The Foundation

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

Re: The Left

2012-10-29-briefUSS Enterprise with escorts and an auxiliary

"[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. ...