What happened to the strong military support that President Kennedy had from his
Democrat Party supporters? He actually increased military spending. Those days are gone as the Far Left has been very successful in changing the direction of the Democrat Party over the past 40+ years. Nancy
WATCH: GOP Congressman Booed By Leftist Activists After Vowing To Support More Funding For U.S. Military
Liberal activists booed Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Trott Saturday morning after the two-term congressman vocally supported increasing funding for the United States military.
Speaking to a packed ballroom inside a suburban Detroit convention center, Trott hosted his first town hall meeting since the 2016 elections, where he echoed President Donald Trump’s call for higher levels of military spending.
Many attendees were reportedly affiliated with the liberal activist group,Michigan People’s Campaign, which has been asking Trott to host a town hall ever since his reelection. The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to the Michigan People’s Campaign for comment and received no response.
These are the promises that Trump ran and won on. Call or write to your representatives in congress if you agree that these cuts need to be made. Without those of us at the grassroots letting our voices be heard, congress won’t have the backbone to do this. Nancy
Trump Budget Seeks Big Cuts to Environment, Arts, Foreign Aid
EPA, State Department are among those to see sharp spending reductions to offset military outlay in White House plan
March 16, 2017
PresidentDonald Trumpcalled for sharp cuts to spending on foreign aid, the arts, environmental protection and public broadcasting to pay for a bigger military and a more secure border in a fiscal 2018 budget blueprint released Thursday.
The budget proposal is certain to run into stiff opposition in Congress, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already signaled they are unlikely to enact Mr. Trump’s deep cuts when they pass spending bills that actually fund the government.
The budget proposes hefty cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and the State Department. It also seeks to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and other independent agencies long in the crosshairs of some conservative Republicans.
The cuts, if enacted, would mean some agencies would have to lay off federal workers, though the budget doesn’t always offer exact head counts. It does specify that cuts to the EPA “would result in approximately 3,200 fewer positions at the agency.”
“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” said Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director. “I would expect there would have to be reductions of forces at various agencies.”
Robert Joseph was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2005-2007; Eric Edelman was undersecretary of defense for policy, 2005-2009.
Of President-elect Trump’s tweets since winning the election, the one drawing the greatest criticism may well be his comment last week that the United States “must strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” The next day, his critics went downright ballistic when the president-elect reportedly made the off-camera statement: “Let it be an arms race. . . . We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” The partisans at the Ploughshares Fund and their paid-for “echo-chamber” colleagues across the disarmament community were seething that Trump’s comments could touch off an arms race and undercut strategic stability, lowering the threshold for nuclear use, possibly leading to a global holocaust. But beyond the obvious hyperbole, what are the relevant facts?
Fact one:The nuclear arms race has been going on for more than a decade, but it has been primarily a one-nation race, by Russia—unless you count China, which has been aggressively modernizing its nuclear arsenal as well. Moscow has strengthened and expanded its nuclear capability across the board. It has maintained a broad array of warfighting systems, from nuclear-armed torpedoes to short- and medium-range missiles, including the development of new capabilities that violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. At the strategic level, Russia has modernized all three legs of its triad. It has deployed, or soon will, new mobile and heavy ICBMs as well as a new class of strategic ballistic missile submarines. It has begun testing a rail-mobile ICBM, raising the prospect that it will bring back an operational concept most thought had been abandoned with the end of the Cold War. It is modernizing the air-breathing force with new cruise missiles (already tested over Syria multiple times) and an advanced heavy bomber. Moreover, Russia is developing, and may have tested, an unprecedented new nuclear weapon—a nuclear-powered torpedo with an enormously large warhead, perhaps as large as 100 megatons, whose sole purpose would be to inflict massive civilian casualties and long-term ecological damage.
America’s nuclear triad is sorely out of date, left to age by a president who saw it as a relic of the Cold War.
KEITH B. PAYNE
Mr. Miller, a principal of the Scowcroft Group, earlier served in senior positions at the Defense Department and on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Payne, the director of the Graduate School of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
President-elect DonaldTrumpwill soon be working with his national security team to establish priorities on security and defense policy. Two challenges will demand immediate and unrelenting attention.
Throughout the campaign Mr. Trump emphasized the need to destroy Islamic State, also known as ISIS, as a functioning terrorist organization. Since there is no way to negotiate with or reliably deter medieval zealots willing to murder and die for their misbegotten cause, military force is the only answer at this point. The next president also must keep the defense and intelligence communities focused on preventing the remnants of ISIS from obtaining weapons of mass destruction—particularly nuclear weapons.
But Mr. Trump has inherited the even greater threat of an increasingly precarious nuclear balance. All three elements of America’s nuclear triad—land-based and sea-based missiles, and bombers—are now approaching obsolescence. A hostile Russia that miscalculates U.S. will and deterrence capabilities poses a mortal nuclear threat to our existence.
Democratic Democrats seek to repeal the 1976 Hyde Amendment so that federal funds can be used to pay for abortions. The platform says, “We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers.” Democrats support ratification of UN efforts that affirm “the reproductive rights of women” globally.
Republican The GOP asserts the sanctity of human life and affirms, “The unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.” The party supports a Human Life Amendment making clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth, and it salutes states that require informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods and clinic regulation.
Democratic Democrats applaud last year’s Supreme Court ruling that “LGBT people—like other Americans—have the right to marry the person they love.”
Republican The GOP platform condemns the Supreme Court’s rulings that removed the ability of Congress and the people to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The GOP urges the reversal of those decisions, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment.
Democratic The Democratic platform says: “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.” The party opposes a religious test to bar immigrants or refugees from entering the country.
Republican Republicans affirm that religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. The platform endorses the First Amendment Defense Act, which would protect faith-based institutions and individuals from government discrimination.
Fifteen years after 9/11, the next president will face greater risks and a weaker military to combat them.
Mr. Cheneywas U.S. vice president from 2001-09. Ms. Cheney is the Republican nominee for Wyoming’s at-large seat in the House.
Fifteen years ago this Sunday, nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in our history. A decade and a half later, we remain at war with Islamic terrorists. Winning this war will require an effort of greater scale and commitment than anything we have seen since World War II, calling on every element of our national power.
Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies ofBarack Obama.No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.
President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.
Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen.Ray Odiernotestified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm.Jonathan W. Greenerttestified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”
Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls,accordingto the commandant of the Corps, Gen.Joseph F. Dunford Jr.For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.
The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk.
His final fiscal year federal budget deficit will increase by 35%.
President Obama in the White House briefing room on June 23.PHOTO:ASSOCIATED PRESS
As PresidentObamaends his second term, he’s leaving plenty of political parting gifts. The latest is a 35% single-year increase in the federal budget deficit, and a rising trajectory of spending and debt as a share of the economy.Hillary Clinton’s campaign promise of more “stimulus” spending next year suddenly looks a lot more politically problematic.
That’s the story you haven’t read from the Congressional Budget Office’s latest fiscal and economic outlook released this week. For the 2016 fiscal year that ends next month, CBO now forecasts that revenues will rise by only $26 billion while outlays will increase by some $178 billion. The federal deficit will therefore rise from $438 billion to $590 billion, the biggest deficit since 2013.
EXCLUSIVE:It was just a few years ago, in March 2011, when a pair of U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers – during a harsh winter storm – took off from their base in South Dakota to fly across the world to launch the air campaign in Libya, only 16 hours after given the order.
Today, many in the Air Force are questioning whether a similar mission could still be accomplished, after years of budget cuts that have taken an undeniable toll. The U.S. Air Force is now short 4,000 airmen to maintain its fleet, short 700 pilots to fly them and short vital spare parts necessary to keep their jets in the air. The shortage is so dire that some have even been forced to scrounge for parts in a remote desert scrapheap known as “The Boneyard.”
“It’s not only the personnel that are tired, it’s the aircraft that are tired as well,” Master Sgt. Bruce Pfrommer, who has over two decades of experience in the Air Force working on B-1 bombers, told Fox News.
The secretary of the United States Navy on what it takes to protect and project U.S. power.
Ray Mabus Mr. Mabus is secretary of the United States Navy.
Size matters. It’s as true for America’s Navy as anywhere. It is the size of our fleet that uniquely enables the United States Navy and Marine Corps to maintain presence around the globe, around the clock. That presence has kept the peace and promoted prosperity via trade across open sea lanes for nearly seven decades.
The U.S. has the most powerful Navy in the world, but comparing the size of our fleet directly to other nations’ fleets—as pundits and politicians of late have done—is fundamentally flawed. As America’s “Away Team,” the U.S. Navy protects and projects our leadership role because it can get anywhere faster, stay longer and carry everything it needs to execute its missions—all without needing anyone else’s permission.
In the first 54 days of the air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, for example, the U.S. relied solely on Navy F/A-18 Hornets flying sorties from the sovereign territory provided by the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf. Land-based bombers were delayed until host nations granted approval.
To combat Ebola in West Africa, V-22 Ospreys put Marines on the ground the same day as President Obama’s order, providing logistical support to doctors. During Operation Tomadachi, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan in 2011, more than 16 ships, 130 aircraft and 12,000 U.S. sailors and Marines delivered 340 tons of supplies.
Since World War II, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have secured the high seas, enabling 90% of world-wide seaborne trade and 95% of voice and data transfer carried by undersea cables to move without interruption.
But maintaining the U.S. Navy’s global presence requires continued investment in ships. President Obama’s fiscal year 2016 budget calls for $161 billion to fund our assigned missions and continue to grow our fleet. The challenging fiscal climate demands aggressive efforts to cut costs intelligently. We have and we will continue to do so, but not at the expense of maintaining presence. Cutting ships would jeopardize U.S. security and the global economy. (more…)