The Navy Is Not an Anachronism

Tags

The Patriot Post

“Freedom is something that cannot be passed on in the blood stream, or genetically. And it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it’s gone and gone for a long, long time.” –Ronald Reagan

Via The Patriot Post

“To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
George Washington

Re: The Left

“[Barack Obama is] certainly not a very good debater. He showed it again [last] Monday night. Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. … That spirit led Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly reasonable case to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: ‘You mentioned … that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.’ Such that naval vessels are as obsolete as horse cavalry? Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of this, but the underlying argument is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired are dinghies, skipjacks and three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of the armed forces — the principal projector of American power abroad — is itself some kind of anachronism. ‘We have these things called aircraft carriers,’ continued the schoolmaster, ‘where planes land on them.’ This is Obama’s case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone? He doesn’t know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a phalanx of escorts? Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants at least 310 and the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report says that defending America’s vital interests requires 346 ships (versus 287 today). Does anyone doubt that if we continue, as we are headed, down to fewer than 230, the casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind of high-tech force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security requires?” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

Government

“The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again — and this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense. … The law in question is called the WARN Act, and it requires that federal contractors send employees layoff notices 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff. The inconvenience: Massive defense spending cuts under sequestration are scheduled to hit on January 2, 2013. Defense contractors affected by the budget cuts would have to issue notice letters to employees by November 2 (four days before the election) to meet the January 2 start date for the spending cuts. The penalty taxpayers would pay: Employers who violate the WARN Act are liable to their former employees for ‘back pay for each day of a violation’ and ‘benefits under an employee benefit plan,’ as well as a penalty of $500 for each day that notice has not been sent to the local government where the layoffs will occur. As an example, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens has said that 123,000 of his employees would receive layoff notices. If companies fail to meet the WARN Act’s deadline, lawsuits from employees could result — but the White House has provided a taxpayer-funded guarantee as a way to counter their fears of enormous litigation costs. This guarantee is not only unprecedented but also potentially unlawful. … This is the ultimate abuse of the President’s executive authority: inducing federal contractors to violate a federal law and promising to use taxpayer funds to reimburse them for any resulting liability that they incur for violating that law. Refusing to follow federal law has become the hallmark of this Administration, but the White House’s latest arrogant, unlawful ploy goes even further and may end up costing the American taxpayer a great deal of money.” —Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and Amy Payne

For the Record

“The third-quarter GDP report was a nasty October surprise for a nation desperately in need of more jobs and higher take-home pay. The U.S. economy grew just 2.0% from July through September. At the current pace, the economy will grow just 1.8% this year, the same miserable pace as last year. … As it is, the weak recovery has put the U.S. into a deep, deep hole: The weak report leaves the economy on a growth path far below its potential. This is the ‘output gap.’ … If the recovery had been stronger, putting growth back on its traditional pace, cumulative GDP over the past five years would have been roughly $10.3 trillion higher. Or what if the Obama recovery had been as strong as the Reagan recovery? GDP this year would be $1.5 trillion higher than it is currently. Let’s say from here on out, the economy [grows] at trend, say 3% of so. Because we never had those powerful ‘catch up’ years of above average growth — say, 4% to 7% as in the Reagan recovery — GDP levels will be lower in the future than they would be otherwise. GDP in 2037 will be some $5 trillion lower. And cumulative GDP losses over those years will be close to $100 trillion. … The Great Recession never really ended. It just morphed into the Long Recession. And the Long Recession continues.” —American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis

Insight

“I don’t know who started the idea that a President must be a politician, instead of a businessman. A politician can’t run any other kind of business, so there is no reason why he can run the U.S. That’s the biggest single business in the world.” –humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Culture

“I want to explain to you just how extremist the media is on abortion and just how much spinning in favor of killing kids the media does. According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Richard Mourdock’s position on abortion — that the only exception in support of abortion should be the life of the mother. According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Barack Obama’s position on abortion — any time during pregnancy until the moment of delivery. … When the media chooses to report stories about abortion, the media consistently chooses to report stories like Richard Mourdock’s statement and Todd Akin’s statement, both of whom believe that children conceived as a result of rape are still human beings entitled not to be ripped apart in utero and scraped out of the womb or whatever procedure the child killers use these days. … These members of the media have a vested interest in painting the pro-lifers as extreme and themselves as in the mainstream, despite an equal percentage of Americans agreeing with both sides. … Then, of course, they also shape the news.” —RedState.com managing editor Erick Erickson

READ MORE at The Patriot Post, The Voice of Essential Liberty