White Horse, Black Horse, Red Horse & Political Hypocrisy: Obama signs record military spending bill, then says spending needs to be cut. What he means is to cut spending on troops, increase spending on weapons. 80,000 soldiers will lose their jobs. More Wars to follow

I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”

Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other.

On January 1, U.S. President Barack Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  That means at least $662 billion taxpayer dollars will be spent on the Department of Defense.

On January 5, Obama hypocritically states that defense spending must be cut! He blames it on “…the Budget Control Act passed by Congress last year.”

But here’s the thing, Obama is not really talking about overall defense spending cuts, he’s talking about shifting defense spending, and targeted cuts.  U.S. troops could lose out on pay and benefits, in order to increase spending on high tech weapons systems.  They’re already losing their jobs.

“As we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect and in some cases increase our investments in special operation forces in new technologies, like…. unmanned systems, in space and in particular in cyberspace.”-Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary

Obama and company said the cuts would not affect pay and benefits for troops and veterans, but that’s already happened.  There are many cases across the country where veterans have been cut off because of budget problems.

Analysts say there’s no way to keep spending on high tech weapons without affecting troop pay/benefits, or even without reducing the number of military personnel (already in 2011 the U.S. Army laid off 50,000 personnel).

According to a report by Military.com Leon Panetta has asked the U.S. Army to cut another 80,000 troops in 2012!

That’s fine if your not going to fight wars anymore, but Obama and company flat lied about that.  Obama said “Yes, the tide of war is receding…”   Well, if the tide of war is receding then why spend more money on more weapons?  Because the tide of war is not receding, at least in the eyes of our leaders.  Obama even says so: “As I made clear in Australia, we will be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region.  We’re going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time and again, most recently in Libya, that it’s a force multiplier.  We will stay vigilant, especially in the Middle East.”

What Obama is saying is that the he expects more war in the Middle East, and a new front to open in Asia!  Defense Secretary Panetta backs that up: “…as we move towards this new joint force, we are also rebalancing our global posture and presence, emphasizing the Pacific and the Middle East — these are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future. The U.S. military will increase its institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection, and deterrence in Asia-Pacific. This region is growing in importance to the future of the United States economy and our national security.