Machiavellian manipulation is the description that came to mind while listening to President Barack Obama’s recent speech about his plan to reduce defense spending. I liken it to shell game or three-card monty.

What we see is not what we get, and the loser is us taxpayers.

A “reduction” from what? Doesn’t his proposed “reduced” budget fail to include the expenditures for the war in Afghanistan and the continued occupation of Iraq? Won’t his “reduced” defense spending continue to be higher than when he took office?

Part of the proposed cuts will come from military pensions, but will it stop the spending in the undeclared wars in Yemen, Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or the black ops intrusions into countries unknown?

With the exception of Ron Paul, why aren’t the other “conservative” Republican presidential candidates bringing up the subject? Why are some, such as Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman, even advocating for more defense spending?

Why aren’t they asking for reduced spending on building roads, schools and hospitals in foreign countries while proposing cuts for our own?


It appears Paul is the only candidate willing to bring up the subject of the senseless, unfunded and unconstitutional war spending.

In November, I plan to vote for Paul, along with other veterans and active duty military personnel who donated more campaign funds to his campaign than to all the other candidates put together.

Shame on Obama for attempting to pull the wool over our eyes with his “reduced” defense spending speech.

Shame on those Republican wannabe presidents for not debating unfunded, unconstitutional wars.

Our military took an oath to defend our country, not to suffer and die as the world’s policemen.

Patrick Eisenhart


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.