GULF VICTORY "MADE IN THE USA" [contrasting Patriot Missile Quayle with Slash Missile Defense Obama]

The early days of the air war, Americans rejoiced at film footage of Patriot missiles knocking Iraqi Scud missiles out of the sky. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney commented, "A decade of gloom-and-gloom reporting made a lot of people forget that we do, in fact, lead the world in advanced technology." The Patriots, made by Raytheon, hit 45 of the 47 Scuds launched by Iraq. It is a complex weapon utilizing sophisticated radar and electronics and requiring quick thinking by soldiers who operate it.

While our media couldn't ignore the Patriot's success, the Gannett news service was one of the few news organizations to detail how Vice President Dan Quayle, as Senator from Indiana, "deserves a lot of the credit for the improved version" of the weapon that worked so well in the Gulf. Gannett wrote that Quayle and aides "spent years fighting an obscure battle to fund what is known as ATBM -- anti-tactical ballistic missile defense. In short, that means building weapons to knock down the short-range missiles in the arsenals of the Third World armies."

A Heritage Foundation report ignored by the major media cited the "strong opposition" in the 1980s to Quayle's drive, with the support of the Reagan Administration, to transform the Patriot into a weapon capable of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. (The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down warplanes.) The House Armed Services Committee voted against the modification in 1984. But the Senate approved funding for the program. Without the Patriot, Israel would surely have entered the war, breaking up the anti-Iraqi coalition and making Gun. Schwarzkopf's task more difficult.

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."

_____________________________________________________________

Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces
by Robert Maginnis
Posted 04/10/2008 ET

(Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army)

YouTube has an undated 52-second clip of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left.
[Maginnis does an excellent must-read analysis of Obama's suicidal defense proposals-ETL]
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25942

Note: Here is the *original* youtube video from the Obama camp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

Human Events refers to this poor quality copy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

__________________________________________________________________________

From "45 Communist Goals":
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

'Goals' 4-45 can be found here or at many other sites through a web search for "45 goals":
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

__________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama, July 30, 2008, Washington Post:

"This is the moment that the world is waiting for,"... "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=hcmodule

You omitted the fact that Obama will create his own military organization, comparably equipped to federal forces.

In otherwords, a civic SS organization, just like germany had to convert the German military to fascism.

You know, people are so slow to understand Obama.

Johnah Goldberg in his new book:

"Liberal Fascism: From Musollini to the Politics of Meaning"

Has described and forecast Obama.

Obama is an ideological product of Bill Ayers , Alinsky and Wright. He is not a revolutionary ( nothing new), or a marxist ( no ties with the American prolitariat, he's an aristocrat). He is a fascist.

His campaign is fascist.

It is why Hillery lost her fight in the primaries to a political upstart.

Now Obama wants to do the same to all of America, defeat the American dream utterly.

McCain will stop him.

And Obamas supporters will turn to violence.

No joke:

http://www.theobamafile.com

"Obama is an ideological product of Bill Ayers , Alinsky and Wright. He is not a revolutionary (nothing new), or a marxist (no ties with the American proletariat, he's an aristocrat). He is a fascist."

Are you claiming Ayers' and Wright's ideology isn't revolutionary communist? However, there is often a fine line between fascism and communism. Both are brutal, oppressive, totalitarian systems of government.

Bill Ayers TODAY (April 6, 2008), from his own red communist star-headed website, begging to debate communism vs capitalism with Sean Hannity and STILL calling for revolution!

"Imperialism. I’m against it, and if Sean Hannity and others were honest, this is the ground they would fight me on. Capitalism played its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution—a revolution against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good —must win.

We begin by releasing our most hopeful dreams and our most radical imaginations: a better world is both possible and necessary.

Source: Bill Ayers' own website:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/page/2/

Obama's Church: Gospel of Hate
Kathy Shaidle, FrontPageMag.com
Monday, April 07, 2008

In March of 2007, FOX News host Sean Hannity had engaged Obama’s pastor in a heated interview about his Church’s teachings. For many viewers, the ensuing shouting match was their first exposure to "Black Liberation Theology"...

Like the pro-communist Liberation Theology that swept Central America in the 1980s and was repeatedly condemned by Pope John Paul II, Black Liberation Theology combines warmed-over 1960s vintage Marxism with carefully distorted biblical passages. However, in contrast to traditional Marxism, it emphasizes race rather than class. The Christian notion of "salvation" in the afterlife is superseded by "liberation" on earth, courtesy of the establishment of a socialist utopia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CD9E14-B0C9-4F8C-A0A6-A896F0F44F02

From "45 Communist Goals":
#27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Catholics for Marx
By Fr. Robert Sirico
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 03, 2004

In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.

The Gospels were re-rendered not as doctrine impacting on the human soul but rather as windows into the historical dialectic of class struggle. These "liberation theologians" saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to expropriate the expropriating owners of capital, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by the proletarian class of peasants and workers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=460782B7-35CC-4C9E-A2C5-93832067C7CD

From the New York Times, April 28, 2008
Reverend Wright at the National Press Club
"In the late 1960s, when Dr. James Cone's powerful books burst onto the scene, the term 'black liberation theology' began to be used. I do not in any way disagree with Dr. Cone, nor do I in any way diminish the inimitable and incomparable contributions that he has made and that he continues to make to the field of theology. Jim, incidentally, is a personal friend of mine."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/us/politics/28text-wright.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=sloginL

From Jeff Head's website...
One notable quote from [James] Cone describing his Black Liberation Theology is as follows:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." - "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
http://www.jeffhead.com/blacklibtheology.htm

"Their founding document [the Weather Underground's] called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements [1] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."..." -Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity. AK Press, pg 95.

For much more on the ObamaRat-Commie connections, please see my FR Profile/Home page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl

Yes I am claiming that they all are fascists. And not without reason. All of them legitimize their violence through ideology, but when you analyze their conduct they are not revolutionary,marxist, anarchists, or even felangists. They are Utopian liberal fascists with a nationalist, narcistic bent on reducing individual freedom. And their foundation is a kind or aristocratic idealism that is so right, so true, that violence seems legitimate to them as desperation for power mounts. Everyone else is just ignorant. The mark of true fascists.

Jonah Goldberg puts things into a clear perspective:

"Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

A Review:

For those willing to give Goldberg the chance, he offers the following thesis: that the label fascist has its roots in the governing philosophies of Italy's National Fascist Party and Germany's National Socialist (Nazi) Party. He argues that there has been a false duality created between the Soviet Socialists of the USSR and the socialists united under the fascists in Italy and Germany. He argues that the totalitarian impulse, the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms, is the core uniting principle behind these movements, and he argues that the ongoing home of such statism is in what has come to be known as the "liberal" politics of the modern progressive movement. As you can imagine, that doesn't sit very well with the targets of his argument (hence the rain of 1-star reviews).

I'd encourage open minded readers of all backgrounds to read Goldberg's book and address his arguments. I find his conversational and somewhat informal style to be witty and readable. That said, longtime Goldberg fans should know that this is not a book-length "G-File" (the hip and irreverent column he wrote for National Review Online). This is a serious scholarly work, and it deserves to be read and judged as such. Goldberg is attempting to right a historical injustice. This book is not attempting, as many seem to think, to say that all liberals are closet Nazis, but rather that, contrary to popular misconception, it is not conservatism, but liberalism, that traces its roots to the fascists. In some ways it is a book-length extension of the question conservatives sometimes pose to liberals: "If you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?" (That platform is handily provided in the appendix.) After Goldberg's book, this question is much harder to simply shrug off.

Still, one doesn't need nearly 600 citations just to allow conservatives to say "I'm rubber, you're glue" the next time they are called a fascist. Goldberg argues that our focus on the atrocities committed by fascists in Germany obscures the fact that the fascist drive is, to a degree, universal in modern politics. The heritage and institutions of America lead it to manifest itself in a different form here. Whether it is the smothering embrace of the "It Takes a Village" mommy state or, to a lesser degree, the big-government, "compassionate conservatism" of Bush, fascism in the U.S. is well-intention, "smiley face" fascism, but it still looks first to the state, last to the individual.

In the end, that's what I liked best about this book. Yes, it's great to have a 5-pound rebuttal to the next person who tries to use "fascist" as an epithet to end criticism of a liberal program. However, what comes through in the end is not so much Goldberg's hatred of fascism, but his love of liberty. Fascism in all its forms is the enemy of liberty, and recognizing it for what it is will always be a prerequisite for stopping it. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" clears away decades of obfuscation to allow that recognition in both the past and present day politics. Those who continue to fight for individual freedom will enjoy and appreciate this book.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R28WDIPH07AP8P/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R28WDIPH07AP8P

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.