I get emotional when I watch these -- I mean, he gets to me. I think his statement as an American is extraordinary, it's powerful, and it's so necessary, and I -- I do think it's a Rorschach test for Americans. It's not a race test. It's a test about sensibility. And some of us are amazingly, um, um, taken by that kind of message, and others are not. It's just -- it's in our, uh, DNA, I suppose. Some people are cold to it. They don't like it. People like Rush Limbaugh, people I get along with but they just have a different sensibility. They have a different reaction to, uh, Barack Obama than -- than I do. I just do".
Yes, Mr. Matthews, it is a test, and if the American people select a pacifist over a proven warrior, it will prove Americans have lost their collective minds!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »