Patriot Post


Is it just me, or do you also feel that the nation is being surrendered?   The question is: To whom or to what, and why? Several factors appear to reveal this scenario, but one of the most prominent is the impending disarmament of our defense forces that is unprecedented in our history.

For one thing (and yes, I know, I have repeated this lately in other blogs and topics) the U.S. had been reduced during the Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton years to the point where our defense capability was such that we could not respond to a series of terrorist attacks that culminated in the fateful 9/11 attacks on the U.S. We simply did not have the capability at the time to respond adequately to the threats that confronted our nation, because the defense slashers, including Clintonista Leon Panetta, who now is Obama’s Secretary of Defense, but was back then one of the principal architects of base closings, troop reductions, and massive defense reductions, had sliced up the Pentagon and its charges severely.

The solution, to be able to answer in a limited way,  the 9/11 attacks, was to “federalize” the National Guard and activate our reserves by turning them into “regular” troops. Even aspects of our Coast Guard have been sent overseas to serve. While many argue that the tactics we used in Iraq were inadequate and some say incompetent, until the effecting of “the surge,” the underlying problem was that until that time there were not enough trained and experienced personnel to do the job. This is no fault of the troops themselves, for they stepped up to the plate and carried out their missions in exemplary performances, wherever they were needed. However, our troops certainly suffered casualties and fatalities, far above what was necessary due to the premature use of “not regular” forces, at least in the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Today our already reduced armed forces, padded with National Guard and Reserve troops, regardless of how well trained and maintained the force is, is going to undergo additional cuts and reductions. Now a wholly inadequate Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, armed force, which has been artificially propped up with Reserve and National Guard troops is going to be further decimated, and that decimation is tantamount to a scenario of surrender.

Frank J. Gaffney of Investors . com is flashing red lights and issuing the warnings:

“The budget that President Obama unveiled on Monday does its best to conceal the magnitude and implications of his plans for our military. But the cumulative effect of the spending cuts it does specify, together with those that are statutorily required but as yet unacknowledged, is unmistakable: The U.S. military’s might will be transformed from that of, and befitting, a global superpower to that of just another cash-strapped, if glorified, regional power.”

Gaffney provides a stunning observation, along with a graphic representation of Defense spending shriveling as entitlement spending swells and says:

“This is not an accident; it is by design. The evidence of Mr. Obama’s true intentions towards our armed forces and their ability, on behalf of the nation, to project power is all over the just-released 2013 budget…Let’s start with what Mr. Obama has described as his new “defense strategy” — a blueprint for the armed forces that supposedly justifies cutting at least another $487 billion from Pentagon accounts. In fact, that strategy is purely a budget-driven exercise: We are being told what we can afford and then what we will do with that amount…What he thinks we can afford in the way of national security capabilities bears a surprising resemblance to what hard experience has branded as a “hollow military.” That is, the sort of force we have been left with in the past when successive presidents thought we could safely cash in “peace dividends” in the wake of victories or, at least, when serious security threats had receded.”

Gaffney covers the hollow arguments of the Surrender minded President presenting the discrepancies of “pivoting” from where our defenses are now and redirecting them toward the Far East. It’s simply not doable, he says.

“Even if we do disengage substantially from the Middle East to concentrate on China, does anyone really believe that the transformed Obama strategy, which will only allow for one-conflict-at-a-time strategy, won’t invite Iranian or other aggression while we are confronting the Chinese? Apart from America’s enemies, is that the kind of “change” anybody is hoping for?”

And then there’s the looming problem of “sequestration.” That’s the scenario in which, if Congressional actors cannot come to an agreement, automatic cut-backs are mandated by legislation that would add further reductions.

Even Defense butcher Leon Panetta was joined by Hillary Clinton in warning that such an eventuality would be devastating to the nation:

But even before the current slice and slash scenario was even considered, the previous Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates issued repeated warnings about heavy handed scissoring of our defenses.

Putting this in context, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen warned that the greatest threat to our national security is our National Debt:

The once Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and now President of the Center for Security Policy, Frank J. Gaffney concludes his article (which you can see HERE) with this forceful refrain:

This makes it astounding, not to say scandalous, that the true extent of the devastating transformation to the national security now in the works is not being disclosed by what candidate Barack Obama promised would be ‘the most transparent administration in history.’…What is transparent about the president’s defense program is that it involves what he considers to be undesirable employment and industries, not the kinds he favors…So 100,000 troops and Marines will be forced out of uniform, a million jobs may be lost in the defense sector and businesses doing vital work for the national security may have to close because they didn’t happen to involve “shovel-ready” transportation jobs, green energy or other favored activities…We simply cannot afford this sort of transformation — and the dangerous world into which it will plunge us, wholly unprepared.”

The President’s agenda becomes clear when one puts in context the wide panorama that comprises his political strategy. Without a strong military, the U.S. cannot defend its interests and its holdings. In order to ensure that our defenses are limited, he must ensure that we are vastly in debt and have a weakened economy. In this wise he justifies cutting the Pentagon budget.

Additionally there is a more severe price for unwitting citizens to pay, for not only is Obama disarming the nation’s armed forces, he seeks also to disarm its citizens. The recent buzz about Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s failed gun tracking program, Fast and Furious, which was actually a front for a way to justify anti-gun legislation here in the U.S., has recently backfired. But it has brought to light the extent to which the Obama administration is willing to take measures in order to implement his agenda.

Add to the aforementioned situations the following contingencies that have already come to fruition:

1. The deteriorating unbridaled acceleration of the national debt, the deficit spending, and the prominent absence of anyone demanding that it stop, and then taking the steps to make it stop.

2. The unprecedented unchecked massive corruption of Legislators via lobbying efforts, government favors, government kick-backs, outright bribery, financial favoritism, conflicts of interest. One despicable example: They actually had to pass a law to prevent Senators and Representatives from indulging in “insider trading.” The level of ethics is such that refusal to do that is not coming from within themselves; that is, they have not found it possible to refrain from indulging in insider trading, and have to have a law passed to keep them from doing so, even though there are laws already on the books that make it illegal for you and I to indulge in insider trading.

3. The extreme prevalance of conflicts of interest between bankers, Wall Street, Financiers, and the Federal Reserve, leading to massive benefits for those inside the financial circles and their interests, because there simply aren’t checks and balances or laws existing on the books that make it illegal, like the Fannie/Freddie fiasco, the “derivatives” and the subsequent bail-outs.

By design or by default, the apparency is that not only are our Defense Forces being decimated, our entire society is being dismantled piece by piece.

Combine these factors and you have a formula that begs the question: To whom or to what is our President surrendering? And more importantly, WHY?

And even more pressing is the question: “What are YOU going to do about it?