Obama in a NUTshell: Hope, Change and Security

I have been busy this month and not posted as often as I’d like. 

But, I just have to take a quick break to summarize who I believe really benefits from all this Hopey Dopey stuff Obama is dishin’ out.

The “Hope, Change, and Security” that Obama touts is not all that it seems.  I do believe that Obama could produce a whoppin’ dose of Hope, Change, and Security….but the Terrorists will be the ones holding out Hope, your country will Change so much you won’t recognize it, and Security may be administered something along the lines of the Gestapo……

I guess now I see why all of the leftists have found their Rock Star!   So, let me explain….

First there’s the Hope line – the terrorists will certainly be the beneficiaries here.   (And you thought he meant hope for you?)….Have you heard about Obama’s plan to move all troops out of Iraq in 16 months except for a few “residual forces”?  He’s been touting this plan for months…regardless of the facts on the ground and the status of victory. 

Well, who do you think will have the most “hope” once Obama’s plan is completed (God forbid)?   You guessed it….al Qaeda, Iranian militias, Sadr-followers, and more!   A withdrawal plan along those lines will certainly lead to these rabid groups seizing any control they can over Iraq……and setting the War On Terror back further than its been since 9/11.

As Rich Lowry writes, Obama is not reviewing any of the facts on the ground or even looking at Iraq from a victory standpoint….he (and the other dopey Democrats) wants out at all costs….and the costs will be high…..hope will run high for the terrorists who will inevitably overtake Iraq:

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he’s executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a “residual force” of American troops to take on “remnants of al-Qaida.” How can he be so sure there will only be “remnants”? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely al-Qaeda is to mount a comeback……

……The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama’s plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they’ve had in months. Obama’s withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis — progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq “responsibly.” There’s nothing responsible about his plan. According to U.S. commanders on the ground, it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he’s elected he’d give the military a new mission — to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations — either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he’s a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace.

On to that Change thing…..it is safe to say that “change” is about all we will have left in our pockets once Obama and his minions are through picking them…..

But, further, most Americans love their country.  Despite its flaws and cyclical problems, this is the best darn country in the world……That is not to say that we shouldn’t always strive for improving and correcting problems as they arise….but is a total change what we really want?

You should ask yourself the question that was asked over at Moonbattery.com.  But first Obama’s recent Messianic comment on the subject:

Loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.

Now the question:

Obama appears to be a blathering idiot, as unaware of the meaning of his words as a talking bird. But we still need to ask ourselves: Change it into what?

CHANGE IT INTO WHAT???? Did you hear read that?   I think that is a great question and I believe if Obama and his Democrat cohorts have their way, this is a sampling of the change we can expect:

• A government that controls your healthcare matters, not you or your doctor.
• Your country will be one where certain cars/trucks will be phased out, mass transit will be pushed upon the public, gas prices will be unaffordable for most, energy usage will be monitored, and all energy policy will be driven by “green” nuts and detoured by the nesting places of rare species of birds, turtles and frogs.
• Abortion will be a normal birth control process and the rare baby that lives through the abortion process will be snuffed out so as not to burden the mother or impose on her “rights”
• The military will be primarily a peace-keeping force with a fraction of the budget it held in the previous century.  Military equipment and weapons will be outdated and new weaponry and systems will be few and far between.  
• Talk Radio will be almost non-existent.   The “Fairness Doctrine” will be implemented so as to snuff out differing opinions than those of Obama and his liberal friends. 
• Speech against homosexuality and other perversions, illegals, blacks, Hispanics, and more will be a crime punishable by law.

I could go on and on but you get the idea……this is the change Obama can believe in…..but it shouldn’t be change the rest of us believe in!

The last area to review is Security…..you probably think US Military, intelligence forces, etc…..

Well Obama believes we need a “civilian national security force”!  He actually said that he believes we need a domestic force in this country that is as big as the US Military and as powerful.

Obama says:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

I, like others, automatically thought “What does that mean?”. 

To me, it sounds sinister and reminiscent of dictatorial establishments like the Gestapo and historical “youth” organizations. 

At best, Obama’s brain hasn’t caught up with his rhetoric and he has no idea what he is talking about.

WorldNetDaily noted:

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

Others commented:

The problem I, and many others, have with his comment is that it is not clear from context. To go from talking about service to the country and the world via Americorps and the Peace Corps and “renewing our diplomacy” to calling for a program (not several) which would have a budget that rivals the military’s and then wrapping it all up under the umbrella of a “civilian national security force” is, in no way, shape or form, clear!

How in the world can you ask me to believe that it is? If Obama is being misquoted and misunderstood, all he has to do is explain himself. That he hasn’t or won’t speaks volumes!

It certainly isn’t clear what Obama meant by a “civilian national security force” and Obama certainly doesn’t seem willing to clear it up.

The word that bothers me most in the phrase is “force”?!?!….and he brought this topic up in the midst of his speech about “forcing” Americans to serve.  The whole notion sounds kind of like some version of a lefty, feel-good, big government soup spiced with power, force, secrecy, and money.

Next time the Obamessiah preaches to you about hope, change and security….try to remember EXACTLY what he means!