John W. Lillpop
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama made it
perfectly clear that the use of disproportionate force was sometimes
necessary to defend one’s self.
Of course, he was referring to
Republicans challenging his presidential aspirations and other delusions
As reported in the June 18, 2008 Wall Street
Journal, in part (1):
“Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring
a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say
about bringing a gun to a knife fight?
“That’s exactly what
Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they
bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a
Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.”
That tough talk is in marked
contrast to Obama’s wuss comments about taking the nuclear option off the
table in order to defend America.
As reported, in part, at the
New York Times (2):
“WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday
that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the
conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his
new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort
to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create
incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an
example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear
weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and
seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and
terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like
Russia and China.”
moon bats on the left, Obama’s arguments make perfect sense: After all,
fighting patriotic Republicans is far more vital than defending America
against foreign evil-doers.
Once again, Barack Obama
proves conclusively that, regardless of where he was born, he is not an