Reckless Endangerment


Dear Dan:

Not since Jimmy Carter’s mishandling of the presidency from 1976-1980 have we seen such an ineffective, feckless and incompetent national security policy from the White House. But Barack Obama’s latest proposals to drastically cut America’s defense budget stretch the boundaries of stupidity and naivety…

…or are these moves designed to intentionally weaken America?

We are preparing our grassroots campaign strategy to make sure members of Congress know that drastic cuts to our defense budget are unacceptable to Americans from all walks of life.

The US is withdrawing from the world and cutting our military while countries like Russia, Iran and China are filling the void Obama has left.

Look at the drastic cuts to the military that Obama is instituting in the face of an expansionist Russia, a China that is ramping up military spending exponentially and an Iran that is feverishly working on nuclear weapons.

And what are we doing?

Last week, Obama’s Air Force secretary announced that the Air Force will eliminate the entire A-10 Warthog fleet, the U-2 spy plane fleet, the KC-10 tanker fleet and significantly reduce the number of F-15 and F-16 fighters. All told 580 aircraft will be junked.

On the Navy side, the situation is just as bad or even worse.

The Chief of Naval Operations told Congress last week that the US Navy needs 450 ships to meet its mission requirements.

How many does it have?

284.

But here’s the worst part: Currently the Navy has 11 aircraft carriers. Most analyses indicate that the Navy needs 12 carriers to perform its missions while some even say we need 15 carriers.

Nevertheless, Obama is about to cut our Navy down to 10 carriers.

How?

By mothballing and likely scrapping a nuclear powered carrier just halfway into its service life.

The USS George Washington was commissioned in 1992. Her designed service life from the start was 50 years. She was scheduled to undergo a mid-life modernization and refueling next year, a process that takes 4 years.

Obama plans on getting rid of the Washington rather than performing the long-planned update work.

This is a gross example of mismanagement. The American people invested heavily in the Washington when she was built. She was designed to serve America for 50 years. Obama is pilfering that investment.

ACT! For America needs to raise an emergency fund of $25,000 in the next 3 weeks to raise awareness about the danger from Obama’s defense proposals before he can get them through Congress.

Obama claims that he is doing this in the name of “fiscal responsibility,” but there are some inconvenient truths about Obama’s priorities.

For instance, in the first 5 years of the Obama administration, the U.S. government spent a record $5.3 trillion on welfare programs.

Today there are 48 million people—many not even Americans—receiving food stamps from the US government—by far more than ever before.

And did you know that, even with Obama’s drastic defense budget cuts, the federal budget will still grow by $200 billion?

The only thing being truly cut is our national defense.

Meanwhile, Russia is invading its neighbors, China is spending up to 15% of its rapidly growing GDP on defense every year, Iran continues to enrich uranium and sponsor Jihadist terrorism and Al Qaeda is operating in more nations worldwide than ever before.

Obama’s priorities are clearly out of touch with America and they are recklessly endangering America’s national security.

ACT! For America is America’s ONLY grassroots national security organization. No one understands the motivations behind Barack Obama better than our 279,000 members from coast to coast.

Our entire mission is to promote America’s national security by peace through strength at home and abroad. We know how important national security is to the future of our country; we work tirelessly in the halls of power in Washington, DC, we write about it and speak about it every day on the radio, television and in speaking engagements across America.

But in order to keep at our work, we need your help.

Please follow this link right now to make your tax-deductible donation. Whether you can give $25, $2,500 or somewhere in between, we are grateful for your support.

Thank you for your help. We will keep you updated on our progress toward preserving a strong national defense in spite of Obama’s dangerous proposals.

Sincerely,


Brigitte Gabriel 

Another Glaring Example of Gay Intolerance

I have many friends who share my world view, we call it Christianity. Many of my homosexual friends inevitability raise the question they think brings the fire-breathing Christian conservative to a screeching halt. The question is usually prefaced by a statement, “You do understand that your faith is all about love,” and then comes the question, “why can’t you express that love to everyone equally, why don’t you practice what you preach?” My response is very simple, many of us do and try very hard, and then we come up against the in your face attitude and practices of the radical element of the LGBT, that element who makes it clear they are no longer satisfied with acceptance. They’re goal is to smash the life from any person or voice that is not compatible with their life style. This intolerance against those they claim are intolerant is becoming a menu very difficult to digest for many Christians.

Michael Brown writing for Charisma, wrote on March 31, 2014 an article that articulates the nature of the problem. Many of us in the Christian community want to be open, and loving to our LB friends, yet understanding there is a need for the LB community to demonstrate the same degree of tolerance and love they demand from those they clearly seek to silence and destroy. It would seem to be profitable for the LGBT to try and understand the reasons and Biblical understanding many Chritians have concerning Christian marriage. Brown writes about our challenge below.

Richard Schultz, CEO Starbucks

Richard Schultz, CEO Starbucks

We’ve heard it for years now from gay activists: “You need to be tolerant and inclusive. You need to embrace diversity.”

The only problem is that in reality, tolerance, inclusivity and diversity only go one way—and pity the person who dares challenge that narrow and exclusive way.

This is a lesson that Brendan Eich, the CEO of the Internet giant Mozilla, just learned firsthand, with employees calling for his resignation because, in 2008, he made a donation to support Proposition 8 in California, upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of course, had he supported the redefinition of marriage in 2008, he would be hailed as a hero today.

Just think of Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, who, together with his wife, donated $2.5 million to support the effort to redefine marriage in Washington state in 2012, to the celebration of the media.

Or think of Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks and also an avid supporter of homosexual “marriage.”
When a Starbucks shareholder noted at a public meeting in March 2013 that profits were down after a boycott of Starbucks was called for by pro-family organizations, Schultz gave an unequivocal reply, which was widely praised: “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”
Ah, the voice of tolerance and diversity!
Other top companies also raised their voices in 2012-2013 in support of redefining marriage, including Microsoft (which released an ad for Outlook featuring two women kissing on the courthouse steps after getting married); Expedia; Budweiser; HBO; Smirnoff; Kenneth Cole; Levi’s; Nordstrom; and Kraft, maker of Oreo Cookies (Kraft released a multistacked rainbow Oreo cookie for Gay Pride Month).
As reported by Laura Stampler in Business Insider on March 28, 2013, “While the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legalization of gay marriage this week, some of the biggest companies in the world risked isolating its [sic] conservative consumer base to come out in loud support of marriage equality.”

Yes, all these companies were calling for tolerance and diversity, standing as champions of inclusivity—unless, of course, you happened to disagree with their position. In that case, you were quickly branded an intolerant bigot, a narrow-minded Bible-basher, a disciple of the late Fred Phelps.

Just ask Dan Cathy, now CEO of Chick-fil-A, who has deemed it prudent to withdraw entirely from the culture wars, not wanting his company to be associated with divisive social issues after the controversy that surrounded Chick-fil-A in 2012.
As reported by Forbes.com, which mocked Cathy’s values with the headline “Gay Marriage Still Wrong, But I’ll Shut Up About It and Sell Chicken,” Cathy now agrees “that the ‘lingering identity’ of Chick-fil-A with ‘anti-gay groups’ that jumped to its defense in 2012 has meant ‘alienating market segments.’”
And this, of course, underscores the irony of the upside-down world in which we live: If you, as a business leader, say, “I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, in keeping with the definition of marriage throughout our history,” you are now dragging your company into the culture wars, creating undue controversy, mixing business with politics and alienating certain segments of the market.
But if you say, “I believe that we should radically redefine marriage, change our laws and our education system to reflect those changes, and create a new model previously unknown in history,” then you are not dragging your company into the culture wars or alienating certain segments of the market.
As for Brendan Eich, it is now being reported that, “staff at tech company Mozilla are calling for CEO Brendan Eich to resign a week after he took the job, after it emerged that he gave donations to an anti-LGBT campaign.”

Oh, the horror!
And how much did he give? Did Eich’s donation match the extravagant giving toward LGBT causes by executives like Tim Gill, founder of Quark, who gave $10 million in 2006 alone; or the aforementioned $2.5 million donation of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos; or the $1.5 million of Yahoo! investor Daniel Loeb; or the $600,000 and $100,000, respectively, from Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer; or even the $100,000 and $40,000, respectively, from Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin, given in opposition to Proposition 8?

Not a chance. Eich donated $1,000 to support marriage in 2008 (yes, just $1,000), and for this single, relatively tiny act, his employees are in an uproar, with tweets like this being commonplace: “I’m an employee of @mozilla and cannot reconcile having @BrendanEich as CEO.”
Or this one, which includes a classic example of gay activist doublespeak: “To me, @Mozilla is about openness & expression of freedom. I hope to see us have leadership that represents those values in their actions.”
What? Mozilla is “about openness & expression of freedom,” and so, to paraphrase, “I’m calling for the censure of the CEO of the company because his views differ from mine”?

Eich, for his part, was quick to repent of his transgressions, as it is reported, “In a post on his blog entitled Incluseiveness [sic] at Mozilla, Eich responded to the criticism and said: ‘I express my sorrow at having caused pain’ and promised an ‘active commitment to equality’ at the firm.
“’I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.’”
Perhaps after serving some time in a tolerance re-education camp, Eich will be deemed fit to lead the company. And perhaps he can explain to us how, in keeping with his profession of “inclusiveness,” he is actually supporting those employees who, for religious or other reasons, supported Proposition 8, as he once did. Or does inclusion go only one way?

Michael Brown is author of Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

Did you enjoy this blog? Click here to receive it by email.

Obama to Military Chiefs: Get on Board With Gays or Get Out!

President Barack Obama told the nation’s military leaders to either back his efforts to end their controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy or resign, BuzzFeed reported.

In a video obtained by the news website, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp says Obama refused to compromise with the nation’s five service leaders during a meeting in 2010.”We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,”‘ Papp says on the video. 

“I cannot divulge everything he said to us, that’s private communications within the Oval Office, but if we didn’t agree with it — if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things.”

Papp’s remarks came during a meeting with U.S. Coast Guard Academy cadets, when he was asked how officers should deal with policies they disagree with, but must abide by.

“If I disagree morally with [a policy], it’s my obligation to voice that, regardless of the risk it might give my career” Papp says on the video.

“I’ve been in those situations. I’ve been fortunate to have good leaders that have appreciated that.”

Papp also said he believed abolishing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a proper decision.

BuzzFeed acquired the video through a Freedom of Information request.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — an official U.S. policy adopted by the Clinton administration in 1994 — prohibited gays and bisexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the military.

The policy also banned those who demonstrated a “propensity or intent” to engage in gay behavior from serving, because it would “create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability”

The policy was ended in 2011.