Will Obama Gut Defense?

What liberal president in the past 30 years HASN’T?

The US military is facing a crisis. Its equipment is criminally old and would be hard pressed to persevere against a determined Great Power foe right now. Those who feel the Great Power wars have passed us by need to take into consideration what happened in Georgia last summer. The fact is, the Russians and the Chinese are spending major fortunes to upgrade their military, fielding the latest generations of MiGs, SAMs, surface ships, surface missiles, and yes, NUKES, while our nation fiddles, ignores the threat, prepares for insurgencies, and spends trillions on Marxist programs that help no one, defend no one, sinks us ever further into debt while doing nothing to prop up GDP, and ruins our economy.

BHO has already made clear he’ll eliminate “unproven” missile defense, (ignoring the FACT that the USS Lake Erie proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that missile defense works, and works as advertised) and ignore space defense systems. He says this even while our enemies work night and day to develop missile systems that can reach our shores, and deploy advanced systems NOW. BHO in his naive approach to defense, believes missile and spaces systems and upgrades to our nuclear arsenal should be scrapped.

I have no idea what kind of military the United States will have after a BHO administration, it is horrifying to even contemplate a Clinton-like gutting…as Zell Miller said in 2004, (and I paraphrase), “What are we supposed to use? Spitballs?”

Reagan understood his job title: to defend the Unites States. Which is why he refused to take missile defense off the table at Rejavik. He could not in good conscience leave the people of the United States defenseless against missile attacks. BHO doesn’t get this very basic consideration. His approach to national defense is disarmament, and ONLY the disarmament of the US, not her enemies.

From defense, to his affiliations with those who hate America, to his pork barrel/corrupt appropriations, to his ultra liberal voting record, to his “Jimmy Carter” approach to foreign policy, this man is unfit, unqualified, and clueless to serve as president.

Capitol Hill Dems Want to Target the Pentagon.

FIL “FILVIS” RECHNITZER,
US Air Force MSgt (Ret)

Democrats on an Escalator

It’s funny because there is a teeny, tiny bit of truth to it.

Obama the Duck

B. Hussein may not like be called a Marxist, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…well even folks educated in the Marxist Public schools know that it is indeed a duck.

B. Hussein IS a Marxist, by any definition of the word.  “Spreading the wealth around” is Marxist in conceptualization.  Taking the rights to make sound management decisions away from the business owner and giving it to the worker is Marxist.  Making it harder for businesses/owners to defend against usurpation of their property by Unions is a Marxist concept, since it is an attack against capitalism/individual ownership.   In fact, ANY pro-Union position is Marxist.  The history of the Union movement begins with the Anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, later subsidized by the Soviet COMINTERN. 

There is a myth that we needed Unions and that there were “robber barons.”  Both are false.  For the record, not one American was FORCED to work in the factories at gunpoint and Unions have done far more harm than good, wrecking entire industries.  The “Robber Barons” were actually entrepreneurs who set the foundations that helped make our country one of the richest in the history of mankind, no thanks to Unions.  To read more, check out the book:  “The Myth of the Robber Barons” by Burton W. Fulsom for a more accurate history that isn’t taught in the Marxist Publik Skuls.

With an enabling Congress and the ability to replace probably 3 Supreme Court justices with Ginsberg-like liberals, the philosophies that resulted in an economy that crested $15 Trillion in GDP will be dead and gone, especially if pro-Union legislation is passed.

Story

FIL “FILVIS” RECHNITZER,
US Air Force MSgt (Ret)

Obama: Redistribution of Wealth

Obama thinks it is a shame the constitution wasn’t radically reinterpreted to force the redistribution of change (code word for wealth) to African Americans.  His own words.

This is a basic cornerstone of Marxist ideology, the redistribution of wealth. 

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Obama, Khalidi, Ayers and Dohrn

Obama attended a party for radical PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, also known as a radical Islamist.  Also in attendance, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. (just a guy in his neighborhood.)   The party was held in 2003.

LA Times has the video and has been holding it since last April.  They refuse to release it.

My god.  Wake up America.

nod:lgf

Obama the Socialist

No, Americans do not understand what it is.  Its base definition is this:  the means of production are owned by the state.  Essentially, wealth then is owned by the state and redistributed amongst the kool aid drinkers.

The class gets an “A” if they can identify the political ideologist who proclaimed a tax system should be progressive.  If you said Karl Marx, you aced it.  If you know that a progressive tax system was implemented by a Marxist president, Woodrow Wilson, you also get an “A.” 

Note to all:  a nation cannot tax nor spend itself into prosperity.  Spreading the wealth around does not grow the economy, it merely takes wages away from one family and gives it to another.  It punishes the wage earner, and rewards those who do not earn.   It punches those who contribute to society in the mouth, and “high fives” those who are a drag on society.  It does not increase GDP.

Do you want to know how much of your taxes went to unconstitutional, redistribution of wealth programs?  Put in your income for a baseline, check it out:

http://usataxdollars.com/Default.aspx

You’ll note that of all those programs, only the funding of our National Defense is specifically mentioned in the Constitution… over and over again I might add.  Of your taxes, over 50% of what they take goes to redistribution of welfare programs:  Social Security, Medicare, Misc Health care, and “Income Security”, none of which are identified in the Constitution (and I’m sorry, but the preamble does not count as a constitutional imperative, for the program to be constitutional, it must be identified in Articles I, II, or III, or in the amendments, not the intro).

Think what you could have done with the wages you earned if taxes weren’t taken from you to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Misc Health Care, and Income Security.  Would’ve been nice for both you and the economy if you could’ve kept that money to:  invest, save, or consume I’d image.

But don’t worry, a B. Hussein administration will ensure that even MORE expenditures will go toward the unconstitutional programs and LESS will be earmarked into the one program that defends us all:  the constitutionally chartered Defense spending…

FIL “FILVIS” RECHNITZER,
US Air Force MSgt (Ret)

Larry Grathwohl: The Weather Underground Plan

Listen to him.  He is a former FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground.  Chilling.  Ayers and Dohrn signed off on this.  Obama chose to associate with them both. 

Military Aircraft

Excellent briefing here that shows just how tenable our nation’s Air Force is with respect to the age of each.  This just is not good for the future of air superiority and must be addressed by SOME president in the future.  A good start for the next president would be to replace the current Sec Def whose preference is to punt procurement to another Secretary and implement a “buy UAV only” mindset.

Aircraft Inventory

FIL “FILVIS” RECHNITZER,
US Air Force MSgt (Ret)

The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

To good NOT to post.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

Character

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” —Samuel Adams   In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”   With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.   However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy’s national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, “ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country.”   In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”   Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?   Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.   This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)   When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, “the Party left me,” has never been more true than today.   For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.   Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.   Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we’re told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that “this election is the most important in our lifetimes.” This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.   Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic ec onomic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.   That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, “The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the ‘little’ choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that ‘it really doesn’t matter.’ It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame.”   For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let’s return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic’s Constitution.   Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.   John Adams: “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. … If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. … We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”   Samuel Adams: “Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. … If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. … [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are unive rsally corrupt. … No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. … Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. … Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.”   Thomas Jefferson: “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. … If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. … The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. … An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”   George Washington: “No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. …[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. … The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. …[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillar s of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”   At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution’s author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.   In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, “Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”   Sound familiar?   In No. 10, Madison cautions, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm,” and insisted in No. 57, “The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”   Madison’s Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, “Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”   The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.   In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, “I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!”   We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.   As Adams understood, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”   Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, “Freedom is … never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it’s gone and gone for a long, long time.”   So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?   On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.   At this pivotal moment in our nation’s history, let’s hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.   Let’s put country first.   For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.