Just How Dangerous is Obama?

My belief about government in this country is slowly (maybe rapidly) coming out in this blog.  To sum up, I believe government should only be responsible for the things we cannot rightly do for ourselves, like provide for our freedom and secure our borders, language and culture (thanks Mike Savage, you said it so well).  The lynch pin of this minimalist philosophy rests on national defense.  That is why I am so worried about this president and his weakness.  It is down right dangerous.

Today we hear that Obama is in a tiff with his hand picked general Stanley McChrystal over comments McChrystal made in interviews with 60 minutes and overseas.  Of course this comes not from our mainstream media, but from  the Telegraph in the U.K.  In essence (term used to avoid the deplorable use of "basically"), McChrystal slammed Joe Biden's assertion that the Afghan conflict could be run like a video game with remote drones and such.  McChrystal also took a back handed slap at the speed, or lack thereof, at which the administration was moving in deciding whether to place an additonal 40,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Now lets review a thing or two for the record.  Obama hand-picked McChrystal to run the Afghan war, so you would think he would be supportive of his general, who by the way is highly regarded in most quarters.  Obama used the Afghan conflict in the election by coming out in support for it so he could gain the votes of independents.  Obama and the Democrats long criticized George W. Bush for taking his eye off the conflict.  His Highness once blustered how he would even invade Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence about high value targets.  But is all this ringing a little hollow?

Word is out that Obama has spent less than an hour talking with McChrystal in only two meetings since he became president.  One of those times was a suspected reading of the "riot act" for coming out publicly against the administation.  Next comes the waffling on the troop request from his chosen general.  Is Obama actually thinking of withdrawing from Afghanistan to let it become "Chaosistan" according to McChrystal?  Has Obama already forgotten the Twin Tower disaster was planned by Osama bin Laden from his Afghan hideaway?  Does he covet the war money for his precious social agenda?  But these are simply rhetorical questions put to a man, Obama, who confesses to be uncomfortable with the concept of victory. 

All this spells trouble for a country that needs to be on guard.  One could easily believe that Obama is genuinely uncomfortable with the military, from his wavering commitment to the mission and failure to meet regularly with his general.  This is a man whose best friends revile the armed forces and he is supposed to be commander in chief.  The message is going to trickle down to the troops that the president doesn't support the ongoing sacrifice to keep all of us free.  It also didn't take long for the liberal jackals in Congress to draft a resolution to block any move to increase the troop count in Afghanistan.

Are you scared yet?  No?  Then let's pile on.  Remember Guantanamo, the one time military base turned sensitivity trained prison; the one whose alumni, those that have been released, have gone on to new and more noble aspirations, like killing more American troops, civilians and innocents (No joke, do a Google search for Club Gitmo alumni who are now wrecking havoc across the globe once more)?.  Well Obama is actually trying to close it, but is having a little trouble placing the inmates.  It seems that a lot of nations are unwilling to embrace their return.  Go figure?  After a lot of arm twisting, Club Gitmo is emptying out, but not in the alloted time.  That has prompted talk about bringing the remaining prisoners here.  Yes, you heard it.  To the United States.  Even Diane Feinstein was caught in an interview saying she would support the movement of Gitmo prisoners to California maximum security facilities.  I suppose this is so the can be rehabilitated, not just so they can radicalize convicts and build a dangerous infrastructure in this country, but that would be stupid and seditious coming from a Senator wouldn't it?  Better rise up California.  Oh yeah, then there's that little policy about having openly gay persons in the military.  That's going to be good too.

All this spells trouble for our safety in the U.S, the primary reason for our government to exist.  While the liberals may cheer that all the conciliation, negotiation and military stand downs are good for our image, there are others out there that are also cheering for the wrong reasons.  They see America as the toothless tiger, just like Obama (I'm sorry Osama bin Laden; I get mixed up) called it.  If you want to read a facinating article, go to the American Thinker site and read the article by Greg Lewis about Obama the Beta Male.  This hits it dead on.  Lewis contends that Obama displays all the classic canine signs of submissiveness in his relations with the military and other world leaders.  Although some will cheer him on, they will privately weep that the one nation that could always be counted on as a beacon of freedom and to step in when no other nation could has silently crept, wimpering and trembling, into the shadows.  Given this transition to a Beta country under Obama's stewardship, what do you think will happen when we are attacked?  I don't think this president and Democratic congress has the spine to retaliate.  By the time this happens (God forbid) we may have been gutted as a military power.  This "man" we elected is truly dangerous.  If our government can not be relied on to protect us, what's the use?  Throw the Beta dogs out.