Obama Betrays U.S. Military Superiority
by Phyllis Schlafly
January 15, 2014
The takeover of Fallujah by Al
Qaeda wipes out our costly 2004 victory when we captured Fallujah at the cost
of 100 Marines and soldiers killed in action and hundreds more wounded.
Fallujah isn’t just an Obama mistake; it’s the exemplar of Obama’s disastrous
foreign and military policies designed to reduce the power and prestige of America on the world stage.
Obama’s military policies are not
merely based on his incompetence. His military policies are part of his
personal ideology to redistribute power in the world, which is the other side
of the coin of his Saul-Alinsky ideology to reduce our standard of living by
drastically limiting our energy use to the level of poorer nations.
When Obama told Joe the plumber that Obama wanted to “spread
the wealth around,” that was only part of his plan. He also wants to spread
power around to achieve his we-are-all-equal worldview.
Just as Obama thinks it is unfair
that the United States enjoys a higher standard of living than the rest of the
world (even though we earned it), he thinks it is unfair that America has more military power than other countries. When he
talks about his goal of “fundamentally transforming” the United States , he means he wants to reduce both our economic and our
military superiority.
Obama has failed miserably to
negotiate Iran out of its steady progression toward becoming a nuclear
nation. It’s been a year and a half since the Benghazi murders of our Ambassador and three other Americans, but
nobody has paid a price and they remain unavenged.
Obama’s intervention in Egypt was an unmitigated disaster that replaced a pro-American
dictator with the Muslim Brotherhood, a vicious opponent of Western values of
freedom and representative government. His strange support for the Muslim
Brotherhood indicates a willingness to align us with the Brotherhood’s
revolutionary agenda.
Most of what Obama says is
carefully scripted by his handlers and placed on the teleprompter for him to read . When Obama is caught without a teleprompter,
we get some insight on how radical he really is.
That is what happened at the summit
in South Korea in 2012 when Obama was heard on an open mic saying to the Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this,
this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. … This is my
last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replied, “I
will transmit this information to Vladimir .”
That colloquy tells us all we need
to know about Obama’s plan to destroy America ’s military superiority. Obama felt that, after his
reelection, he would no longer be accountable to the American public on
“particularly missile defense,” which Obama has always opposed.
The United States has always had anti-missile superiority, a priceless
protection against the murderous aims of Iran ,
Communist China and North Korea . Russia has been trying to get us to abandon it ever since the
days of Ronald Reagan, and his steadfast refusal to give it up at the Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev was a major factor in Reagan’s
winning the Cold War.
Robert Gates’ new book describes an
ambivalent commander-in-chief who did not believe in his own military buildup
in Afghanistan , and mainly just wanted to get out of Iraq . Gates says the only military matter “about which I ever
sensed deep passion on his part was ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” the law disliked
by the gays that Obama got Congress to repeal.
Our friends are wondering why our
President has deliberately reduced American power and influence to levels of
the 1930s and turned his back on U.S. supporters and allies. He has openly made nice with
adversaries such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran ’s ayatollahs, and allowed Chinese penetration to rise to
higher and higher levels.
This is not just a series of
mistakes or bad luck. Obama’s plan is to reduce American influence and prestige
because he thinks we are too dominant in the world, and military power should
be redistributed just as he wants to spread the wealth around inside our
country. Our allies are dismayed by Obama’s foolish abandonment of our
preeminent military strength because they depend on us for their own security.
Americans will have to depend on
the election of U.S. Senators in November who commit to uphold the 2012 Republican
Party Platform: “We are the party of peace through strength…. American military
superiority has been the cornerstone of a strategy that seeks to deter
aggression or defeat those who threaten our national security interests.”
*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. S
a
i
To
To
Tak
R
T
A
Hav
I
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."
Al l l aw s w h ic h ar e r e p ug n an t t o t h e Con st it ut ion ar e n ul l an d
void." Mar b ur y
vs. Madison r an c h )
137, 164, 176. (1803)
"Wh e r e r ig h t s se c ur e d b y t h e Con st it ut ion ar e in vol ve d, t h e r e c an b e n o r ul e m akin g or l e g isl at ion w h ic h w oul d ab r og at e t h e m ."
Mir an da
vs. Ar izon a , 384 U.S.
"An un c on st it ut ion al ac t is
n ot l aw ; it c on fe r s n o r ig h t s;
it im p ose s n o
dut ie s;
it
affor ds n o p r ot e c t ion ; it c r e at e s n o
offic e ; it is
in l e g al c on t e m p l at ion ,
as in op e r at ive as
t h oug h it h ad n e ve r b e e n p asse d."
Nor t on
vs. Sh e l b y Coun t y , 118 US
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Dive r sit y!
Th e r e is
n o r oom in t h is c oun t r y
for h yp h e n at e d Am e r ic an ism . Th e on e ab sol ut e l y c e r t ain w ay
of b r in g in g t h is n at ion t o r uin ,
of p r e ve n t in g al l p ossib il it y
of it s c on t in uin g t o b e a n at ion at al l , w oul d b e t o p e r m it it t o b e c om e a t an g l e of
squab b l in g n at ion al it ie s.
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t , sp e e c h b e for e t h e Kn ig h t s
of Col um b us, 1915 , Ne w
Yor k
T
— T
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Bush !
To an n oun c e t h at t h e r e m ust b e n o c r it ic ism of
t h e p r e side n t , or t h at w e ar e t o st an d b y t h e p r e side n t r ig h t or w r on g ,
is n ot on l y un p at r iot ic an d se r vil e , b ut is
m or al l y t r e ason ab l e t o t h e Am e r ic an p ub l ic .
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t
— T
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Bush
& Con g r e ss
"We c an n ot affor d t o diffe r on t h e que st ion of h on e st y if w e e xp e c t our r e p ub l ic p e r m an e n t l y t o e n dur e .
Hon e st y is n ot so m uc h a c r e dit as an ab sol ut e p r e r e quisit e t o e ffic ie n t se r vic e t o t h e p ub l ic . Un l e ss a m an is h on e st , w e h ave n o r ig h t t o ke e p h im in p ub l ic l ife ; it m at t e r s n ot h ow b r il l ian t h is c ap ac it y."
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t
Want to be on our
lists?
It w il l t ake up t o 72 Hour s t o t ake you off
of l ist s!
No comments:
Post a Comment