When: Tuesday, May 7th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Cole Withrow (the Eagle Scout that got arrested for being responsible), terrorist teachers, and the military’s war on religion. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

When: Tuesday, April 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: It’s been a crazy week, and George is on the warpath. More gun talk, of course. Plus, some talk about the ATF, military, the Boston Bombing suspects’ family, and wait for it…. PORN. So, be sure to join us for an interesting ride, and of course, there will be the Soldier Salute, and the infamous “Crack Pipe Moment”!

Since April 5th, readers of Todd Starnes writing have been shown examples of the U.S. military adopting policies or actions that can’t be called anything but firmly anti-Christian. In that first report, Starnes pointed out that the U.S. Department of the Army had labeled Evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists. That is sensitive terminology, because it is typically attached to potential security risks – individuals or groups that may engage in violent activities to promote their goals. Using that terminology in reference to those religious organizations places them on a list with terrorist organizations. Of course, objections to this classification have been lodged, but it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any changes made.

Then, there was a report about a directive given to soldiers, requiring that they remove a reference to a bible verse that is etched on the scopes of their weapons. There were instructions on a procedure to remove the references entirely, including filing and cleaning. The references were placed on the scopes by the vendor. Why the military considers a minuscule marking on the equipment such a danger to service members remains to be seen. It could be argued that it could be bothersome in the field, if the scopes were seen by enemy combatants. However, it is no secret to anyone that there are many Christians in the U.S. military.

Finally, there is a report about military personnel not being able to access the Southern Baptist Conference website from base computers. Other than preventing members of that denomination from being able to access information from their churches, it is also hampering the ability of Baptist Chaplains to perform their duties. And, apparently, this block isn’t being initiated by the Pentagon, but by “Team CONUS” – the entity that is in charge of maintaining security for the computer systems in question. As for the reason given to users about why the site is being blocked, they are shown a screen that states the site may contain “hostile content.”

Any one of these situations is not a good sign, and definitely runs contrary to the old military adage “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Put them all together, and it appears there is a trend building in the military to remove religious references entirely.

When one in five Federal workers is making over $100,000 (459,000 workers) it is atrocious that our soldiers pay should be first cut. As is obvious from the above chart most of our brave enlisted men and women barely make enough to care for themselves, let alone a family. Many are already eligible for food stamps and other low income assistance.

Do you know we taxpayers paid $28,000 per week so that Secretary Panetta could fly home to be with his family every week?

Why cut those who serve in harms way to keep us safe? Is this politics as usual? Or is it because the GI’s have little say and are not represented by the powerful public sector unions?

Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.

The report states that it could be a “dry run” for the future. A dry run for what?

Raising the Debt Ceiling is the same as a credit card company raising your credit limit. It has nothing to do with paying what’s already owed. It simply allows you to spend more than you already owe. The Debt Ceiling doesn’t stop government from paying its existing bills any more than your credit limit keeps you from paying your existing bills. It isn’t possible to “default” when a debt ceiling isn’t raised. The whole purpose of a debt ceiling is to protect against defaulting.

The problem occurs when you don’t have enough sense to know to stop charging more than you can afford to pay. By Obama’s own admission, America is already there. That is exactly the cycle Obama is perpetuating. By his definition a debt limit is a circular that has no end as long as you want more than you can afford. We all know better. Until Obama most Americans hadn’t heard of the Debt Ceiling, because until Obama we didn’t have this perpetuating problem.

A humorous look at understanding the Debt Ceiling:

America already brings in enough revenue every month to pay for ALL of our essential services and still have money left over – including military and social security and existing interest on debt.

When Obama threatens military or social security payments, understand that he is voluntarily making those personal choices. It is not because there isn’t money to pay those particular items. It is only because he chooses those items from among all of the wasteful spending there is to choose. Obama is opting not to pay what will hurt Americans most. That is unconscionable fear-mongering. He is counting on you being so frightened at his prospects that your outcry pressures Congress to give him a higher debt limit … so he can keep spending more of other people’s money.

When we have someone at the helm who is not governing our money responsibly, it is our job to be the banker in the video.

Default Not at Issue, Federal Spending Is

Default. The only way the federal government would default on its debt in the event the debt ceiling remains unchanged is for the Treasury to choose to default—an utterly implausible eventuality. Suggestions to the contrary in the press and elsewhere are simply inaccurate and shameful.

(Click title link for full story.)

“Default” Is a Red Herring in Debt Ceiling Debate

Obama accused his opposition in Congress of threatening to “default” on America’s loans in order to make a political point.

“I am not going to have a monthly or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It’s hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn’t be having that debate.”

The “threat of default,” as Obama called it, is a red herring.

“Suggesting that the United States might default on its debt is factually wrong and shameful behavior on the President’s part,” Heritage’s J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, said yesterday.

The U.S. is not going to default on its interest payments, Foster said, and “this assurance rests not on congressional action to raise the debt ceiling, but on the simple fact that the Treasury has far more than enough funds to pay all interest as it comes due.”

Facts have been slim in the President’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling. And in his press conference yesterday, he dug himself into a deeper hole, again arguing against his toughest opponent: the Barack Obama of 2006.

Yesterday in his press conference, the President argued the opposite. This time, he said raising the debt ceiling was simply an acknowledgement of the country’s bills:

“America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already racked up.”

Click here to see Obama’s Congressional Record in arguing against the Debt Ceiling.

(Click title link for full story.)

One might reasonably ask of Obama (he being a man of endless personal resources), if he has The People’s best interests at heart why wouldn’t he choose to withhold his salary or travel costs – or those of Congress – rather than already-earned pay of those he and Congress are paid to lead? Why wouldn’t he defund programs of any number of glaringly wasteful other spending, like the ilk of lice nits or dry river beds, BEFORE messing with the earned pay that sustains our military and elderly?

As leader of a household, would you take food from the mouths of your children or spouse before you would your own? Would you keep your money in a bank if the bank was so poorly managed your money wasn’t there when you went grocery shopping or tried to pay a utility bill?

A leader holds himself aside from those who rely on them, because a leader is more responsible for making good decisions. Good leaders make decisions in favor of those who are most vulnerable and adversely effected by their decisions, before doing so in favor of themselves. That is what leaders do. They live by example. If for no other reason than to protect the less capable of protecting themselves, those for whom they are the most responsible. That is a leader’s job. Why else have one?

Obama’s personal choice in threatening military pay is an especially egregious act for a leader that calls himself ‘Commander In Chief’ of the very men and women he is personally threatening. We pay Obama and Congress to make good decisions and to set proper examples. When government fails in their job it is their obligation to absorb the consequences of those failed decisions, not shuffle them onto the least among us. That is their moral duty. That is their leadership obligation. That’s why they make the big bucks.

Enough is enough. If it doesn’t sicken you that a president would willingly use and knowingly hurt the most vulnerable and deserving among us, to coerce his way in a course of action that is self-serving, irresponsible and self-destructive, then something is very awry with the way you’re thinking.

Now it’s clear what Obama is doing and why he’s doing it. The only question remaining is, how are you going to allow his decisions to effect you? Just as Obama is counting on public outcry over his choices, to influence Congress, the reverse is true. When Americans decry what Obama is doing for the unconscionable reasons he is doing it, that influences him.

My family is reliant on one of the sources of income that Obama chooses to threaten. Common sense dictates that at this juncture Obama will not risk turning a nation of people against him by realizing threats of such an egregious nature. I am willing to call that bluff so we can get America’s spending back in line. And I will never forget that it is Obama’s doing – and only Obama’s doing – if the day comes when I can’t pay my bills because HE wanted more for himself, from My money, than what he was willing to repay in what he already owes Me.

Stand firm.

Call and email your legislators to Stop Spending.

Voices in number DO make a difference.

Find yours here: Contact Elected Officials

(Click on image to enlarge and clarify.)

Craig Pusley says he got the idea from another Marine, Staff Sgt. Jordan Pritchard, who stood guard at Gower Elementary School in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Pusley decided to stand guard in front of Hughson Elementary School in Modesto, California, on Wednesday in a desert camouflage uniform, saying it would help the children feel safer following the Newtown, Connecticut shooting. The problem is…. he is not a Marine.

I was leaving the grocery store, and as I walked across the parking lot, I saw an elderly gentleman standing beside his shiny black car. I could not quite tell what he was doing at first, though it was obvious he was intent on something very important. As I got closer, I saw that he was dusting his car off with a feather duster! This struck me as hilarious, and I struggled to stifle my giggle as I passed, watching him painstakingly clean any speck of dirt he could find from his beauty.

When I got behind his car, I saw his license plate. My heart skipped a beat with pride and gratitude as I realized that he is an Army Veteran.

No wonder he takes such pride in his belongings! He does not take for granted the many things we as a nation see as every day things. His car was not brand new… newer, but not brand spanking new. But you would never know it by the looks of it, or the great care he took to keep it looking nice and shiny!

As I backed out of my parking spot, I rolled my window down and thanked him for his service to this great nation. I wish you could have seen the gleam in his eyes as he tipped his head at me, nodded and smiled, as he said, “You are most welcome!” I wished him a Merry Christmas, to which he returned the Merry Christmas greeting heartily to me. What a great nation we live in! Sadly, too many of us take it for granted, and sit idly by as our freedoms slip quickly away from us.

This man has not forgotten what he fought for. I will never forget his beautiful, twinkling eyes, so alive and proud, even in his elder years!

This poem was written by

LCDR Jeff Giles, SC,
USN 30th Naval Construction Regiment

From the YouTube Description:

THE STORY BEHIND THE SONG:
“Some Peace On Earth” was inspired by the work done by the Wreaths Across America organization and Jim Varhegyi’s photos of the “Wreaths In the Snow” at Arlington National Cemetery that went viral on the internet in 2007. Music publisher, Justin Wilde was so moved by the photos, he believed there should be an accompanying song, so he asked two of his best writers to come up with one. It took nine months, but it was worth the wait. Phillip Keveren’s lush melody and Steve Hostetler poignant lyric blended perfectly to create this patriotic holiday anthem which pays tribute to the United States military, and especially for those who died serving our country. Marshall Hall was asked to record the vocal. The end result was so moving and inspirational, Justin subsequently decided to produce and direct this video which chronicles the heroic sacrifices made by the men and woman of our armed forces over the last century.

During the hustle and bustle of the December holidays, we often fail to celebrate and honor those who made it possible for us to enjoy the wondrous blessings of liberty and freedom. For those who lost their lives defending our country, we can never thank them enough. Remember the families they left behind. Share your memories of those they lost. Assure them that their loved one is greatly missed and will never be forgotten. It is our hope that this song will become a part of America’s holiday tradition. To quote its lyric,

Every year at Christmas, we should not forget
Resting in those quiet fields are the bravest and the best
We need to show we understand what their sacrifice is worth
‘Cause they gave everything, just to bring … SOME PEACE ON EARTH

Do you ever watch reality shows? I am not a fan because most of the participants are ill-equipped to handle the assigned tasks. I mean really, if you have never lived without modern appliances using a wood cook stove is a tremendously difficult way to prepare dinner as in PBS 1900 HouseIf you have never been out of the city you’ll be a greater disadvantage living in the wilderness than the guy who built his own cabin in Frontier House.

So how realistic is the recent challenge to mayors and other celebrities to live off the allotted funds for food stamps? Greg Stanton the mayor of Phoenix did it for a week and complained that he barely had enough to eat, losing four pounds in the week. You can watch the clip below or read his diary on Facebook.

The mayor of Newark is planning to do the same next week. Both want to be able to empathize with families who are living off food stamps alone. It’s a nice gesture but does it have any basis in reality? The article about Mayor Booker states that he makes $13,400 a month. What are the chances that either of these mayors has cooked from scratch or actually purchased grocery staples that a family might use to stretch their food budget?

On the other hand to get a real feel for life on a shoestring budget I talked to Ro over at The Conservative Kitchen about Food Stamp assistance and reality. She has an interesting article on military finances at her November 30, blog.  As an Army wife Ro explained many military families are eligible for Food Stamps, WIC and the like with assistance offices located right on base. They have to choose between needs and wants. Young wives with small children plan their menu before shopping so they can live within their meager budget.  They quickly learn that packaged foods and ‘junk food’ are usually more expensive but still many don’t have cooking skills to make meals from scratch.

I think it’s noble and good that these mayors want to see the challenge of living off government assistance. But is it reality? Are these men able to make the best food purchase choices, remember the Phoenix mayor chose Top Ramen as part of his menu, probably because it was cheap. Did he discover that ramen noodles, popular choice of college students offers little nutrition and even less hunger satisfaction?

Perhaps if these mayors really want to understand living on Food Stamps while trying to feed a family they should eat with one of these military families rather than doing a big show that really doesn’t have much reality.

This is a hotly-disputed issue today.

Liberal advocates of Western disarmament, such as Daryl Kimball, Tom Collina, Jeffrey Lewis and Hans Kristensen (a lifelong Danish pacifist who now lives in the US) and their organizations claim that China has only 240 warheads. US intelligence agencies still hold on to their obsolete estimate of 300-400 warheads (first made in 1984).

But there is a large and growing body of evidence that they’re dead wrong by a huge margin.

In addition to the study released earlier this year by Georgetown University’s Professor Philip Karber and his team of analysts, and a growing body of evidence that China has far more missiles of all classes than is usually estimated, retired Russian general Viktor Yesin, a former SMF Chief of Staff, estimated in his study several months ago that China has 1,800 nuclear warheads (with enough fissile material for another 1,800), of which 900 are deployed and ready for use anytime, and he gave specific estimates of how many warheads are attributed to how many delivery systems.

In total, he says, China has 50 tons of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium, half of it already used in warheads. General Yesin has recently completed a follow-on study that confirms his previous findings.

He says China has over 200 strategic warheads capable of reaching US soil, and almost 750 tactical (theater) warheads, deployed anytime, or about 950 warheads in total. He has now also given precise estimates of how many are deployed on what missiles, and what their yield (force) is. Yesin estimates China’s DF-11 and DF-15 SRBMs have warheads with a 5-20 kT yield, while DF-21 Medium Range Ballistic Missiles and DH-10 Land Attack Cruise Missiles have 350 kT warheads; JL-2 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles have 500 kT warheads, and its ICBMs have warheads of varied yields: 300 kT, 500 kT, and 2 MT.

China’s 440 strategic and theater bombers, Yesin says, carry B-4 and B-5 nuclear bombs.

Yesin also confirms that China has developed multiple independently retargetable vehicles (MIRVs) and is fielding MIRVable missiles. This is actually an understatement – China has had MIRVable DF-4 IRBMs since the 1970s, and MIRVable DF-5 ICBMs since 1981. What Yesin means are the DF-31A and DF-41A ICBMs, both now in service. He confirms that MIRVs have been deployed for DF-5s, DF-31As, DF-41As, and JL-2s.

Overall, he writes: “China’s nuclear arsenal is appreciably higher than many experts think. In all likelihood, the [People’s Republic of China] is already the third nuclear power today, after the U.S. and Russia, and it undoubtedly has technical and economic capabilities that will permit it to rapidly increase its nuclear might if necessary.”

Yesin understates the number of warheads deployed on China’s ICBMs (48) and MRBMs (99), though. The Washington Free Beacon quotes him thus:

“For missiles, the retired general said that “all told, 207 missile launchers are deployed within the Strategic Missile Forces—48 with ICBMs, 99 with [medium-range ballistic missiles] MRBMs, and 60 with [short-range] SRMs.” Total strategic warheads—those capable of reaching the United States—include 208 nuclear warheads, Yesin said.”

This is an understatement: China has 30-36 DF-5, at least 30 DF-31A, and an unknown number of DF-41 ICBMs, all of them MIRVable. Assuming that there are 72 warheads for DF-5s, 90 for DF-31As, and 10 for a single DF-41, that makes 172 warheads for ICBMs alone. China also has 80 DF-21, 20 DF-3, and 20 DF-4 MRBMs. Even if all of them are single-warhead missiles, that still means 120 MRBM warheads.

In total, this means 292 ICBM/MRBM warheads, not merely 147.

Based on open sources, China’s delivery system inventories and their warhead delivery capacities are as follows:

As you can see, China has at least 1,119 intercontinental and medium range nuclear delivery systems capable of delivering, collectively, 1,264 warheads. And that’s assuming, conservatively, that no LACMs or SRBMs are nuclear-armed, and that China has only 1 DF-41 ICBM on duty. If China has more, or if at least some of its LACMs and SRBMs are nuclear-armed, China’s warhead delivery capacity is even greater.

For his part, Professor Karber says:

“The Russian specialists quoted in the report have credibility because of Moscow’s past and current role in China’s nuclear program. Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces also has good intelligence on China’s nuclear arsenal because it targeted China for three decades. This close proximity and long track record means that Russian ‘realism’ about Chinese nuclear force potential cannot be blithely ignored or discounted as ‘paranoia. Their warning against American ‘idealism’ [on China’s nuclear arms] needs to be taken seriously.”

The US -China Economic and Security Review Commission is now slowly (albeit too slowly) beginning to wake up, acknowledging that China may have more warheads than just 300, and saying that it may have as many as 500. It still, however, wrongly believes that 240 is the most likely size of China’s arsenal, despite a large and growing body of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it understates the threat from China’s sea-based nuclear arsenal, claiming that:

“China has had a symbolic ballistic missile submarine capability for decades but is only now on the cusp of establishing its first credible, ‘near-continuous at-sea strategic deterrent.’”

This is a huge understatement: China is not “only now on the cusp of establishing its first credible, near-continous at sea strategic deterrent” – it has already established a fully continous naval nuclear deterrent. It has 1 Xia class SSBN (with 12 single-warhead JL-1 missiles) and 5 Jin class SSBNs (with 12-24 multiple warhead JL-2 missiles each). Furthermore, while JL-1 has only a 2,400 km range, the JL-2′s range is 8,000 km, allowing the Jins to target the entire US West Coast from a position just slightly east of 150E longitude. (See the map below.) Six SSBNs, assuming 61 days of patrol per sub, give China a fully continous deterrence capability for 366 days/year.

 The Xia class boat is due to be replaced soon by a sixth Jin class boat. The Jins’ long-range missiles, as stated earlier, allow them to target the entire West Coast from places just east of Japan (and Houston from a position slightly east of Hawaii). That capability was not reached by the Soviet Union’s subs until the 1980s. So China has already accomplished what the USSR needed four decades to achieve.

Nonetheless, the Commission does warn against any further uni- or bilateral (with Russia) cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal, rightly admonishing the Obama government to:

“treat with caution any proposal to unilaterally, or in the context of a bilateral agreement with Russia, reduce the U.S.’s operational nuclear forces absent clearer information being made available to the public about China’s nuclear stockpile and force posture.”

Yet, disarmament advocacy groups and their spokesmen, such as those mentioned above, unrepentantly continue to falsely claim that China has only 240 warheads, and only 50 capable of reaching the US, and hasn’t expanded its arsenal since the 1980s; they furthermore deny that China will have 75 ICBMs capable of reaching the US by 2015 (when China already has more than that as of AD 2012). So why do they continue to minimize and downplay the Chinese threat?

Because they overtly advocate America’s unilateral disarmament, including deep unilateral cuts as a first step. They don’t care about the consequences; in fact, they believe (and falsely claim) that this would make the US more secure, even though disarmament and arms reduction have never made anyone who indulges in them more secure, only less.

They don’t care about Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear buildups and have no problems with that, or with these countries’ development of new strategic weapons such as Russia’s next generation bomber, the PAK DA, new RS-24 (SS-29) ICBM, or planned new heavy ICBM, the “Son of Satan”, planned for 2018. Meanwhile, they demand that the US cancel any plans to develop a next generation bomber or ICBM, dramatically cut its existing nuclear stockpile plus ICBM and ballistic missile submarine fleets, and cut orders for future SSBNs. They claim that if America makes these deep unilateral cuts, Russia will be nice enough to reciprocate, or at least stop the expansion or modernization of its own arsenal.

Similarly, during the Cold War, they had no problem with the Soviet Union developing new strategic weapons and producing them in large numbers – they objected only to America’s development and procurement of such weapons.

All they want is America’s total nuclear disarmament.

But in order to get the public to support such policy, they first have to mislead the public into thinking that this can be done safely, i.e. to lull the public into a false sense of security.

Thus, they shamelessly lie to mislead the public into thinking that the deep cuts they advocate can be done safely, because China supposedly has only 240 warheads. They claim this means that the US can safely cut its nuclear arsenal to the low hundreds.

And, predictably, they reacted furiously to facts-based, objective studies of China’s nuclear arsenal by Professor Karber and General Yesin, because these studies and the facts contained therein constitute a huge threat to their agenda of unilaterally disarming the US. (My own study, published on November 5th, hasn’t gotten much attention yet, but if it does, it will likely be attacked just as savagely. Which won’t change the fact that every statement made therein is true.)

These studies show that China’s nuclear arsenal is highly likely to be far larger than what these liberal pro-disarmament groups falsely claim, and by informing the public and presenting evidence to back these claims up – fissile material stockpile estimates, the length of secret tunnels for missiles, estimated numbers of missiles that China has – utterly refute the myth that China has only a few hundred warheads.

And US intelligence agencies? They continue to cling to their obsolete 1984 estimate of China’s arsenal for two reasons. Firstly, like other bureaucracies, they’re embarassed to admit being wrong. And secondly, they (like the rest of the US government) are run by pro-China officials who delude themselves that Beijing can be a great partner and thus don’t want to do anything to counter China, or even to tell the truth about its reali military capabilities.

But China is a foe of the US, and intellectual disarmament always precedes actual disarmament.

America cannot afford this.

The question is as valuable today.

Has your income kept pace with your expenses? Median Household income down nearly $4,000 2008-2012. DOL Number of Americans on Food Stamps UP 70% since 2008. DailyCaller

How is your grocery budget? Are you spending more for the everyday items? What’s the cost of bacon, Detergent? Coffee? Coke?  Safeway ad Oct 2008: Betty Crocker cake mix .58, braeburn apples .88/lb, Progresso soups $1.00

Are you paying so much more for gas that you’ve had to adjust your schedule? Are you driving less? Taking fewer trips?  Average gas price October, 2008 $2.82 USA Today

Do you know someone who is looking for a job? Or someone who had to take a lesser paying job because they couldn’t find anything else? Maybe they’re working two jobs to make up for it? 30% part time workers want full time jobs. NYT

Are you finding your family with less cash and changing activities to those that don’t cost as much? Summer 2012 movie attendance lowest in decades. Hollywood Reporter

What’s the value of your house? Are you upside down? Home values down average 16% since 2008. Progressive Policy Have you lost your home? Do you know someone who is struggling and trying to decide whether to stay in the house or just walk away? Did the president promise to cut through the red tape but the loan people didn’t get the same message? Roughly 4 Million families have lost their homes from 2008 to 2012. NYT

Were you excited that you would be getting ‘free’ preventative health care procedures through your health care until you learned that your insurance costs would increase ten percent or more? Premiums for health insurance have increased an average of $2370 from 2009 to 2012. ABC News If you know a senior are they worried about the upcoming cuts to Medicare necessary to fund the new ‘Affordable’ Health Care Act? Obamacare will cut Medicare $716 Billion. Washington Post

What about those college age kids you know? After being told they must attend college to get a job are they now working part time at the fast food restaurant and living with a roommate (or worse, back home) because they’re now having to pay back those college loans but the job market is so tight businesses can hire workers with great experience rather than the inexperienced college grad?  53% college grads are jobless or underemployed. The Atlantic

Has there been an opportunity for a new business or industry in your area but the EPA, NEPA and its increased powers through executive order are holding it up maybe forever? EPA regulations could mean over 880,000 coal-electric jobs lost per year. Daily Caller

Do you know someone in the military who, mid-career, suddenly has found himself unemployed with no benefits? Or a worker for one of the many defense contractors who are hearing rumors of cuts as the DoD loses one-third of its budget? Defense industry bracing for additional $500 Billion in cuts. Reuters

Barack Obama campaigned on Hope and Change. Are you feeling it? Do you want more of the same?

If you don’t want a repeat of the past four years it’s important you take the time to vote. . .and take a friend.

Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestration plan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.

There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.

For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.

The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.

There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).

Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?

The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.

Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.

But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.

This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.

**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.