Monday, May 11, 2009

WHAT IS OBAMA'S EXIT STRATEGY IN HIS WAR ON AMERICA?

Barak Obama has issued orders for so many spending increases, bank hand outs and tax increases it amounts to a war on American Democracy. He has marshaled his forces for a declared war and announced his intention to spend America out of Constitutional Law and into socialism.

During ‘s George W. Bush's administration fiberals demanded that he announce his exit strategy for the Iraq war. Well I want to know Obama’s exit strategy to his war on America. How is he going to get America back on a firm financial footing and out from under the mountain of debt he is creating...while our great great grandchildren will be living in servitude for their entire lives!

OBAMA I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT YOUR EXIT STRATEGY IS!!!

NG

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

As long as he keeps on track with his war on American and wins (they) will get what (they) set out to do.
Very scary NG I am especially scared for our kids. I don't want them to live in opression with never ending debt.At least they aren't indoctirnated.
tos

Anonymous said...

NG if you have 16 minutes watch this: Although I know you already know still innerving:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov


tos

TheLonelyArtistClub said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NewGnome said...

LAC,

Obviously I can’t response to the comments on the comment I didn’t see. I’ll do (2) Will be interested in your statement about Bush giving into terrorists...Obama is writing history on that one.

If you’re argument is the concept of presidential power, you must hate Obama. At no time in history with the exception of Lincoln, Wilson and FDR has a president usurped more power to the presidency than with Obama. And we’re not at war. I don’t want to get into the having to do a lot of referencing, but I hope you’ll assume that I I’ve don’t the research.

Yes, Bush took power particularly in the use of wiretapping. Didn’t bother me. Frankly it’s less than what Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did during their wars. Lincoln and Wilson essentially suspended habeas corpus. Wilson jailed people without trial and FDR put innocent people in containment camps. None of these actions verifiably saved lives. Bush’s actions verifiably saved lives.

Never, when America has been at war, has a president not taken whatever actions he felt necessary to preserve the nation. You call me a hypocrite but inappropriately compare the using of excessive executive power in different circumstances. Bush took power following the actual deaths of American on our own soil. Clinton failed in his responsibility.

Obama on the other hand does not have a war to excuse his usurpation of executive power. He is now to the point of dictating the executive compensation of private industry, even industries who have not received government TRAP funds or other bailout funds. No other president has ever ventured that far into socializing private industry.

Woodrow Wilson jailed people under the sedition act but you fail to include him in your argument. Yet that action was more extreme than Bush’s. You are suffering from a hatred of Bush that clouds your argument. Historically, during war presidents have take power then relinquished it.

I want an honest and direct answer from you on this one. If those terrorists who wanted to do a 9/11 in Los Angeles and the terrorists who wanted to fly planes from England and crash them into American east coast cities and 50,000 Americans had died as a result would you have criticized Bush for failing to do his job. The fact is that the power he took, stopped those attacks. If your family had been the victims of those attacks would you now be making the same argument? I doubt it.

Executive power has waxed and waned for various reasons. Your line of reasoning would have tied a president’s hands during times of war, whether or not you believe that the war on terror is a war. I doubt that we’ll agree on that one.

You may think I’m a hypocrite but I think you are refusing to take reality into account regarding the threat to America. The fact is a do not think my line of reasoning is a threat to democracy. I think your line of reasoning is a threat to democracy because you would force the defense of America to the interpretation of lawyers during war. That’s irresponsible. Your trying to equate real murderous war with peacetime. Can’t be done. War, as much as you may wish, is not consistent. Responses to it cannot be hampered by tying the hands of the president. He has a constitutional responsibility.

You say “Because if we constantly enlarge the executive's power when "we feel like it" then we stop being a democracy.” But that’s exactly what has been done long before Bush took power.

If you’re such a proponent of limiting presidential power why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops about what Obama is doing?

Items 3 and 4 are of much interest to me. No state is going to demand to leave the union. Its all pandering to political constituencies.

There is another point your are imputing to me that is not true. Bush did a good thing keeping terrorists out of America. At the same time, here is a list of things with which I disagree with him.

1. Rumsfeld’s insistence of forces was wrong. I subscribe to General Swartzkoff’s military theories. Overwhelming power and force. We didn’t do that in Iraq. It was a major mistake. (I did defend the President during the war for the most part. But I had a son in the theater and had to support him and let him know that he was doing the right thing.)
2. Totally disagree on Bush immigration policy.
3. He totally failed in the use of his veto power to stop earmarks even with Republicans. Who totally blew it by spending more.
4. Totally disagree with his excessive capitulation to Democrats. For all his butt kissing of Democrats, what did it get him but grief.