The Mike Church Show World HQ
The Mike Church Show World HQ

Obama and Romney Have No Intention of Sinking any Battleships

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK]


Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Video and Audio – After last night’s debate, which was supposedly on Foreign Policy but really on Interventionism, it’s obvious that neither candidate has any intention of destroying any of our Battleships (or at least mothballing them) and cutting money out of defense spending.  The debate isn’t even going to sway anyone’s opinion, outside of maybe a couple of people on a Frank Luntz focus group.  The election is going to come down to a couple of swing states and mainly Ohio, that’s the Battleship that Romney should be focusing on… the USS Ohio.  For more on the debate, Founders History, and much more, be sure and sign up for a Founders Pass right here…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Okay first of all Mike, obama IS planning on cutting our defense budget. Don’t believe me? Check this article out:

Also, if obama did not have any intention of cutting our defense budget, then why would Raytheon and other similar companies be thinking about firing some of their employees because they’ve lost several contracts before the budget cuts even become effective? Still don’t believe me? Then check this out: .

Why, Mike, would you want to cut the defense budget? Are you seriously siding with obama on this issue? Aside from killing many good jobs, these defense budget cuts would severely weaken our military to the point that we cannot deter any of our foreign enemies. In fact, we’re already at that point. Just look around the world. Libya? Egypt? Federal Reserve Bomber? Any of that ring a bell in obama/ron paul/gary johnson world? Aside from having a weak president, we have lost our military strength and now we can no longer deter any of our enemies from attacking us. Peace only comes through strength. In other words, we need to show our enemies that we are strong (via a strong military) in order to “intimidate” our enemies and deter them from even thinking about harming us. Why do you think we won the Cold War? Because we gutted our military and played “nice” with the Soviets? NO! It was because Ronald Reagan INCREASED our defense budget to build up our military, forcing them to compete with us when their economy was already in shambles. That, Mike, is a great example of how important our great military capabilities are. But I guess you obama/ron paul/gary johnson followers like to “conveniently” ignore such facts and instead would like to pursue a more liberal, progressive approach to dealing with our enemies where we “play nice” with them in the hopes that they won’t hurt us since we’re being so nice.


Yes, I like to conveniently ignore that the United States spends FORTY THREE PER CENT OF THE MILITARY SPENDING ON PLANET EARTH. Jihadis are on the rise, corresponding to our bellicose presence on the Arabian peninsula. When our intervention and arrogant meddling in their affairs ends then the jihad will begin receding. Republican high command and people like you will have us playing world cop until there is NO military left to play “Stratego – American Exceptionalism, John Bolton Edition” with. You ignore history and our tradition prior to WW Wilson at the rest of our peril and I hope/pray MORE people reject this.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x