Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, September 25, 2009 9:04:49 AM
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
Earlier this year, President Obama wrote to Russian President Medvedev and said he was willing to bargain away U.S. missile defense plans in Europe if the Russians helped to completely eliminate Iran's threats to global security.
Furthermore, an Administration spokesman recently admitted that the so-called third site for missile defense won't protect Europe from a strike launched in Iran. But this ignores the fact that Iran is not the only place from which a ballistic missile could hit Europe -- and in that case, if our missile defenses will not protect Europe, what will?
President Obama's personal popularity in the international community will protect them. Or the self-imposed restraint of terrorist states. Or the moral force of U.N. Security Council Resolutions. No, missile defense is our best chance to check the aggression of imperialist regimes and terrorist thugs alike. It undermines their motivations to spend billions on missile technology.
This is why former leaders of Central and Eastern European countries recently wrote an open letter to President Obama to remind him of the sacrifices they had made on behalf of freedom and the need for leadership now from Washington. It is also why Poland and the Czech Republic have bravely volunteered to host the "third site." Its deployment there makes the most strategic sense, both for the United States and our allies, and also represents the most cost-efficient option available to us. BUT OBAMA SAYS NO!!
At issue is whether missile defense represents a threat to the security and stability of the world or whether missile defense is, in fact, as Ronald Reagan said, the greatest hope the cause of peace has ever had.
It says a great deal about the world that enemies of freedom reflexively distrust missile defense, and that free people have difficulty understanding why anyone would find it even remotely controversial. It says even more about the United States and the American people that, even as the world's lone superpower, our greatest achievement in military technology is exclusively defensive in nature. No powerful society in history could ever make such a boast -- indeed, no other society would want to. SOURCE: HERITAGE FOUNDATION
From the words of his speech yesterday to the UN general assembly it appears that he is still apologizing for the USA strength and protection of the free world. He has cozied up to tyrants like Chavez, Castro and yesterday Kadafi, the mastermind behind the killing of 290 people in the Lockerbie plane bombing.
His own words say that he was more comfortable with his leftist(Marxist) professors and the radical students of all ilk while attending college. And he sat in a pew of a church whose pastor was anti-American, race bater and anti- free enterprise zealot for twenty years.
WE do not know what his thesis was based upon when he attended Harvard law school, nor do we know what type articles he wrote while being head of the Law Review, as they are strangely and ominously sealed!
I wrote a blog several months ago predicting that Obama would allow the Afghanistan war to become the 21 st Century version of the Viet Nam war. If he does not do what the commanders in the field wants him to do. How can he expect him to lead our brave troops to VICTORY?
I know victory is a dirty word in Obama's mind, but is he willing, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, willing to send our brave men and women into a massacre? For if he lets them die on the vine rather than pull out if he does not want a victory. He is guilty of dereliction of his duty as president, and I believe impeachable!
Tags: troops History Afghanistan obama Military Vietnam
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment