Obama's National Security, which nation?

I am befuddled. I am positively at a loss.
A US President spoke before the UN on 1 October pledging support to enemies of the US and damning US allies. President Obama legitimizing fringe lunatic outspoken enemies of the US is bad enough; did he really see a need to side with them against US allies?
Evidently the answer from President Obama is ‘yes’ because that is precisely what he did.
President Obama seemed to blame Israel for the 1967 war and fell just short of calling the Jewish settlements an occupation. He called them illegal.
He failed to mention that it was Egyptian troops closing the Israeli port of Eilat which started the 1967 war. He failed to mention that sociopaths like Ahmadinejad have publicly and repeatedly claimed a desire to, and are creating plans to, wipe Israel off of the map. He failed to mention Israelis like Netanyahu have publicly and repeatedly claimed they seek only to exist peacefully. He also failed to mention that he is covering things up for Iran.
Yes. It is my contention that President Obama was aware of, and helped conceal, the existence of the Iranian nuclear facility that was announced shortly after the UN and G20 meetings prior to speaking at those occasions. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he planned the concealment to begin with. What I believe were his motives for keeping that secret are far more disturbing. I think he kept a lid on it for two reasons.

1. And most important to Barrack Obama: He wanted the headlines to read “Obama speaks at UN/G20”, not “secret Iranian nuclear facility uncovered”. He didn’t want to be upstaged. His narcissism knows no bounds. He puts his own vanity above the safety and security of Our Nation. I think he was told of its discovery weeks ago via National Security briefing (Protocol requires one every morning) and decided it was best not to act upon that knowledge until after those speeches. After all, someone had written those speeches for him already, it would be a waste of tax dollars to pay them to do it again.
2. He didn’t want to be forced to scold Ahmadinejad at the UN. Probably because he is afraid. But more so because … well, see #1. President Obama doesn’t seem willing to talk tough unless it is a press conference with many miles between himself and his adversary. What is it we call them? Telephone tough guys?


For anyone to think I believe he was not aware is a direct insult to my intelligence. If anyone truly believes he was not aware, I would like to directly insult your intelligence. You’re an idiot. Worse yet, you are a dangerous idiot who likely voted for this dangerous communo-fascist to begin with. If you voted for Barrack Obama and are not now in the midst of violent regret, please do not ever attempt to vote again. Because that would mean that you are a frighteningly stupid person who likely has trouble remembering how to get home everyday. But, I digress.
I am here to discuss a US President’s frightening foreign policy, not the frighteningly stupid that elected him. The scrapping of the BMD in Europe is the most frightening of all. President Obama has not only made us less safe. That is, more likely to be vaporized by a known and treacherous enemy. But, he did so under the pretense that it would be cheaper! And moreover, that pretense was absolutely false! And he knew it was false to begin with!
The Ballistic Missile Defense strategy under Dubya was sound. Obviously Dubya himself wasn’t allowed any part in creating the plan or it would have involved squeaky toys and Beggin’ Strips ™ © but the plan itself was sound. It had provision for adequate protection against ballistic missiles from the Middle East and other parts of Russia … I mean … other areas in Europe and Asia which may serve as a source of aggression. It was also deemed to be the most cost effective according to a report given by an independent council. The very same council that now says President Obama’s plan to use Aegis ships and other mobile measures is cost effective. However, I submit the following for your consideration:

1. A ballistic missile has three distinct stages at which it can be destroyed before striking its target. Those stages are:
. At ground level or as it begins ascent. It is this stage in which any defensive measure has it’s highest probability of success
. At the top of its ascent, or traveling between its points of highest ascent and beginning descent. At this stage the probability of successful defense methods have diminished by more than half, nearly three quarters.
. During last stages of descent but prior to strike. At this stage the probability of successful defense is slim and there is likely insufficient time for another attempt.

2. Obama’s plan depends upon measures that have no capability to defend at stage A., nearly no capability for defense at stage B., and are only moderately successful in testing for stage C. These measures were not designed to defend against long range ballistic missiles. They are not in position where they can be fully utilized against short or mid range missiles.
3. In order for the Aegis Defense System to have ANY chance of performing in these circumstances, at the very least 9 more ships will need to be procured, or 9 ships modified with the systems. If new ships are ordered the cost will be approximately $30B. If ships are modified, the cost is approximately $9B.
Significantly higher cost for significantly less protection. I ask you, exactly which nation's security is Obama concerned with? Because evidently, it isn't America's security being served here.
Today Obama announced that some level of Taliban participation in the government of Afghanistan would be acceptable. Yes, that Taliban. The Taliban that works very closely with, and in some regions is synonymous witth, al Qeida. The Taliban that helped to train some of the terrorists on those planes on 9/11. The Taliban that calls for all non-Muslims to submit to Sharia rule or die. That is acceptable to Obama. Well, if that is accepable to Obama, then Obama shouldn't be acceptable to any American.

All of this evidence I point to when formally requesting that any US Representative who may be willing, please introduce Articles of Impeachment for President Barrack Hussein Obama under the charge of High Crimes in the form giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime with the recommendation that, should those Articles pass the House, an immediate Senate trial be convened for the purpose of removing said President from office and that any and all acts approved during his time in said office be repealed or expunged and that he be immediately detained and remanded for full Congressional trial for Treason.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the matter.

Remember my rule of thumb, what would Thomas Jefferson think.

Thank you all for reading. I will attempt to complete more writings more often. Please check back frequently. And, always keep digging. The truth is out there. It just doesn't exist in one place.

Alex Lonchiadis