He will expose the United States to unnecessary military risk.

Obama has promised to “slow the development of future combat systems” and to make “deep cuts” in our nuclear arsenal. Consider:

-America’s known enemies are actively increasing their military power.

- the U.S.military is the one force on earth that can stand against radical Islamic facism and resurgent, militant Communism.

- there are growing threats from unexpected places, like Russia and Venezuela.

-U.S.military strength, specifically our nuclear arsenal, is the only reason our nation is not attacked by vicious enemies who seek (and even pray) for our destruction.  Staying ahead of these enemies in military strength and technology is critical to our children's future.

The United States has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the “deep cuts” Obama proposes. His idea that a weakened military makes us somehow morally stronger is not only absurd, but downright frightening. Peace is always made possible by strength, not just “strong words.”

This leads us to some important questions:

>“Future combat systems” would undoubtedly save American lives (especially our troops) during a time of war. Why would Obama want to slow such development down?

> Is not the prevention of war, along with the speedy and decisive execution of needed war, the most important investment our government can make, and a primary purpose for which the government exists? [“Provide for the common defense”] 

> If budget-cutting is really important, how about looking to less-critical areas of government spending first?

> What candidate is Iran, Russia, Syria and al-Qaeda rooting for right now, based on what you know from their policy positions?  (If you aren't sure, just watch the video below.)

We need a leader who understands that foreign policy can’t be dictated by lawyers; that international leadership isn’t settled at a banquet, but on the battlefield.

Obama is not that leader. In his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Also see: