About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Sieg heil! Obama's plan to be President for life

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:07:43 PM
 

Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany?

 

In Germany's 1932 presidential election, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, and two minor candidates-- Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg.

 

Hindenburg won with over 55% of the vote; Hitler finished a distant second with 37%.

 

Thaelman & Duesterburg may have gone on to form a law firm (but history has been remiss in documenting this).

 

Nevertheless, in 1933, Hitler was constitutionally chosen by von Hindenburg to be Chancellor of Germany-- a country that in the early 1930's, was still a democratic nation.

 

But hundreds of times throughout the centuries, famous dictators -- originally chosen in free elections-- would then usurp their authority by becoming tyrants.

 

Take for example, our good friend in Venezuela-- Hugo (the great) Chavez:

 

Chavez had support from two thirds of the population, and was elected by a 66-33% margin.

 

Shortly after winning election, Mr Chávez announced that he would not renew the license of one of the country's oldest broadcasters, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

 

Next, ol' Hugo decided he'd take a 51% stake in Venezuela's oilfields. Plus, in his inaugural speech, Mr Chávez had said he wanted to change the country's constitution to expropriate control of its natural gas operations as well.

 

Then a "committee" of his supporters (Venezuela's ACORN) campaigned for constitutional "reform" allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely-- sound familiar?

 

How very democratic indeed...use Venezuela's constitution to transform it into an avowedly socialist country, with Mr. Chavez acting as defacto dictator.

 

In Venezuela today, checks and balances are gone. The National Assembly is a rubber-stamp legislative body on semi-permanent hiatus (vacation), and Chavez's cronies dominate the courts.

 

Now the trend continues in Honduras --president Manuel Zelaya has refused to abide by the term limits of his constitution- and Obama firmly supports Zelaya’s cause.

But only the most naive could think Obama would condemn the overthrow of a third world dictator, and not apply those same "ideals" toward his own reign as president.

It doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to discern that Obama absolutely WILL NOT be content to serve two terms; everything he's done so far has but one callous objective: he plans on being in the Whitehouse for quite some time.

 

The comparisons to Chavez (and even Hitler) abound:

 

-Obama won the presidency in a free democratic election

-Obama then proceeds to nationalize the banks and auto companies

-Obama forms "Organizing for America"-- a "volunteer group" similar to Hitler's Brownshirts

 

Like his idol Hugo, there is Obama's backdoor approach to destroying media opposition (conservative talk radio), by regulating and breaking up the station franchise owners.

 

Then, we have Obama's list of priorities, which are little more than veiled socialsm:

 

1) Obama’s $878 billion anti-stimulus package-- designed to "kick in" by 2011-- is nothing but a democratic vote-buying scheme; it will create a plethora of Obama-dependent government programs, all pointing to his re-election in 2012.

 

2) Obama supports cap and trade; yet another UN-employment scheme to create more government dependents, who'll depend on their monthly Obama check to survive.

 

3) Obama's card check revival is nothing more than another fascist idea to create more union voters-- another voting bloc for his re-election

 

4) Obama's plan for illegal immigrant "amnesty" will lead to citizenship; and you guessed it...another huge democratic voting bloc.

 

5) Obama's plan for government-controlled healthcare-- the final coup d' etat: Unbeknownst to most citizens, these so-called 47 million uninsured "Americans" are vastly comprised of illegal aliens.

 

Once Obama rams national healthcare through, it will create a "fence -jumping" frenzy-- an unstoppable flow of aliens streaming across the southern border to get their "inalienable right" to free health care-- Obama's most devious scheme to date.

 

Unemployment and entitlement recipients already are (or soon will be) the fastest growing segment of the population. Mr. Obama's "coalition"-- those on welfare, illegal aliens, ACORN-provided dead voters, union members, and minorities, will prove difficult to defeat.

 

And with ACORN running interference for him in our so-called "democratic" elections, Obama is destined to achieve his edifice of power all "legal and proper."

 

On Jan 16, 2009 --completely ignored by the media-- came this jaw-dropper: U.S Representative, Jose Serrano, (D- New York) introduced HR 5-- a resolution to abolish the 22nd Amendment, term limits on the Presidency.

 

But is it indeed, not strange that an obscure Congressman would put forth such a major proposal, in a nation where the majority of voters believe there SHOULD be term limits on elected office holders?

 

It all makes sense: Imagine if someone of a bigger profile had done this: It would certainly have been plastered all over the airwaves; but that's exactly what our sneaky anti-president did NOT want!

 

And surprise-surprise; apparently, Representative Serrano is good pals with meester Hugo Chavez himself, who, perhaps, not so oddly, also wants no ‘term limit’ on his presidential office.

 

Mr. Serrano's H.R.5 states the following: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."

H.R.5 is patterned after the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

 

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected-- not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent-voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done in the 1930's.

 

The more power Obama can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; replicating what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms-- creating a culture of government dependency.

 

Obama's "stimulus" will bolster 6 million voters who've recently lost jobs. Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents-- a group that could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, if Mr. Obama can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election in 2012 with a 51% majority (or better).

Then, with Serrano's resolution in committee, Obama now has all his "men" on the chessboard:

 

If Serrano's resolution is passed by say, 2015, what  would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and  becoming a virtual dictator- possibly for life?

 

Let's do some projections:

After Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, he could easily grant all immigrants the VOTE, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights."

By that time, the Obama "Organizing for America" political thugs will have grown into a well paid, para-military, leftist wing of enthusiastic supporters.

 

The unions will have expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population could become dependent on government entitlements.

Obama now convinces his growing majority that..."a leader so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and... "the Constitution shall be amended to read...'Any sitting president serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..."

Then Obama leads the country into an even deeper depression, which assures his being viewed (like Roosevelt) as a "national necessity."
 

The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents could exercise too much power and authority, to be allowed access to it for very long-- lest they become despots.

 

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson warned that presidents, not bound by term limits, could use their popularity and power to become kings.


Jefferson wrote: “If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

 

We must come to understand that Obama sides with Communists who attempt to overthrow their country's constitution. Repealing the 22nd amendment should be considered a near act of war against the American people by their very own government-- and specifically-- the Obama administration.

 

We must realize this is happening NOW, and Obama WILL eventually attempt to become a dictator.

 

No questions should remain any longer.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The liberal doctrine of appeasement-- "decrying war for the sake of peace"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, April 17, 2009 4:50:53 PM

QUOTE: "A liberal is one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of education, publicity, politics, economics, business, law and religion, which will bring peace and the maximum of well-being to the greatest number of human beings...Henry Wallace (circa 1953).

Henry Wallace? Does anyone even recall who this ultra-liberal was...or what he did?

Wallace was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933 to 1940, and Vice President from 1941 to 1944, and is basically regarded as little more than a blip on the timeline of American history.

But he is best known as being FDR's most liberal lieutenant-- a man whose determination to "fashion a better world" made him (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith), "second only to Roosevelt as the most important figure of the New Deal."

As you would expect of any idealistic liberal, Wallace bravely championed big-government programs--the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Credit Administration-- and founded the New Deal's version of food stamp and school lunch programs.

Wallace was the Ted Kennedy of his time, and of course, he would have been a shoe-in to become one of Obama's right-hand cronies were he alive today.

During the1930's, Walllace's growing stature as a broad-based liberal caught the eye of FDR, and in the summer of 1940 (after making the decision to run for an unprecedented third term), Roosevelt selected Wallace for the vice-presidency.

But in the summer of 1944, the fate of America took a turn which would affect history down to its very foundations, and altered the course of time in a seminal (and most fortunate) way:

At the '44 democratic convention, bitter wounds remained from the aftermath of Wallace's 1940 nomination, and when it came time for FDR to choose a running mate, he discovered Wallace faced fierce opposition among the democratic party leadership.

Exhausted by war (and not up for a floor fight) Roosevelt offered Wallace only a limited endorsement to the convention, saying that..."he would be glad to run with Senator Harry S. Truman, or Justice William O. Douglas, should they be selected." Wallace's support quickly dissolved, and the VP nomination went to Truman.

In retrospect, we can look back and see it was good ole American regional politics that saved the day for our country, and the Supreme Being had intervened. In April, 1945, Roosevelt collapsed from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Truman became his successor in the Oval office.

Then on August 6, 1945, the B-29 crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it took a second Nagasaki bomb, otherwise the obstinate Japanese would not have stopped the conflict. It was their militaristic culture that would have prevailed over the futility of continuing a hopeless war.

If you were an American serviceman slated to invade Japan in late 1945, the Bomb was the greatest thing on earth. It stopped the Japanese from fighting. It saved countless lives on both sides.

But what if Truman had also been a liberal, and as Wallace put it..."one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of democracy."  What would have been the fate of all those World War II soldiers and sailors back then?

After the bloody capture of Okinawa, the U.S. military began preparations for the greatest invasion that NEVER was-- thank God and President Harry Truman.

Plans for “Operation Downfall" --the invasion of Japan-- called for two massive military operations. The first invasion was code-named “Operation Olympic,” and scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945, to hit the island of Kyushu. The second invasion was scheduled for March 1, 1946, code-named “Operation Coronet,” and would be an attack on the main island of Honshu.

Historians estimate that if the invasion of the Japanese homeland had actually occurred, one million Americans would not have returned back home to mom after the war.

To this day, conservative arguments defending President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb are still raging, as liberals decry the brutality of incinerating over 100,000 Japanese.

EXAMPLE: In Obama's G-20 trip to Europe, he all but went out of his way to apologize for Truman's use of the bomb. And if Truman were alive today, Eric Holder would undoubtedly be threatening hearings for "crimes against humanity."

In the research room collection of published materials in the Harry S. Truman Library, one of the stories in 1995 was titled: “Sailor Had No Qualms About Use of Bomb." In a quote from that sailor, we can see just how fortunate it was that Truman had acted decisively..."To the many thousands of us who were spared, Harry Truman was our savior, and made the right decision."

But what would Henry Wallace have done, if it had been HE that succeeded Roosevelt as president, instead of Truman?

One can only conclude Wallace would have nixed the Bomb as "being unfair" and "in-humane," and the invasion of Japan's homeland would have gone forth, and perhaps cost America more casualties than ALL of our other previous wars combined--and possibly the war would not have ended until 1947.

Even 20 years later, holdout Japanese soldiers were still being discovered on remote Pacific islands, so fanatical was their resistance to their American enemies, and their dedication and willingness to fight to the end.

And in the early 1950's, were it not for the ultra-rightist Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy,  who knows how many more Communist sympathizers could have been organized into a leftist faction, and possibly seized control of the democratic party back then, just as the liberals in Congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no president Kennedy, but instead, a democratic liberal candidate opposing Richard Nixon in the election of 1960.  And had a democratic liberal been in the Whitehouse back then, what would have been the outcome in the Cold War's greatest showdown, the Cuban missile crisis?

What would a weak foreign policy liberal have done against the blustering Soviet bully, Nikita Khruschev, back in Fall of 1962? Would he have sold out America for "peace in our time" (ala Neville Chamberlain)?

Imagine how different American history would have gone if Cuba had become an armed nuclear camp-- 90 miles off the coast of Florida-- were it not for the heroic, iron-willed decisiveness of John F. Kennedy. How would events have gone for America if the Russians had installed nuclear missiles, that were aimed directly down our throats?

In the 70's, ultra-liberal Jimmie Carter may have been a nuclear engineer in the Navy, but the appointment of his college roommate, Stansfield Turner-- who literally destroyed the CIA in 1977-- has had repercussions to this very day, and could trigger the next nuclear attack, possibly in the Mideast.

Also during the 1970's, the U.S. Senate held highly politicized, public hearings on CIA operations. The Senate investigating committee was chaired by Idaho's Frank Church, a liberal Democrat who craved the presidency.

Now lets play what if: What if Church had defeated Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980, and had gone onto defeat Ronald Reagan? What would have been the course for America in the1980's?

Would Church have ordered the bombing of Libya, which removed another possible Muslim terrorist dictator (Moammar Khadaffi) from the world stage? Would Church have ordered the buildup to a 600-ship ocean Navy? Would the Soviets have detected another spineless, treasonous, lily liberal in the Whitehouse like Carter, and chose to escalate--rather than end-- the Cold War?

And what about now, with Mr. Appeaser himself-- Barack O'Carter Obama-- calling our foreign policy shots?

So far, Mr. Obama has a nearly spotless record.

As a polar opposite of John Kennedy, Obama chose to back down to the threat of another Communist dictator-- Kim Jong IL-- in the recent North Korean missile crisis.

All Mr. Obama would need to have done is show a little spine, and simply had Jong's missile blown up on the launch pad. The result? Right along with his missile, Kim Jong's blustery dictatorship may have toppled, and perhaps a less repressive "administration" would've taken over, and ceased the mindless funding of North Korea's military in lieu of feeding the famished population.

Kim Jong has literally starved his hapless country to death-- there are no small animals or birds left in North Korea, because the people have hunted them to virtual extinction, so desperate are they for food.

But our great liberal humanitarian, Barack Obama, chose the Carter-esque, non-confrontational way out, and opted for a strongly-worded UN resolution, to which Kim has reacted by thumbing his nose at America.

Now-- having successfully tested his missile to the third stage-- Kim Jong will be able to sell them to the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly even Chavez and Raul Castro in the Western hemisphere, and could eventually precipitate yet
ANOTHER Cuban missile crisis.

You can always count on liberals to bring upon war, in the name of championing peace. It's called "brinkmanship"-- the same thing Hitler did in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's, Stalin did in Berlin in the late 1940's, and what Krushchev did in the early 60's in Cuba.

All of these events changed the course of world history as a result of either a liberal backing down (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), or a forceful leader standing firm (Truman & Kennedy).

And now, for his next liberal trick, Barack O'Carter will appease the Iranians, who will be thrilled to talk about "peaceful uses" for their nuclear program-- grateful for the opportunity  to keep increasing the number of centrifuges they buy from the Russians-- and will howl behind Obama's back as he grants them the one critical facet to facilitate their nuclear weapon program to completion--TIME.

By "talking" to the Iranians, does our anti-president even realiize he's giving them time? Does Obama understand that Vladimir Putin is the one behind the push for a nuclear Iran, as the Russian economy has collapsed along with the price of oil?

Mr. Putin would be thrilled to witness the outbreak of yet another Mideast war, where Iran launches a missile strike at Israel, and blocks the Strait of Hormuz-- and the price of oil skyrockets as Mideast oil imports cease.

And would Obama then hide in the Whitehouse, as he did recently during the Somali piracy incident? Would he retaliate with a "strongly-worded resolution" against Iran from the UN, and wait for the world "to come together" to stop the fanatical Mamoud Akmidinejad?

Meanwhile, the fate of Israel would hang in the balance; the Russian economy would be 'stimulated' with a wartime price of $200/ barrel oil; the US would be caught flat-footed, and our strategic petroleum reserve would be quickly bled dry.

Now lacking oil, our military would not even be able to sustain itself in the event war was unavoidable.

Throughout history-- whenever liberalism meets fanaticism--- fanaticism wins, and people suffer grievously as a result.

Be it war or any political confrontation, the liberal doctrine (as defined by Henry Wallace) that believes in a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way, ALWAYS invites that very conflict which the liberals seek to avoid.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Exponential stupidity...believing Obama will defend America

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:52:32 PM

Nuremberg Germany--1936: Hitler's 8th Party Congress "Rally of Honor" (Reichsparteitag der Ehre) celebrating the invasion of the demilitarized Rhineland, which back then, constituted the restoration of Germany's lost World War I military honor.

Today, everyone is familiar with that frenzied scene from the incorporated footage made at that Nuremburg rally, where Hitler spoke to the masses positioned in front of three towering columns-- emblazoned with 3 huge swatstikas as the backdrop:
 
"Seig-heil...seig heil..seig heil", shouted the frenzied crowd, as Hitler would pause after delivering one of his classic motivational one liners, as he sought to infuse his fellow Germans with the basis of Nazi fanatacism-- absolute unquestionable allegiance to "Mein Feuhrer!"
 
And late last summer in Denver-- as if a Rocky Mountain coronation were not lofty enough-- Barack Obama, in his best imitation of the rally at Nuremberg, seemed to aim for Mount Olympus when he stood  atop a podium in front of an enormous, Greek-columned stage, to accept his party's nomination for president of the U.S.

But just like Herr Hitler, Obama brazenly told his BIG LIE..."We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country". And then, came forth the biggie.... "I will never hesitate to defend this nation."

But don't hold your breath waiting.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, to halt military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual’s rules on interrogations .

And by his mixed messages on all foreign policy fronts, he puts America in jeopardy for another Sept.11- clearly illustrating he's yet another flaming democratic liberal appeaser.
 
During his campaign, Obama purported to expand the size of the Army (false) and repeatedly suggested that he would launch unilateral military strikes into Pakistan in an effort to kill bin Laden. But that tough talk has now been toned down, and "unilateral" has been changed to "only after consultation" with the Pakistani government.

Barack talked Reagan-esque bold during his acceptance speech, but predictably, has shown Carter-esque appeasement in his first months as our anti-president.

Obama sees the world as though the enemy is just  like us. But they view his administration as an opportune time to time to extract apologies, build up their nuclear and conventional forces, and are secure in the knowledge that they'll be no consequences to aggression.

Meanwhile, to show his "toughness", Mr. Obama has pledged to send additional troops into Afghanistan to push back against the Taliban insurgency. But to what end? Unlike the Bush doctrine to eliminate al Quida and establish democracy in Iraq, there has been no definition of winning in the Afghan theater, because Afghanistan has been determined by most experts to be...the "unwinnable" war.
 
In his first fifty days, Obama sent out peace feelers to Iran, and offered a compromise to the Taliban. And now, he's proposing huge new aid to Pakistan (the same failed policy of the past three administrations).

Is Obama the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter-- or worse...Neville Chamberlain?

With his new, "get-nice-to-our-enemies" policy, he might as well have mailed engraved invitations to Bin Laden and al Qaida, to let them know it was open season on Americans again.
 
Appeasement is a formulation for disaster. It goes against our long-held foreign policy that the United States, as the world’s preeminent power, can only be secure if it reinforces its strength throughout the globe, and with no exceptions!

Throughout history, America's strongest presidents achieved greatness only through their projection of absolute military power--not through weakness by being some lily flower:

-Bush I rolled Saddam out of Kuwait
-Reagan bombed Libya and ended Moammar Khadaffi's international terrorist party
-Kennedy caused Khruschev to blink and then to withdraw Soviet missiles from Cuba
-Truman rolled back Stalin and the Communists, immediately after taking over for FDR
-Teddy Roosevelt walked with a big stick
-James Monroe in1825, said "keep out-- don't dare come into our western hemisphere!"

But as of now, we've returned to the Carter era of the late 70's, projecting nice-ness, and turning the other cheek.
 
And what if ruthless Islamic radicals test Obama? They tested President Carter and he failed-- and the cost of his failure was calamitous-- the radicalization of Iran, the rise of violent Islamist movements, the loss of a strategic ally, and the emboldening of America's adversaries worldwide (i.e. Osama bin Ladin), which culminated in 9-11.
 
Then after a "post-Carter' pause, Islamic radicals tested the next nice guy--Bill Clinton.

They tested Clinton in Somalia and he failed; they tested him in Tanzania and he failed; they tested him in New York City in 1993 and he failed. Finally, they tested him in Yemen in October of 2000 by ramming an explosive-filled boat into the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and nearly sinking that ship.

Clinton failed his tests, confirming to Osama Bin Laden his view that America was a paper tiger-- prompting Sept.11.

And now we have Barack H. Obama, and his aversion to the use of force is written on his sleeve.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to hold non-conditional talks with America's foes-- making his bold statement that if elected..." he would open dialog with the enemies of this nation"

Then he "misspoke" about the "tiny" country of Iran, and about preemptively invading Pakistan, illustrating his shocking ineptitude in the realm of foreign policy and basic geography. And for sure, none of his statements (or his gaffe-prone political posturing) escaped the notice of America's enemies.

Even Joe Biden mused about the prospects of... “An international crisis.. a generated crisis...to test the mettle of this guy.”
 
So with cowboy-six gunner Bush long gone, and Mr. nicey-nice Obama on board, could our Muslim extremist friends be racing each other to "test" the mettle of our anti-president?

You can count on it.

Appeasement is always is provocative. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull-- a sign beckoning… "here we are, come 'n get it!"

And in yet another genuflection to our enemies abroad, Obama took another step for political correctness (and to please his radical Code Pink and ACLU supporters) by ending the classification of “enemy combatants." Then in a memo to the Pentagon, he changed the verbage from "war on terror" to..."overseas contingency operation".

How sweet! Imagine how our enemies in the Middle East must have interpreted it:

"Oh that Barack Obama, he's such a nice guy! We'll have to be nice in return. We'll just forget about all the Great Satan nonsense and let bygones be bygones-- and forget our Muslim extremism. And oh, that Obama has such a way with words! We just love his desire for a new America before the eyes of the world."

Obviously, Mr. Obama thinks he can use his speech abilities to entice Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, etc., into falling in love with him and becoming a fan, just as he's always managed to do with all his other "fans" around the world.

And of course, in the eyes of the Obama administration, Ahkmadinejad, Putin, Bin Laden, Kim Jong II, Hamas, and Hezbollah, are all very obviously such nice guys themselves, and honest, forthright, open minded leaders; so we best trust them to behave as good world citizens.

Meanwhile, Obama can't turn away fast enough from the Bush policy of an aggressive war on terror:

First, he appointed an inexperienced lily to run the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has zilcho familiarity with espionage. Then he sends a letter to Iran expressing his willingness to open dialogue with that rogue nation.

And in an "outreach" to our enemies, he recently mailed a sweet letter-candy gram to the so-called moderate factions of the Taliban, proposing to end the Afghan insurgency. But it's blatantly obvious that it's the inflexible EXTREMIST Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war-- not the moderates.

Maybe he can win over al Quida if he called Rocky Mosele of the international star registry, and named a heavenly body after Bin laden. Wouldn't that be nice?
 
But whatever, Obama believes that America is ALWAYS the bad guy, and that we should rehabilitate ourselves through following the wisdom of all liberals-- being nice and giving the other side a chance to "love" America.
 
So as his liberal supporters urge, let's all be patient and give Obama a chance:
 
-a chance to invite a domestic attack
 -a chance to reduce our military by 25%
 -a chance to be viewed by the world as a contrite nation, rather than carrying a BIG STICK
-a chance for Iran to complete its nuclear program to fruition
-a chance to leave our borders wide open, and for al-Qaida to sneak piece-by-piece an atomic weapon through  Mexico,  assemble it some mosque basement, then detonate in Times Square
-and a chance to blunder us into a flash war in the Middle East

And so far, all the nicey-niceness has worked just as we'd expect:

Iran has recently declared itself to be a space and nuclear power; North Korea is testing its ballistic missiles; and Russia is now using bases in Cuba as well as Venezuela.

America is a Christian country that values life-- while our terrorist enemies live to DIE for their beliefs. So we cannot ever let our guard down, because that can only have one eventual outcome--we will be attacked again, even with a nicey-smiley Obama in office.
 
Our enemies see Mr. Obama for what he really is-- a callow, accommodating, wildly inexperienced and weak foe. Unfriendly regimes and networks-- like oil-rich dictators (Hugo Chavez) and radical Islamist countries-- will always seek to exploit a tepid American foreign policy.
 
Will Russia take the opportunity to gobble up Ukraine? Will al-Qaeda now “pull out all the stops” to kill Americans? Will Lebanon “disintegrate"? And will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahkmadinejad  attack Israel and possibly sink ships at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, and cut off our Mideast oil supply?

So what would Mr. Smiley Obama do then... call the UN? Go on a "diplomatic  rampage" and send a strongly worded message?
 
Can you be a world class appeaser without being, at the same time, the enemy?
 
And worse, the effect of the recession now gives Obama a chance to weaken the entire infrastructure and personnel of the US military. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, "The spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing."

Obama promised, "I will cut tens of billion of dollars in wasteful spending." Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, thinks we can cut 25 percent from military spending WITHOUT impacting national security.
 
Once again, like the Carter--Clinton days, we'll have yet another attempt made to wreck our military by the liberal lunatics within the Democrat Party, who are not democrats, but are more aptly described as Communists in bureaucratic clothing.
 
If President Obama "brings the troops home" and dismantles much of our military to save money to help the poor masses, it will be an open invitation for Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China to attack us, and attempt to wipe us out once and for all.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »