The Domestic Enemy
from The Betrayal by Niayna

The Post & Email

ARE WE AT THE BRINK?
by Arnie Rosner

Admiral Michael Mullen became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2007, after serving as Chief of Naval Operations and Navy Commander in several areas of the worldJune 27, 2010

Dear Admiral Mullen:

Many of us share the concern about the position in which Mr. Obama has placed you. We recognize the tenuous and critically explosive nature of the processes in which you are engaged to determine a correct course of action. We recognize that a man of less honor and proven long-term duty to country would not be faced with such a heavy task.

At exactly what point is the precarious balance tipped, the point at which a dedicated, courageous, fiercely loyal, conscientious military leader, a distinguished leader with an insatiable love for this country, a respected leader with a highly-developed sense of loyalty, respect and appreciation for the balance required to maintain the equilibrium of justice and reason between the forces of good and evil, the forces of public and political opinion and the rights of freedom guaranteed by the founding documents by which previous generations of our military guardians have successfully guided our way for over 200 years?

We are speaking of not only a military leader but a leader of men and one who is also unique in the sense that you posses the unusual blend of executive and administrative expertise and experience rarely even understood by most people in our society, regardless of their political orientation.

But besides all of the technical reasons you bring to the table, Admiral, you also being your tempered judgment, one more quality which also qualifies your sense of balance to sort out the differences among the elements I have mentioned, with their biased orientation from the point of a concerned citizen, with your intimate perspective, a view only possible to attain from your vantage point within the government.

History has placed you in a position where you appear to be faced with assuming the role of a modern-day Samson. However, the decision you face is even more critical than can be resolved by suggesting the baby be cut in half. Only a skilled executive with years of administrative and military experience, together with the special qualities of balance, described above, can possibly make an accurate determination as to whether the current civil administrator with a questionable level of authority, an authority to which you report through the established chain of command, has exceeded the limits of appropriate legal, ethical and moral conduct by a government based on the Constitution as empowered by the people of the United States.

In my view, Admiral Mullen, the Obama regime and Congress have consistently rejected and ignored the will of the people on many occasions. I base this conclusion on the execution of a constant unrelenting stream of events, oppressive legislation and abusive executive orders, where the will of the people has been repeatedly expressed, in good faith, and flatly ignored by those who have seized power. Many of the disenfranchised people of this country, me included, have classified the current administration and the Congress as our “domestic enemy, a term in the Constitution of the United States which describes this specific state of affairs.

Certainly many factors must be taken into consideration when weighing the gravity of this situation which has been developing over the last 18 months, a situation which has exhibited a pattern of repeated administrative abuse headed in a direction where even you must have some questions and concerns about the legitimacy of those in charge.

Stepping back for a moment, let’s examine just a few of the issues in question. For starters, there is the issue of the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Does it make sense that a man who promised the people of the United States the most transparent and open government ever then refuses to produce a simple document such as his birth certificate? Further, does it seem logical that Mr. Obama would spend over $1.2 million to ensure the people to whom he made this promise of transparency would be denied all access to his basic information?

Many concessions can be made to excuse the behavior of a person who, like Mr. Obama, was placed in a position of trust, if indeed the actions of this person would seem to be consistent with acting in the best interest of those who elected him. However, upon closer examination, is taking over several segments of the private sector in the best interest of the American Republic?

For more proof of his intent, just look at the extent of the conspiracy which planned and executed the deception surrounding his attempt to legitimize his fraudulent birth certificate:

Further examination must be given to the manner in which health care was dealt by Mr. Obama’s administration. Putting aside the political portion of the argument, again, is the manner in which this legislation illegally bypassed the normal legislative process consistent with the will of the American people?

There are many other issues in which the Obama administration seems to be questionably involved, too many for my taste. However, this may simply be reflected by my attitude. I am confident that you also must share some concern about the way our missile program has been compromised, how our allies have been alienated and our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has been marginalized.

Of course, the fact that Mr. Obama now openly embraces what appears to be the Islamization of our nation, when before the election he presented himself as a Christian, should begin to wave a caution flag.

But even more importantly, I would think the lack of his commitment to win the war in Afghanistan would weigh the heaviest on your mind. Admiral, I am not a military expert, and what I am about to say would most probably be considered politically incorrect.

The way Mr. Obama has handled decisions regarding the war effort has left me with the distinct impression that he is attempting to carefully orchestrate a balancing act designed to cover his real position. In some cases he acts to demonstrate to many Americans his leadership abilities to direct the war and at the same time do as little as possible to risk offending his friends, our enemies, in the Middle East.

On the one hand, he dare not leave the impression that he is against the war, although clearly I expect this is his true position. On the other hand, he must leave an impression that as purported commander-in-chief, he is indeed in charge and competent to make such leadership decisions.

However, I must question the intent of a commander-in-chief who asks of his field commanders, whom he himself had appointed, what is needed to win the war, and then proceeds to delay making a basic decision on this information for months, thereby providing our enemies with valuable time to rebuild defenses. What was even more telling, in my opinion, was when Obama was apprised of the likelihood of only partial success if fewer than the requested number of troops were provided, he authorized only a portion of the total number of troops requested. I am not sure of your take on this, Admiral, but to me this was a clear sign he did not intend to win this war.

In my view, Admiral, it was a sure-fire way to insure defeat, a decision that was definitely biased in favor of our enemy. As I see it, Admiral, this act of treason was as deliberate as was possible for someone acting as our domestic enemy. Could it be any more clear?

This lack of commitment indicates to me that Mr. Obama is not genuinely committed to winning the war in Afghanistan. In my view, Mr. Obama is not genuinely committed to those in the Armed Forces who are risking their lives, to the military leadership, or to the people of the United States.

Obama is treating Afghanistan in the same manner as the Gulf oil spill. In this crisis he appears to be attempting to manipulate the outcome for his own political maneuvering.

I see his reluctance to totally identify himself as committed to a plan of action to assure complete victory in Afghanistan as a preliminary plan for defeat. When the war effort is lost, as is his typical modus operandi, he will blame the failure on you and the rest of the military and throw the entire military leadership and our courageous men and women in uniform under the bus as a political expediency. He will do this when he believes it will be convenient to assure his reelection in 2012. At that time I predict he will represent himself as having been against the war from the beginning. He will attempt to present himself as the emerging hero of the republic.

This dangerous and treasonous set of circumstances demonstrates the very reason the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military must be a natural born Citizen, a special kind of citizen who cannot be placed in a position of divided loyalties such as in the case of Mr. Obama, who had a foreign parent and might even be foreign-born himself.

I am not sure if it occurred to you, but it did to me: when Obama is in a position to determine military options, is he thinking of the American people or his benefactors in the Middle East?

Admiral Mullen, will you honor your oath and, along with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, take the necessary steps to insure that any and all orders from your “Commander-in-Chief” are, in fact, lawful orders from a Constitutionally-qualified and eligible person for that position, and, if not, also take the necessary steps to remove him from the chain of command? I and a desperately-awaiting nation are awaiting your response to this burning question: Can any orders, Executive or Commands, from an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief, be considered “Lawful Orders”?

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.