Category Archives: Military

General Obama? – Reason # 78

Posted on by
Reply

Only 77 Days Remaining!

Obama Claims Personal Credit for Military’s Strategic Review

On January 5, 2011, President Obama conducted a Press Conference at the Pentagon, to announce the results of a Defense Strategic Review.  He claimed that the results would guide a budget reduction to be announced in the “coming weeks.”  Before he departed and turned the conference over to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), he seemed desperate to ensure he received a large share of the credit.

“So I’m going to let Leon [Panetta – Secretary of Defense] and Marty [General Dempsey] go into the details. But I just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance that I personally gave throughout this process.” [i]

That should certainly reassure every American – particularly those with family members serving in the military.  What level of arrogance allows a man who never served in the military, who railed against the Iraq war, who voted against the surge in Iraq and whose total life experience consists of campus life, drug use, community organizing, agitating and political campaigning, to sit in the company of America’s finest flag officers – all of whom are combat veterans – and suggest that their successful development of a Defense Strategic Review is a reflection of “the guidance that I personally gave throughout the process”?

[i] President Barack Obama, (Jan. 5, 2012), White House web-site, Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/05/president-obama-speaks-defense-strategic-review#transcript

Does Obama Trust Russians more than Congress? – Reason #77

Posted on by
Reply

Only 78 Days Remaining!

Obama: Ready to Share with Russians – Not Congress

According to the Washington Times, “President Obama signaled Congress during the week of Jan 2, 2012, that he was prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.”  This revelation was consistent with information previously published, indicating that Obama was “planning to provide Moscow with Standard Missile-3 (SM3) data.”  Such data sharing could, according to security officials, allow the Russians to counter our defensive missiles. [i]

As this argument wages, Obama signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), on December 31, 2011.  The NDAA, in part, restricts the ability of the President to share classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia without reporting to Congress 60 days in advance, the specific information to be shared.  While Obama signed the law, he indicated in his signing statement, that he would interpret its provisions in a manner that gives him maximum “flexibility” (remember that word and his open mic moment with Dimitri Medvedev).  With regard to one section of the law, Obama said:

“…While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets.”[ii]

The President seems to be saying that his right to share national security secrets with a foreign power should not be subjected to restrictions that would cause him to disclose to our own Congress, sensitive diplomatic communications, or the same national security secrets.  In other words, classified national security documents warrant less protection than diplomatic communications with a foreign government.  Revealing our secrets to a foreign power – according to this line of thinking – is less threatening than releasing them to members of Congress.

[i] Bill Gertz (Jan. 4, 2012), Washington Times web-site, Inside the Ring, Pentagon Shifts East, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=all#pagebreak

[ii] President Barack Obama (December 31, 2011), White House web-site, Statements & Releases,  Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Obama – Defense Cuts a Fiscal Strategy, or Core Belief? – Reason #76

Posted on by
Reply

Only 79 Days Remaining!

Defense: Strategy Based Budget or Budget Based Strategy?

Speaking at a press conference on June 29, 2011, President Obama said he was ready to cut more than $400 billion from the Defense budget.

“…We’ve identified what defense cuts are possible…”

“…I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to have difficult conversations with the Pentagon saying, you know what, there’s fat here; we’re going to have to trim it out. And Bob Gates has already done a good job identifying $400 billion in cuts, but we’re going to do more. And I promise you the preference of the Pentagon would not [be] to cut any more, because they feel like they’ve already given.” [i]

On July 31, 2011,  the White House released a Fact Sheet on the debt limit increase, reflecting an agreement to reduce the base Defense budget by $350 billion and to tie a potential cut of $500 billion more to the failure of a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee to reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion.[ii]

Press Secretary Jay Carney conducted a Press Briefing on January 3, 2012, in which he indicated that:

“…I think it’s important to point out that the cuts in defense spending that we’ve discussed around which the defense strategic review is being written about now were agreed to on a broadly bipartisan basis — roughly $489 billion over 10 years.

“And the important part of this process is that the strategy come first and the reductions come — are driven by the strategy.”[iii] (Emphasis)

Two days later, on January 5, 2012, the President conducted his own Press Conference at which he repeated Carney’s claim that:

“…spending over the coming decade — because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets – have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around.”[iv]

He went on to double down, saying that the resulting Defense budget would be announced in the coming weeks.  These statements may sound logical and they would be, if they were believable.  The budget should always be driven by the strategy and the strategy driven by the threat and projections of future threats.

But the administration’s statements are not believable.  They are an absurdity and a contradiction on their face.  The Administration announced a possible $400 billion in Defense cuts in June, 2011 and an actual $350 billion cut from the Defense base budget in July, 2011.  Five months later, Carney briefs that they are writing a “Defense Strategic Review” around a bipartisan agreement to reduce Defense spending by $489 billion and then both Carney and the President, without so much as a red face, tell us that Defense cuts will be “…driven by strategy, not the other way around.”

Where is the inquiring mainstream media?  The Administration tossed them a ground ball and still made a homerun!  If this was a true strategic review, why wasn’t it done earlier as we prepared to leave Iraq?  Why wasn’t it accomplished (or was it) as we prepared for the surge in Afghanistan?  What would have happened if the “Strategic Review” reflected increased threats to the U.S.?  Would Obama have increased the Defense budget?

[i] President Barack Obama, (June 29, 2011), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Press Conference by the President, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/press-conference-president

[ii] White House Fact Sheet (July 31, 2011) White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/31/fact-sheet-bipartisan-debt-deal-win-economy-and-budget-discipline

[iii] Jay Carney (Jan. 3, 2012), White House web-site, Press Briefings, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/3/2012, retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/03/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-132012

[iv] President Barack Obama, (Jan. 5, 2012), White House web-site, Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/05/president-obama-speaks-defense-strategic-review#transcript

Obama: “I will Negotiate with Russia…” – Reason #75

Posted on by
Reply

Only 80 Days Remaining!

Obama to Slow Development of Combat Systems

Obama has sometimes proven as good as his word.  While on the campaign trail in 2007, he shared a few of his Presidential plans for the national defense.  While some may sound normal and prudent, a few of these plans could easily be construed as short sighted, naïve – even treasonous.  Worst of all, some of his aims remain unknown.  What was he promising when he was caught with an open mic, telling Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that the would have more flexibility after the election?  What was he planning when he asked for recommendations on the reduction of our nuclear arsenal?  Here’s what he told us in 2007.  Was anybody listening?

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning.  And as President, I will end it.  Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.  I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.  I will not weaponize space.  I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.  Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”[i] (Emphasis added)

Recall Obama’s decision to scrap our missile shield system in Eastern Europe,[ii] his later intention of sharing classified missile defense system specs with the Russians[iii] and his change of focus in the space program.[iv]In noting Obama’s plan to “slow our development of future combat systems,” I couldn’t help being reminded also, of the words of the late Albert E. DuBois, a good friend and a 1940 graduate of the FBI National Academy.  Mr. DuBois once told me of a NAZI methodology of slowing U.S. war production.  The example he gave was the infiltration of fifth columnists to work in ancillary factories, such as those manufacturing ball bearings for use in military aircraft.  These workers were trained to slow production and, when possible, to shut down operations by causing labor strife.  Since the ball bearings were such a minor part of aircraft production, the link between these slowdowns and the war effort was often successfully hidden.

In retrospect however, there is nothing clandestine about Obama’s plan.  He simply and arrogantly announces his plan – calls it “Transparency” – mesmerizes the mainstream media and continues to “Fundamentally Transform” our country.

[i] Senator Barack Obama (October, 2007) in a recorded message to the liberal group Caucus 4 Priorities, quoted in Andrew Walden (June 10, 2008), American Thinker Blog, Obama’s War, retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obamas_war.html

[ii] MSNBC (Sep 17, 2009), MSNBC web-site, Obama scraps Bush-era Europe missile shield, retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32889934/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-scraps-bush-era-europe-missile-shield/

[iii] Bill Gertz (Jan. 4, 2012), Washington Times web-site, Inside the Ring, Pentagon Shifts East, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=all#pagebreak

[iv] Gene Cernan, (Dec. 30, 2011), Fox Nation web-site, Interview with Megyn Kelly, Last American to Walk on Moon Tears Obama Apart Over Weak U.S. Space Program, retrieved December 31, 2011 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/30/last-american-walk-moon-tears-obama-apart-over-weak-us-space-program

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law – Reason #68

Posted on by
Reply

Only 87 Days Remaining!

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law

During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, then Senator Obama was asked by a member of the audience:  “When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use Presidential Signage to get your way?”  His one word answer was “Yes.”  His follow-up explanation however, drove the point home, that this was an unconstitutional and reprehensible act for any President.  In his own words:

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there would be checks and balances.  You don’t want a President that’s too powerful, or a Congress that’s too powerful, or Courts that are too powerful.  Everybody’s got their own role.  Congress’ job is to pass legislation.  The President can veto it, or he can sign it.  But, what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed, by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part.  I’m going to choose to interpret it this way, or that way.’  That’s not part of his power.  But, this is part of the whole theory of George Bush – that he can make laws as he’s going along.  I disagree with that.  I taught the Constitution for ten years.  I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.  We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.  All right?”[i]

Very strong language indeed for a President who boasts an ability and intention to go around Congress, and who noted in signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act, that he disagreed with 14 sections of the bill, saying:

“…should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.”[ii]

In still another of the 19 signing statements issued by President Obama thru the end of 2011, Obama blocked the defunding of four of his “Czar” positions, stating that:

“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”[iii]

Which of the campaign promises Obama makes in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election will be as solid as his assurances against “Signing Statements”?  Which other Constitutional principles will he defend with equal respect and passion?

[i] Senator Barack Obama, (2008), Doug Powers (Oct. 28, 2011), Michelle Malkin web-site, Charles Rangel: Obama Working Around Congress is Okay Because of the Gridlock, video in article posted by “brianamburgey”, Obama on Presidential Signing Statements, retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/28/charles-rangel-gridlock/

[ii] President Barack Obama, (Dec. 31, 2011) White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

[iii] President Barack Obama, (April 15, 2011), White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1473, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/15/statement-president-hr-1473

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo? – Reason #66

Posted on by
Reply

Only 89 Days Remaining!

 

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo?

On July 2, 2008, during a rally in Colorado Springs, then Senator Obama made one of the most startling statements ever heard from a Presidential candidate.  Obama told the American public:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a Civilian National Security Force that’s just as powerful – just as strong – just as well funded.” [i]

FactCheck.org soundly ridiculed Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), after Broun responded to Obama’s comment, saying “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s [Obama’s] the one who proposed this national security force. … That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.”[ii]

How does any person, news, or other organization of any kind justify ridiculing anyone questioning such a bizarre announcement from a sitting Senator and would-be President of the United States?  The ridiculing of Rep. Broun was no less dangerous than the Obama statement itself.

            [i] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

            [ii] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

Chick-Fil-A and a Look at America’s Future

Posted on by
3

Only 97 Days Remaining!

Chick-Fil-A and a Look at America’s Future

Seventy six percent of Americans are practicing Christians. Yet, Obama felt it necessary to cynically create an absurd “strawman” and flesh it out, by ridiculing the application of biblical prescriptions to modern government. On another occasion, he was quick to announce to the world that “America is no longer a Christian nation…at least, not just.” At the same time, he has called the Muslim call to prayers “…one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,” credited Muslims with helping to shape America and stated that he considers it his “responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” He gave NASA, as one of their highest priorities, the task of outreach to Muslims. When Korans were accidentally burned in Afghanistan after being used to pass extremist messages in the Parwan Detention Facility, our supposed Afghan allies killed 6 American soldiers in cold blood and wounded five others. Obama apologized to the Afghans.

Cumulatively – and there’s many more examples – this behavior says a great deal about Obama’s thoughts on religion. But, it also says something about his view of his own power and his ability to judge – even ridicule – the values of others. The idea that one of his closest political cohorts – Rahm Emanuel – would behave in a like manner, is not surprising. It is however, both reprehensible and a frightening reminder that sustaining our way of life and safeguarding our liberties is no longer solely an issue of opposing super powers, but increasingly one that involves the accountability of our own elected leaders.Whether it is Obama ridiculing religion, buying votes with a sudden support of illegal immigration or gay marriage, vowing to work around a duly elected Congress, apologizing to those killing our own soldiers, or calling on Latinos to “Punish our enemies;” whether it is a Secretary of Interior who circumvents court orders to impose a drilling moratorium; whether it is a city alderman threatening to withhold a business permit; a big city Mayor attempting to force women to breast feed or, another big city Mayor calling out the religious beliefs of a businessman and telling America that those are not the values of his City – all of these and so many more examples in recent days tell us that the America we enjoyed as children and have always considered invincible, is under assault from those who no longer consider themselves representatives of the people, or guardians of our freedom – but, who now see themselves as “Rulers” and members of a power elite. It is no less our duty as citizens to identify and vote these would be kings out of office, than it is the duty of our soldiers to face and defeat our military enemies.
203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama is available at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0080JOAUE.  I am making it available FREE today and tomorrow only.  I ask you to get it, read it and then share with others.  Obama and his cohorts must go!!!

Homeland Security Fears Veterans & Constitutionalists – Reason #58

Posted on by
Reply

Only 111 Days Remaining!

Homeland Security Fears Veterans & Constitutionalists

On April 7, 2009, less than four months after Obama took office, the Department of Homeland Security published an unclassified intelligence assessment entitled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.  The Administration, citing similarities in the conditions of the 1990s and today, speculated:

“The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right- wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”[i]

They also cautioned against Americans “…rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority…” and against “…groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” [ii]

In other words – according to the Obama Administration – we should be very concerned about returning veterans who have risked their lives for our country.  We should also be suspicious of all those who believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as those who stay informed and take a position on abortion, immigration, or any other major issue affecting America.

[i] Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat AnalysisDivision, (April 7, 2010), Department of Homeland Security, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, pp2-3, retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

[ii] Ibid, 2

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This Hope and Change? – Reason #54

Posted on by
Reply

Only 117 Days Remaining!

Safe Schools Czar – Really?

From 2009 – 2011, Kevin Jennings served as Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” with the formidable official title of Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education.

According to Fox News, Jennings – a former teacher himself – has advocated for the promotion of homosexuality in schools and, on one known occasion, failed to report a probable sexual encounter between a 15 year old student and an older adult.[i]  When told by the boy: ‘Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him,'” Jennings told the student, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”  The young man answered “Why should I? My life isn’t worth saving anyway.”[ii]

Following media reports showing the boy as 15 and therefore, underage in Massachusetts, where the incident occurred, the ex-student reportedly came forward to advise that he was actually 16 at the time – the Massachusetts age of consent.  He also said in an interview with Media Matters, that he “…had no sexual contact with anybody at the time.”[iii]  In a 2000 speech however, Jennings indicated the boy was 15.[iv] This was apparently Jennings’ belief at the time of the incident.

[i] Maxim Lott, (September 23, 2009), Fox News web-site: Politics, Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job, retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

[ii] Fox News, (October 3, 2009), Fox News web-site:Politics, Former Student Defends Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Against Allegations, retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/student-defends-obamas-safe-schools-czar-allegations/

[iii] Ibid

 

[iv] William F. Jasper, (December 7, 2009), The New American, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”: Homosexual Activist and Founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Kevin Jennings, Now Obama’s Safe-Schools Czar, Is Using His Position to “Queer” American Education, Volume 25, Issue 25, 17+

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who is Peter Dreier?

Posted on by
Reply

Only 125 Days Remaining!

Who is Peter Dreier?

Peter Dreier, as described in Radical-in-Chief,  was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America’s National Executive Committee, a frequent contributor to The Nation, a major influence on Community Organizing, “a key strategist” in the development of ACORN’s bank pressuring campaign, and a proponent of a scenario in which the expansion of state spending takes the public sector and – ultimately the entire country – to the brink of financial collapse.  This forces a call for spending cutbacks which, in turn, mobilizes those receiving government entitlements to protest, even to the point of revolution.[i]   Sound familiar?  We need look only to our experience in Wisconsin to see a living albeit minor example.

Dreier reportedly believes that this entitlement crisis may result in violent revolution and lead the country finally into either Fascism or Socialism.  He advocates the use of community organizers to assure that it is the latter and suggests the importance of having “a left wing grassroots movement already in place” to accomplish this.[ii]  Again, we may have current examples under the Obama Administration – the “Occupy” movement, supported by Obama and the membership of Obama’s Organizing for America: a force of unknown size and strength.  Could this be Obama’s Civilian National Defense Force?

Coincidentally, Dreier believes that corporations should be controlled by Labor Unions and community organizations.  According to author Stanley Kurtz, “a 1980 piece in Social Policy” contains a drawing depicting such an organization – oddly enough – called “U.S. Motors.”[iii]

In spite of all these similarities to current events, if it still seems a distant stretch, it is also of interest to note that Dreier served as an Advisor to Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign.[iv]

(Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)

[i] Stanley Kurtz, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, (New York, 2010, Threshold Editions), 43-49

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid, 45

[iv] Ibid, 49

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta