For conservatives, military strength a "values" issue
Rick Santorum was one of many Republican presidential candidates to address the conservative Values Voters Summit over the weekend.
/ Alex Wong/Getty ImagesTo conservative voters gathered in Washington this weekend, listening to military generals and taking a stand against defense cuts matters more than any concerns they may have about the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At the annual Values Voter Summit this weekend, the topics of military might and the promotion of conservative values among U.S. troops were seamlessly integrated into the program, alongside talk about gay marriage and abortion laws.
The conservative audience gave hearty applause to politicians decrying potential Defense Department cuts and calling for a stronger partnership with Israel. They listened intently to a lieutenant general warn about the increasing acceptance of gays in the military.
Conservative values voters have already seen their top issues sidelined this election season as concerns about the economy overshadow social issues. But with further budget cuts looming on the horizon, conservative politicians have persuaded their base that preserving the Pentagon's budget is as much of a "values" issue as it is a practical one.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, told those in attendance Friday, "You have a right to be angry" about the federal budget. The U.S. is borrowing 40 cents for every dollar it spends.
But that doesn't mean, Sessions said, that the budget should be balanced on the back of the Pentagon. He pointed out that while the Defense Department's base budget has only increased 10 percent since 2008, Medicaid spending has increased 37 percent over the last three years, and education spending has increased 70 percent.
"We need perspective," he said.
Joining Sessions on stage was Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, there to warn values voters of another threat to the military besides budget cuts. While top military leaders like recently retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have praised the end of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibited gays from serving openly in the military, Mixon made the decision to speak out against it. Now he's concerned that the Pentagon is permitting military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages.
"How does this stack up against the Defense of Marriage Act?" Mixon asked. "Am I being asked to turn a blind eye to the law of the land?"
Attendees of the conference seemed to agree with Mixon. Nancy Carlisle of Annapolis, Md., said that when it comes to the war in Afghanistan, "It should be left up to the military." Her friend Connie Meyer, of Severna Park, Md., agreed.
Asked whether they were concerned U.S. troops could be over-burdened by the decade-long war, Meyer responded, "The stamp of approval of gays in the military has put stress on them."
Jim Matthews of Gaithersberg, Md., said that spending on military operations should be kept out of budget discussions. The war in Afghanistan should continue "if the generals think it's relevant," he said.
More reports from the 2011 Values Voter Summit:
Bachmann talks. And talks. And talks
Cain: "Not Running to Go to Disneyland"
Gingrich: I'd ignore Supreme Court if need be
Rick Perry seeks approval from "values voters"
Santorum rips off Cain gimmick with 0-0-0 plan
"When it comes to military actions that we take around the world... that's not something that is optional, that you can decide to cut," he said. "When you're engaged in military action, it's the right thing to do, or it's the wrong thing to do."
Rebecca Iveson, a 24 year-old student at Liberty University, said it's impossible for the public to know everything about the war on terror.
"I trust the leaders of our military and what they are saying," shes said. "When they say their brothers and sisters in arms need more help, I have to put my trust in them."
Some conference-goers expressed some doubt.
"To give up in there at the eleventh hour would be the wrong thing to do," said Chris Balkema of Channahon, Ill. But, he added, "We need to get the job done and do it as quickly as possible and shore up our own issues here in our own country."
Victor Styrksy, the eastern regional coordinator for the group Christians United for Israel, wouldn't comment on the war in Afghanistan, but he suggested the U.S. may be better off making military investments elsewhere.
"The best investment America can make in the Middle East is Israel," he said.
Israelis, he said, "are fighting our enemies, but they don't ask for our children's blood. They don't ask for us to send troops."
His group, which Styrksy described as the "Christian AIPAC," is "very concerned" about Israel's vulnerability, "from a political standpoint, the standpoint of democracy, and certainly from our Christian theological standpoint," he said.
Styrsky may as well have been talking for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who received standing ovations at the conference when he spoke about Israel as a country under siege.
"She and her people are fighting the same war that we are," he said. "As Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons capability, it not only threatens Israel but it threatens us as well. It's time once again for America to stand up and this time lead from the front."
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 174 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 111 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Obama to discuss legality of drone program














Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have power To:
Clause 12: raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term longer than two years.
Clause 13: provide and maintain a navy;
Clause 15: provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Who are the militia? The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, Clauses 15 & 16 of the U.S. Constitution necessary to defend these United States from invasions, only, not to invade and occupy foreign sovereign nations for the economic benefit of domestic corporations, is to be raised from both the organized and unorganized Militia's as defined in US Code: Title 10: Subtitle A: Part I: Chapter 13 : Section 311. Militia: composition and classes.
(1) The classes of the militia are:
(a) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard
(b) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(1).Military budget of the United States. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Unforunatly Afganastan is not interested in Democracy. This is a country that is not intersted in saving itself, so we cannot save it. Pakistan is very interested in taking over Afganastan to use in the proxity war with India.
There is an industry there of course, but it is illegal.
How can they be a party of fiscal sanity when the obscene military budget is off the table, but health care is on the table?
Washington, July 2: US wars launched since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have left 225,000 dead and cost up to $4.4 trillion which roughly works out to $20 million per dead human being, according to a new study by university researchers.
The study published by Brown University this week focused on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, which came in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
The authors argued that governments almost always go to war underestimating the potential duration and costs of a conflict while overestimating "the political objectives that can be accomplished by the use of brute force."
The study said "an extremely conservative estimate" of the casualty toll was about 225,000 people killed and 365,000 wounded in the wars so far.
The number of soldiers killed comes to 31,741, including about 6,000 Americans, 1,200 allied troops, 9,900 Iraqis, 8,800 Afghans, 3,500 Pakistanis as well as 2,300 US private security contractors, it said.
The civilian toll was much higher, with an estimated 172,000 dead, including about 125,000 Iraqis, 35,000 Pakistanis and 12,000 Afghans, it said.
The study acknowledged that estimating the number of dead was difficult, particularly the toll for insurgents, putting the number at between 20,000 to 51,000 insurgents killed.
The report found that 168 reporters and 266 humanitarian workers were among the dead since the United States launched its "war on terror" after 9/11.
The wars also have triggered a massive flow of refugees and displaced persons, with more than 7.8 million displaced, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it said.
The study estimated the financial cost of the wars at a minimum of $3.7 trillion and up to $4.4 trillion, which represents about a quarter of the country's current debt.
The researchers arrived at a much larger figure than the Pentagon's previous estimates, as they included spending by the Department of Homeland Security to counter terrorist threats, government projections for spending on wounded veterans through 2051 and war-related funds from the State Department and the US Agency for International Development.
The US government has previously cited the price tag for the wars at about one trillion dollars.
"Our estimate is larger because we include more than the direct Pentagon appropriation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the larger global war on terror," said the study.
"Wars always cost more than what the Pentagon spends for the duration of the combat operation."
http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jul/3/us-wars-cost-2-25-lakh-lives-4-4-trillion-dollars-study-54.asp
This statement by Martin Luther King still resounds today. The Values summit have turned away from the true values of God, and of Jesus Christ. These godless, greedy, materialistic war-mongers have no business governing our country.
well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing to prevent us from paying adequate wages to schoolteachers, social workers, and other servants of the public to ensure that we have the best available personnel in these positions which are charged with the responsibility of guiding our future generations. There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen whether he be a hospital worker. laundry worker, maid, or day laborer. There is nothing except short- sightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum - and liveable - income to every American family. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from remodeling a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into brotherhood."
These are NOT the words of Karl Marx; they are the words of Dr. Martin Luther King.
The so-called Values Voters are worshipping the idols of false Gods of war and destruction. They are not following the values of Jesus Christ.