About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Pussycat Obama reprises Carter in the Middle East

 
Billions for ACORN! Not one dime for missile defense!
 
Protecting our nation - a vital function of the federal government - was specifically denoted by the Founders in our Constitution. Yet defense spending by the Obama administration is waning at a time when the world - and its cadre of lunatic-fringe dictators - has never been more dangerous!
 
A generation ago, Ronald Reagan knew how to play the (poker) game of "brinksman-ship:"
 
Reagan knew the sure way to get one's enemy to the table was to wield a "bigger stick." After announcing his Star War's initiative, a hapless Mikhail Gorbachev - and his Soviet Union -became history.
 
But with pussycat Obama now in charge - by unilaterally cutting missile defenses - he courts the very thing he hopes to avoid...attack! 
 
Does Obama actually believe the Russians will be more accommodating if he projects weakness? Since when did the United States become a subordinate?
 
And what about our good friend in Iran, the despotic, enigmatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? No wonder he always displays that wry smile.
 
Amid growing international pressure, the Iranians thumb their collective noses at Obama's "threats" against its nuclear program - announcing the test-firing of two short-range missiles.
 
Obama administration officials have countered by saying...(quote) "We have the international support necessary to impose crippling sanctions, if Tehran does not stop construction on a new uranium-enrichment plant, and allow immediate inspections."
 
Immediate inspections? Crippling sanctions? Ahmadinejad is now probably hiding under his bed, trembling in abject fear.   
 
So what's our next move? A strongly-worded condemnation from the UN? Is Obama saving his "best" for last? Shades of jellyfish Jimmy Carter whispering in his ear?
 
The revelation regarding the Iranian secret nuclear plant (in Qum) has considerably altered estimates of it's military timetable: 
 
Experts now predict that by 2010, Iran will be ready to produce enough weapons-grade "heavy uranium" for one nuclear bomb a year. And count on the Russians to be eager to sell Ahmadinejad his missile-delivery system to reach regional targets (ala Israel, eastern Europe).
 
But that's what America gets for again making the same grievous mistake - electing another naive, liberal lily, perilously ignorant of geopolitics and economics - who foolishly appeases our sworn enemies...Iran and the Russians.
 
Does Barack Obama not understand that the best interests of BOTH Russia and Iran lie in DESTABILIZING the Mideast, thereby keeping oil prices high?
 
Mr. Obama plays hard at projecting his ego around the world- rather than US military power, which would beckon Iran to the bargaining table - nuclear hat in hand.
 
If Ahmadinejad (and Putin) keep the nuclear cloud hovering over Israel, oil prices will have a built-in "war-premium," and could possibly tick-up toward triple digits again, as Iran readies its initial nuclear test, and automatically invites retaliation from the Jewish state.
 
Now picture the impending scenario: The Russians continue to sell missiles to Ahmadinejad; Iran successfully tests an atomic device in early 2011; Benjamin Netenyahu announces that Israel cannot exist with a nuclear Iran -tacitly implying an attack.
 
What then?
 
In a panic, commodity traders bid up the price of crude to over 200/dollars a barrel. Now Putin and Ahmadinejad are literally laughing all the way to the bank, as the oil-dependent economies of their countries flourish once again with triple-digit crude prices - securing their leadership for years to come.
 
Even our enemies perceive the importance of that immortal political slogan: "it's the economy stupid."
 
But does Barack Obama comprehend what he is doing by appeasing the Russians and the Iranians, as he removes our military options off the table?
 
Does he not understand that by playing pussycat, and patsying away our once-dominant U.S. military hegemony, how he not only threatens world peace, but the American economy as well? 
 
As historians always tell us..."the key to the future is to look back upon the past..." 
 
In early 1977, at the time Jimmy Carter was sworn in, Saudi-Arabian light crude was trading at $12.37 dollars per barrel; the American economy was rebounding strongly from the severe 1974-75 recession. Car sales were booming; the Alasakan pipeline had opened; and the U.S. once again had that unshakable optimism that we, as Americans, could "do anything."
 
But by the time Carter left office in late 1980, he had backed down from the Iranians, humiliated America before the eyes of the world, and oil and gasoline prices had jumped to record highs. The American economy was all but destroyed - in only 3 years.
 
And now, with Barack Obama on a track to do EXACTLY the same thing - from whence will the next Ronald Reagan come to save the day?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Truman's Bluff

 

All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

 

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

 

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

 

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

 

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

 

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

 

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

 

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

 

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

 

After World War IPersia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

 

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

 

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

 

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

 

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad

 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

 

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

 

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

 

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

 

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

 

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

 

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

 

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

 

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

 

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

 

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

 

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

 

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

 

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

 

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

 

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

 

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

 

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

 

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

 

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

 

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

 

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

 

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

 

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

 

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

 

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

 

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

 

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

 

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

 

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

 

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

 

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

 

It's all part of our "good karma" as a truly blessed nation. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Exponential stupidity...believing Obama will defend America


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 »