Obama Assures Enemies – America Not a Nuclear Threat
In April 2010, the Obama administration issued a Nuclear Posture Review Report that included a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against any country in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also included a commitment to maintain its current weapons, and not to build new ones.[i]
What more could any enemy of the United States want?
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”?
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.
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
Just as he immediately set a racial tone in his first book – just as he seemed always accompanied [according to his book] by someone focused on racial slights – Obama ensured that someone else would be handy at his Inaugural Address, so that racial victimization could be part of the public record, without coming directly from his own lips. In this case, the observations would come from the inaugural benediction of Rev. Joseph Lowery, former President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The video of his speech shows a smiling President Obama’s face as Lowery – this kind looking stereotypical grandfather – tells America in his soft, aged voice:
”Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around — (laughter) — when yellow will be mellow — (laughter) — when the red man can get ahead, man — (laughter) — and when white will embrace what is right.”[i](Emphasis added)
Once again Obama – after just winning the general election for the U.S. Presidency – deftly injects white racism into the mix without saying a word and through a humorous poem that has his admiring constituency laughing instead of questioning.
* * *
Reason #13
Obama Campaign Messaging
Perhaps the quality of a President can be partially measured by the knowledge and thoughtfulness of the voters responsible for his or her election. In the case of President Obama, that standard should leave America with significant concerns. In the words of one ardent Obama supporter, following a campaign rally on October 30, 2009:
“It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’s gonna help me.”[ii]
Other “informed” Obama constituents were interviewed in Harlem in a “man on the street” format. The twist was that the interviewer was attributing the policies and choices of Senator John McCain to Obama. The exercise revealed instant support for Sarah Palin as Obama’s alleged running mate as well as appreciation for his “Pro-Life” position and his desire to keep our troops in Iraq until the war was finished. In other words, whatever McCain issue was sent their way with a phony link to Obama, they immediately supported. But, asked directly about McCain, one respondent said: “McCain seems to not really know what he’s doing right now” – another said: “I just don’t agree with some of his, you know, policies.” Still another said: “He sort of sounds like he doesn’t have enough – like he’s not uneducated – because when he has – they have to vote for the President speaking, uh, he didn’t sound like he knew what he was talking about too much.” This final interviewee then responded to follow-up questions saying she supported Obama because he was Pro-Life and because he supported the Iraq war. She was also happy that Obama had selected Sarah Palin to be his VP running mate.[iii]
Our Country is in good hands. NOT.
* * *
Your Turn
Do you know a Reason why Barack Obama should not be elected President? Can you tie that Reason to something specific and document it with a credible source? If so, share it in the Reply box at the end of this page. Working together, let’s set a goal of 10,000 Reasons – and when we have them, let’s share them with the GOP!!! Make your voice heard. And while you’re at it, who do you think Mitt Romney will select as his running mate? Vote here!!!
[i] Ref. James Lowery, Inaugural Benediction transcript from Federal News Service, posted by Lynn Sweet, (January 20, 2009), Chicago Sun-Times web-site, The Scoop from Washington, Rev. Lowery Inauguration benediction. Transcript, retrieved April 21, 2010 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/rev_lowery_inauguration_benedi.html
Days Remaining!
Our Free 50 