ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Policies of Statism and the Effects on National Defense - Part 2

Updated on March 7, 2014
"This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen — and this is what freedom means — is in a position to choose his own way of life." —Ludwig von Mises
"This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen — and this is what freedom means — is in a position to choose his own way of life." —Ludwig von Mises | Source
Our Flag in Distress
Our Flag in Distress

Statism - a term typically used by libertarians usually describing a political philosophy, whether of the right or the left, that emphasizes the role of the state in politics or supports the use of the state to achieve economic, military or social goals. (Wikipedia)

In January 2012, I wrote the first part of this article and updated it in September 2013. I started this way: Let me state up front that I spent almost 40 years of my life in the US Department of Defense (DoD), three and a half years in uniform, 27 years as a DoD civilian, and eight years as a DoD contractor. The years in uniform (US Army) included one year in Vietnam. When I began my career, Lyndon Johnson was president and the military was undergoing a buildup due to the war in Southeast Asia. When I retired from DoD in 2001, another buildup was beginning due to the attacks on September 11. And when I resigned from the contractor position in 2009, it was near the end of the first year of the presidency of Barack Obama. My theme was the negative effects on our nation's military might brought on by the policies of the Obama administration. After examining the threats to our nation and the (then) state of our military, I concluded thus:

I lived through the years that Jimmy Carter was president and saw much of the same phenomenon: large defense cuts in order to fund social welfare programs. As I mentioned above, the EU nations have gutted their military establishments in order to fund what are, essentially, socialist economic programs. (As an aside, they are feeling the effects of this now as rioters protest against budget cuts in generous retirement programs these governments can no longer afford. It’s starting to happen there as well. See “Occupy Wall Street.”) It is, unfortunately, happening again. Obama has presided over the largest aggrandizement of federal power since Franklin Roosevelt, and has created a HUGE national debt. Some people refer to his policies as “socialist.” I am not sure whether he is a committed socialist or not but he certainly is, at the very least, a statist (see above). One thing is for sure: the current administration is doing the same thing many of the EU nations have done - gutting our national defense to fund a bloated welfare state. This is, in my opinion, gambling with our national security.

Well, we are now in the sixth year of the Obama administration and it is my contention that things are getting even worse. Since the publishing of the original article, North Korea still has nuclear weapons, Iran is still developing them (in spite of the "deal" Obama made which is little more than window dressing), the civil war in Syria is still raging (at least the Assad regime is supposedly giving up weapons of mass destruction - thanks to Vladimir Putin), and there are now Russian troops in Ukraine, supposedly to "protect" ethnic Russians living there. (Anybody remember how Hitler "protected" ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland by gobbling up what was then Czechoslovakia?)

Syrian President (i.e. dictator) Bashir al-Assad
Syrian President (i.e. dictator) Bashir al-Assad | Source

A rundown of the current situation:

 Syria - some time ago, Obama stated publicly that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the rebels that would constitute crossing a "red line" and hinted there would be serious repercussions, etc. They used chemical weapons - he did nothing. Oh yes, he did something - he denied ever saying there was a "red line." Russia and the United States then brokered a deal to put Syria's chemical-weapons stockpiles under international control to avoid possible U.S. military strikes intended to punish him for the poison-gas attack. This is supposed to take as a long as a year. In the meantime the civil war continues. At time of writing, casualties in Syria were in the neighborhood of 100,000.

Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani
Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani | Source

 Iran: In November of last year, Iran agreed to a "pause" in its enrichment of fissile material:

"The deal, intended as a first step toward a more comprehensive nuclear pact to be completed in six months, freezes or reverses progress at all of Iran’s major nuclear facilities, according to Western officials familiar with the details. It halts the installation of new centrifuges used to enrich uranium and caps the amount and type of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to produce.

Iran also agreed to halt work on key components of a heavy-water reactor that could someday provide Iran with a source of plutonium. In addition, Iran accepted a dramatic increase in oversight, including daily monitoring by international nuclear inspectors, the officials said." (Washington Post, 24 Nov 2013)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a "historic mistake." He likened the agreement with the one made with North Korea in 2005, saying it makes the world "a much more dangerous place." What Iran agreed to do could "easily be reversed in a few weeks." For this, we lessened the sanctions on Iran. I agree with Netanyahu. Does anybody seriously trust the ayatollahs to stick to this deal?

Oh yes, Iran is now bragging about a "blue water" navy and threatens to send ships to deploy near the U.S.

Models of North Korean Missiles - can they hit the U.S.?
Models of North Korean Missiles - can they hit the U.S.? | Source

 North Korea: Status quo. Kin Jong Un keeps making threats, the administration does nothing, Dennis Rodman notwithstanding.

Vladimir Putin - Russian president and former head of the KGB.
Vladimir Putin - Russian president and former head of the KGB. | Source

 Ukraine: From NBC News, 1 March 2014: "Russian troops flooded the Russian-speaking Ukrainian region of Crimea on Saturday, giving President Vladimir Putin abundant options should he decide to use the new military authority his parliament gave him. U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with Putin by telephone Saturday after the upper house of Russia's Parliament unanimously voted Saturday to authorize military force in Ukraine. The White House said the U.S. was 'suspending' its preparations for the next G-8 summit of industrialized nations — scheduled to be held in Russia. Moscow already had thousands of military personnel in Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea naval fleet is based, and Ukraine's defense minister claimed Saturday that 6,000 more Russian troops had arrived."

Obama's reaction? He stated there will be "costs" associated with Russian intervention in Ukraine. What costs? The U.S. won't show up to the G-8 summit? I'll bet Putin's shaking in his boots over that one! Putin is playing Obama like a violin. By the way, right after Obama made his "threat" to the Russians, he left for a Democratic Party fundraiser. Really engaged, isn't he?

One other thing: before the last election, Obama, not realizing he had an open mike, told then-President Medvedev that after his reelection, he would be "more flexible." Medvedev said he would pass the message to Putin. Is this what he meant? Letting Putin get away with murder?


 China - double-digit growth in China's military budget but, don't worry, the Chinese say the growth factor is "moderate" and "China 'has no intention to seek hegemony' and will stick on a peaceful development path." (Yin Zhuo, director of the Expert Consultation Committee of the PLA Navy) The PLA is the People's Liberation Army which covers the entirety of China's military. I wonder how Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea feel about this one.

 Iraq - Obama failed to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq (partially the fault of the Iraqis intransigence) and now al-Qaeda has retaken Fallujah. The White House basically just shrugged this one off.

 Afghanistan - it is becoming increasingly clear that we will soon have no residual force in Afghanistan (again, as in Iraq, partially due to the intransigence of President Karzai) and we are in danger of having the Taliban establishing a base in that country much like that had before 9/11. This was the war Obama campaigned on in 2008 that we had to win.

To be fair, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not entirely Obama's fault but what is he doing about it? I don't see any comprehensive strategy here - it seems like "cut and run." Not a wise decision.

And the latest proposal by the Obama administration in the face of all this? To cut the size of the U.S. Army to the level it was prior to World War II:

"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

"The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations." (Washington Post, 23 Feb 2014)

So what will happen if we need to react to a significant threat in the near future? We'll have to quickly plus up the military, probably calling up not-so-well-trained reserves and try to take equipment out of mothballs. This has happened time and time again because we refuse to learn the lessons of history. (Remember "peace in our time?")

But it's more than that. This is all part of Obama's "fundamental transformation" of our great nation into a second rate military power, because he believes in massively increasing the welfare state at the expense of national security. If you read the U.S. Constitution, you will see the main purpose of the government is to protect its people, not to guarantee their livelihood.

I concluded the original article with the following (written before the November 2012 election): It took a Ronald Reagan to straighten out the unfortunate effects of the Carter years. I don’t know if Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum is another Ronald Reagan (I left out Ron Paul - his foreign policy ideas are, well, rather bizarre.), but whoever wins the GOP nomination has to be better than what we have. Politicians always characterize their opponents’ political positions as “disastrous,” “catastrophic,” and other equally negative terms. In the case of Barack Obama, these terms are all too appropriate.

Well, Obama of course was reelected and we have the precarious situation we have today. To repeat: Politicians always characterize their opponents’ political positions as “disastrous,” “catastrophic,” and other equally negative terms. In the case of Barack Obama, these terms are all too appropriate.

Barack Obama is the most anti-military president we've ever had and, unless the elections of 2014 and 2016 result in victory for people who would reverse this trend, we are likely liable to pay a heavy price for Obama's malfeasance. Even if right-thinking politicians sweep those elections, it may take years to undo the damage done to our national security,

Says it all . . .
Says it all . . . | Source

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Obama didnt cut, the sequester did. I suggest you write to every Republican and complain to them.

      They wanted it-they got it.

      Time to pay the price for electing them.

      Dont blame me...I voted Dem.

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      You mean Barrack Obama's sequester, it was his idea, after all. Now there are proposed cuts to the military that would take troop levels to pre-WWII levels. That was announced by Barrack Obama's Secretary of Defense (or is it now Secretary of Capitulation) just last week, thus giving Putin the "green light" to invade Ukraine.

      It will be hard to defend America with just Barry's Kill List and a wing of drones, but why shouldn't he put his faith in drones, after all, they elected him.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Riiiight, Obama wanted the sequester. That's why Boehner bragged that he got 99% of what he wanted......cause he's such an Obama fan.

      Sorry--don't buy Fox Regurgitated malarkey, and never will.

      Sequester is Righty Dream.

      They got it---now we all live with it.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 3 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      In the interests of recognizing what seems to be becoming a non-partisan concurrence of opinion I would offer for your consideration that while it seems true that "whoever wins the GOP nomination has to be better than what we have", it is also true that "whoever wins the Democratic nomination has to be better than what we have".

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Wait a minute...are you denying that the sequester was a tea party idea, and implemented by the Republican House?

      You may have own opinions, not own facts.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "A 2012 book written by legendary newspaperman Bob Woodward of The Washington Post claimed the idea of sequestration originated with the Obama White House, but that congressional Republicans signed on to the idea eventually. Woodward, writing in the newspaper in 2013, said: '... the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved,' Woodward wrote."

      The sequester, though implemented by the House (as are all matters of funding) was NOT a Tea Party idea.

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      Obama and sequestration by a HERO of the left - Nixon's Bane - Bob Woodward, and not from Fox News.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bob-woodward...

      The retreat of the simple minded is templates by which they can define their opposition - the accusation that everyone who opposes them is a Fox News parrot.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      What the hell does Fox News have to do with any of this? retief2000: I don't know what your politics are (although I've got a pretty good guess), but people on the left always blame Fox News for stories that don't fit their particular political views. I guess the truth hurts.

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      AlexDrinkH2O

      Voted Hub up and gave it an awesome

      That is the point, a comment on here by lovemychris, spouts the lefty line that any opposition to her position is because of Fox News. Those like her cannot conceive of an opposition that is a regurgitation of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or other sources they label as extreme. My politics are plain, I am a conservative and I can't remember the last time I watched Fox News - even though I think Dana Perino is a doll and Greg Gutfeld makes me laugh.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Funny--I wouldn't know who those 2 are.....cause I REALLY don't watch that Mockingbird garbage.

      So, let me get this straight.....the party that always wants to cut cut cut, all of a sudden turns the other way--is not responsible for all the cutting, and Obama -- whose mantra is to spend spend spend on the American people, suddenly went rogue, and demanded cuts?

      Bull to the Shnit.

      Cutting gvt has been goal of R's since Rove in his baby years....you remember, "drown it in the bathtub"

      Sequester was fulmination of that goal, along with taking away women's freedom, and putting road blocks up for regular people to vote.

      They got it ALL, thanks to the psy-op they pulled in 2010....and they are doing it again:

      Millions spent by Koch Bros for ads which lie about the ACA, and the same people will fall for it, as usual.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      @retief2000 - Okay, now I see where you're coming from - sorry I misread your last post (that's what happens when you're enjoying a glass of brandy while you're online!)

      Now, as for "lovemychris" - let me translate for the rest of you:

      "taking away women's rights" - that means having the taxpayer paying for the repugnant practice of abortion and even paying for birth control even though it's already cheap.

      "road blocks for regular people to vote" - Imagine the gall of making people identify themselves when they vote! Why, how could the Democrats get all those votes from dead people and people who vote multiple times if they have to show an ID? What is this country coming to??? And, by the way, the millions spent by George Soros on left-wing candidates don't count, right?

      @lovemychris - keep watching MSNBC and swallowing the Kool-Aid and you can get your "news" from the likes of Al Sharpton and Ed Schulz.

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      Drinking is the only way to be on line, especially with lefties everywhere.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      You dont pay for abortion, but you paid for the brain surgery of the man's wife who made it so, Henry Hyde. And, being a man, you have 0 idea what youre talking about, but you make my uterus your business. Keep your false religion out of my private life.

      Vets cant vote, seniors cant vote, students cant vote, because they

      dont have original birth certficate? SHAMEFUL! Women cant vote

      because their married name doesnt match their birth name? HOW

      DARE YOU!

      Heres a clue: we all know what youre up to, and its as far away

      from "freedom" as it gets.

      You need a refresher course on America. We dont conform to your religion, or your world view.

      We are free of your dark age mentality, and your inabiliy to

      recognize the equality of others.

      Go read a book.....preferably "Stockholm Syndrome, and How to

      Escape It"

      "Yes, master, ill work for nothing, and become a broodmare for patriarchy"

      Ehhhhhhhh. Fail.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "Lovemychris" - I have never seen a more ridiculous collection of hyperbole, ignorant rants, and just plain untruths. Who the hell said anyone needs an "original birth certificate" to vote? Ever hear of a drivers license? You don't have a clue of what America is all about. I believe in limited government, a market economy, maximum individual freedom, low taxes, states rights, religious freedom, and a robust foreign policy. That's a "dark age mentality?" And I don't give a rat's ass about your uterus. You want to use abortion for birth control? Go ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for it. I probably should have denied your last comment but I also believe in freedom of speech and I wanted others to see a demonstration of the warped mentality of liberals.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Oh you will be deleting me....just give it time. You rightys pay lip service to freedom of any kind, other than the freedom for business to rip people off, and the freedom of innocents to be killed by guns.

      You really need to educate yourself on what your fellows are doing as far as voting rights, where they have power. One redneck in Nawth Carolinah said too bad if lazy blacks want the gvt to give them everything....AS IF voting was a gift meted out by politicians!!!! Requiring driver license to vote is obscene...if you don't drive, guess what, you don't vote! Or--you need original Birth Certificate to prove yourself, which in Colorado costs 50 bucks, and takes 3 wks to get here.....election over by then!....or, a student cant use student ID,.....or requiring your name match your birth certificate, which it doesnt. since you got married.....ALL road blocks for a basic right as citizen. Cause, "freedom"? Yeah right.

      My town requires letter w proof you live at address. That's it. What's so hard? WHY REQUIRE MORE? Not rocket science....more people vote, less Republicans get in. Simple.

      And, you really need look at the law. Since 1973, Republican Henry Hyde made it illegal for gvt to pay for abortion. However, he didn't mind that gvt paid for his wife's surgery......costing in the thousands: for ONE PERSON.

      Religious bosses want to deny me birth control on insurance, but guess what?

      I must pay for Viagra of dysfunctional penis's.

      Equality under the law?

      HARDLY.

      American? Natch!

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      You're equating brain surgery with abortion? Give me a break, will you please? "Requiring driver license to vote is obscene...if you don't drive, guess what, you don't vote!" - Nonsense - in my state at least the DMV will give you an ID even if you don't drive. You need IDs to buy booze, cigarettes, to get into certain places, all kinds of things. But not to vote? Ridiculous.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      No, I'm equating tax dollars paying for her surgery, but not allowed to pay for a medical procedure for me.

      and WHY? Why is there no equality under the law?

      Religion is why-- which is supposed to be separated from governing.....that is why churches pay no tax.

      Ummm, hello: booze, cigarettes, entertainment, etc are not rights.

      A basic right of America is the right to vote.

      Why you think making it harder to do is very revealing.

      Voting is a simple procedure and endangers no one.

      But I guess it's threatening to a losing party, eh? Otherwise, they would be all for a FAIR FIGHT.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Some people actually believe asking for an ID when vote is "unfair" - let's see now, you need in ID for:

      Driver's license

      Buy alcohol

      Buy cigarettes

      Apply for welfare

      Apply for food stamps

      Cash a check

      Purchase a firearm

      Make any large credit card purchase

      Open a bank account

      Rent an apartment

      Be admitted to a hospital

      Get a marriage license

      . . . but not to vote? Ludicrous.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      NO, it's not ludicrous..

      Voting is a right of citizenship, not a luxury, need, or a want.

      Putting restrictions on, or making it hard in any way, shape, or form, it is un-American and TYRANNICAL. How you like that?

      Making you buy health insurance isn't tyrannical, but preventing you from partaking in your own gvt is.

      This is what you have backwards.

      And this is why no one buys the right's sad sap story.

      YOU are the tyrants, not the other way around!!!

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "Royal Masset, the former political director of the Texas Republican Party, said he believed that requiring voters to provide photo ID could sufficiently reduce participation by legitimate Democratic voters and add 3 percent to Republican tallies.

      More recently, one of the dimmer lights in the Pennsylvania Republican Party — the majority leader of the state House of Representatives, in fact — boasted that the voter ID statute he had rammed through the legislature would "allow Governor Romney to win the election" in November 2012."

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      And the point? I have had my identity taken at my precinct. There was not a single comment or effort to rectify the situation. I don't care what a couple of politicians say. We must provide identification for any number of activities, including attending Democrat anti-voter ID rallies, why should voting be any different.

      One must remember, the Democrat Party fighting to allow convicted felons to vote.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Point is the waaa waaa club has no clothes.

      All the crying about poor ole us is a sham.

      You cry tyranny, but in actual fact, are huge tyrants.

      Taking away things from those in need, while giving x-tra to those in greed.

      Backwards and un-American. IMHO

      now delete....I know it's coming. "You cant handle the truth!"

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      let me guess...."off topic"

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      "The Truth" only lefties can use this term.

      I don't care how voter ID effects Republicans, I care about my franchise not being used by anyone not entitled to it. We provide identification for all kinds of things, by law, why not voting?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      It's not "your" franchise!!!

      It's not the Republican states of America.

      And anyone who is living here has a stake in how things go.

      All citizens deserve fee and open access to ballots.

      --and it's easy enough to prove you live somewhere. All it takes is an electric bill.

      Bingo: eligible to vote.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      lovemychris - of course I can handle the truth - that's why I'm a conservative (and that does not necessarily mean Republican) - I'm letting your posts show in order for others to see the exact opposite of it. Liberals are against voter-ID for one simple reason - they want to fix elections. You said: "More recently, one of the dimmer lights in the Pennsylvania Republican Party — the majority leader of the state House of Representatives, in fact — boasted that the voter ID statute he had rammed through the legislature would 'allow Governor Romney to win the election" in November 2012.'" You know what that means? If voter-ID were in place hundreds of thousands of ILLEGAL ballots would not have been counted. There were precincts in Pennsylvania where 100% of the ballots were for Obama, and these were not sparsely populated areas. 100% Obama - yeah, right. If you're against voter-ID, you're against democracy.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      How does that even make sense?????

      If all people vote: we get the duly elected leaders of the majority.

      I want all people to vote, not just democrats....the other side seems to want to stop dems from voting...as the Pennsylvania dude said: The voter ID law was put in place to help Romney win.

      It didn't work, so they have to do more. More road blocks, more difficulties, more sabotage........to STOP people from voting!

      Can you not see how un-American this is?

      I mean....only like 36% vote anyway.......why make it worse???

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      He didn't say "it was put in place to help Romney win" - it means had it been in place Romney WOULD have won because thousands of illegal ballots would not have been counted. There is no way of knowing whether he was right or wrong. I can't say that Obama won the election illegally but there was evidence of massive voter fraud, mostly on the Demo side. In any case, can you say with a straight face that Romney would have not made a better president than the arrogant, narcissistic, grossly incompetent S.O.B. we have now???

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Romney is being sued for racketeering, and publicly said he would consult Netanyahu before making policy decisions.....excuse me?

      And, as always, we are on totally diffrent planets.

      That voter id law was put in place to prevent democrats from voting. And anyone who lives here, lives here!

      No such thing as illegal. Unless you mean stocking your money in Swiss banks, like RMoney?.....yeah, thats illegal!

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      lovemychris, apparently your ability to understand what a vote is and what the word franchise means in relation to it is obscured by an unswerving hate. Let it consume you, I will enjoy watching. It is not illegal to deposit your money in a foreign bank, you should become comfortable with being always angry and always wrong.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      retief2000 - she's something isn't she? She certainly is on a different planet! By the way, I would trade Obama for Netanyahu any day!

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      I would trade my old hound dog for Obama, he is house broken and therefore less likely to soil the Constitution. (That should stir the pudding)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Isnt that sweet, the demeaning and insults to the prez of USA.

      Such class. GOD, it makes me weep!

      And don't worry...if Tea Bags have their way, Bibi will be next prez we salute.

      I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Israel.

      USI USI USI

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      lovemychris as if exchanging Netanyahu for Obama would suddenly change America to Israel? You equate Obama with America? Netanyahu is a competent leader and a patriot, Obama is neither. If Netanyahu were a natural born American why couldn't he be President, is it because he is a Jew?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Oh please, America already is Israel.

      Netanyahu is a deranged criminal, and traitor to USA.

      His people killed 2 American students, point blank, and no one cared a whit.

      And, he is NOT American, so why people want him as prez???

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "America already is Israel."

      "Netanyahu is a . . . traitor to USA."

      " . . . he is NOT American . . ."

      Memo to "lovemychris" - you need help. Seriously.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "I would trade Obama for Netanyahu any day"

      errrrrr, you're the one who needs help.

      And our country does too--to break free from the grips of Bibi and the Bibi Twins (McCain, Graham)

      How dare they use my country for that slime-ball.

    • profile image

      retief2000 3 years ago

      I would trade Obama for Putin, for the same reasons as I would trade him for Netanyahu. Putin is a competent leader and a patriot, Obama is neither.

      I would trade the empty suit in the White House for Angela Merkel also, for the same reasons.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well, la dee da. Nice that you get to say things like that, without being called an America hater.

      I also like Putin, because he is pushing back on the neo-con Zionist Operation Gladio right wingers.

      But ole Bibi is one...and that makes him a danger to my country.

      Merkel--I don't think any way about her.

      But Putin and Bibi are like night and day. Zio vs Christian, if you wish.

      Personally--I don't like the stand Obama is taking right now, but you should. ALL we have heard for 13 years is bomb Iran, bomb Iran.....who wants that? Bibi, not Putin.

      So far, Obama has stood up to that fat bully Bibi....hope he continues. But it's hard when the whole of Congress is bought and sold by that rubber-necked baffoon.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Nobody wants to "bomb" Iran- we need to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. Netanyahu is trying to insure that Israel SURVIVES - they are surrounded by enemies who have a childish obsession with Israel. lovemychris, I strongly defend your right to state your opinions even though they make little or no sense. For everyone else: the point of this article is to point out the weakness of the current administration with respect to US foreign policy. From what I've seen since I published it, the situation is deteriorating as I write. Obama is a paper tiger and I hope and pray the GOP takes both houses of Congress in November so we can marginalize him.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      And I pray just the opposite. Israel does want to bomb Iran, Syria, Lebanon, anything in their way! The goal is Greater Israel. And They are the only one over there with a bomb.

      And I'm tired of helping them, with my country's money and blood.

      The situation will only get better when the neo-cons are stopped.

      You pray for their taking over. God help you.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      lovemychris: In the words of the late, great William F. Buckley, Jr.,

      "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Insult away....I believe it as truly as I'm sitting here.

      Been saying it since 9/11,2001.

      And taking a lot of grief from people who now deem themselves patriotic by calling our president a weak, feckless coward, who also happens to be a tyrant...and a gay coke-head married to a gay man, and has his gay lovers killed....(that one's a Bibi special;-)

      Honestly...you can't see anything wrong when our president get called a liar during his speech, but the PM of Israel gets 29 standing ovations.....well, you just don't see with the same eyes, that's all.

      I think you are blind, you think I have no intelligence....que sera sera.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0XocH8adWk

    Click to Rate This Article