Monthly Archives: April 2010





It was ominous enough that Obama recklessly and irresponsibly scrapped the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe to kiss Vladmir Putin's butt on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Now our Disaster-in-Chief suddenly announces (see) a senseless change in America's nuclear strategic policy of containment and deterrence (including an end to the development of nuclear weapons) on the 59th anniversary of Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sentencing to death for nuclear espionage.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg after being sentenced to death on April 5, 1951
The Rosenbergs are symbolic of a national security disaster of the worst and highest magnitude; they recklessly betrayed America by sharing nuclear secrets with our evil Soviet enemies thus making the world a more deadly and dangerous place-with nuclear Armageddon nearly occurring over the Cuban Missile Crisis eleven years later. Barack Obama's betrayal of our strategic security and national defense is not on the level of the Rosenbergs' crime but it's a betrayal of American power, prestige and credibility nonetheless as it emboldens our enemies and weakens our ability to deter their attacks. It is the betrayal of 50 years of sound and sober nuclear policy for the defense of the homeland and that of our allies as this incomprehensible change (called insane or ridiculous by Krauthammer) removes our nuclear umbrella from them.
 Was this Obama's way of apologizing to Japan for Hiroshima? Any rational US President would have nuked Japan to end WWII. But not Barack  (ban the bomb) Obama.
As Obama's policy forgoes a nuclear retaliatory strike against non-nuclear states that attack us conventionally or with biological and chemical weapons this move is Obama's way of saying that the nuclear bombing of non-nuclear Japan to end WWII was wrong, immoral and criminal-though it saved up to one million lives. Though Obama never formally apologized to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki his bowing to the Japanese Emperor last November tacitly said as much-as does his latest senseless, ill considered change in nuclear defense policy.
Be that as it may, it seems that our clueless, incompetent, amateur President has a gift for picking the most portentous days for making announcements about perilous changes to our nation's strategic security which he is weakening and deconstructing.
David Horowitz writes that the nuclear freeze crowd from the Reagan Era must be dancing in the streets now that we've dropped out of the nuclear arms race while others race ahead. And Rush opines that this event is evidence of Obama intentionally rolling back the Reagan Revolution and regressing us militarily to the Cold War era before our victory over the Soviets. Is Rush right? Is Obama consciously attempting to dismantle the Reagan Revolution which defeated the Soviets and turned America into the world's only superpower? In other words, does Obama believe that Reagan's policy of "Peace Through Strength" was dangerous and needs to be replaced with soft power, diplomacy and strategic retreat to improve America's world image and make us appear less threatening to others? Let's put Obama to the test and see. Exactly 200 days separate these two events, hence:
September 17, 2009 (scrapping the missile system) to April 5, 2010 (Obama announces revamping of nuclear policy)=200 days.
Now last February 6th was the 99th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth (b.1911). Now if we multiply 200 by 99 we get the five digit number 19800 indicating the historic year 1980  when Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter for the presidency and the Reagan Revolution began.
Moreover, and just as fascinating, meaningful and ominous, April 5th was day 440 of the Obama presidency. 440 is both a multiple of 44, Obama's presidency number, and a factor like 200 of the number 19800 45x.
As Barack-government-is-the-answer-peace-through-appeasement-Obama is the anti-Reagan*, Reagan's polar opposite in practically everything from economics to security, defense and nuclear strategy, his failure as commander in chief in keeping our nation strong, safe and at peace will be as destructively great as Reagan's success was astoundingly  transformative. 

* Obama was the last president after Reagan to be elected on a November 4th election date.

Postscript: Barack Obama: Enemy-In-Chief

I've received several nasty emails from angry lefties fuming over my calling Obama "the Enemy-in-Chief." Two of them accused me of anti-black racism and one compared me to Timothy McVeigh an anti-government murderer and terrorist. Apart from Obama's obvious ideological war, shared by these lefties, on capitalism, the Constitution, our founding principles and national security the date of his birth and the day of his election are numeric signs warning of his war against our country down to its foundations. Consider this:

When we take Obama's date of birth, 8-4-1961, and count up its numbers as single digits we get a total of 29* the exact number of years to the day separating Obama's historic victory over patriot John McCain and the start of the Iran Hostage Crisis-the first attack by American hating Islamic militants on our nation, hence:

November 4, 1979 (start of the hostage crisis) to November 4, 2008 (Obama's election)=29 years.

*Obama's wife's date of birth, 1-17-1964, also has a total value of 29. Keep in mind that Obama was sworn in as president in 2009 the number 29 separated by two zeros. On this day he botched his oath of office just as he's botching his duty to the security, safety and prosperity of this country.

Now as Obama's opposition to the justified and necessary Iraq War is what brought him to political prominence and was a key factor in making him president it so happens that the number 29 when multiplied by 11 and 691 gives us the complete date 3-19-2003, the start of the Iraq War, hence:

29x11=319 or the date 3-19.

29x691=20039 encoded with the year 2003 when the Iraq War began.

Now as Obama with his radical domestic agenda is deceptively and treacherously attempting to replace the American Revolution with the French Revolution (government perfecting society) the multiplying of 29 by 617 gives us the year that disastrous revolution began, hence:


As Obama is perhaps the most divisive and polarizing president since the Civil War multiplying 29 by 642 gives us the year the Civil War began, hence:

29x642=18618 (indicating division and great national strife).

And as Obama is attempting to dismantle the Reagan Revolution the multiplying of 29 by the numbers 659 and 683 give us the year of Reagan's birth and his election to the presidency-the start of the Reagan Revolution, hence:

29x659=19111, Reagan was born in 1911

29x683=19807, Reagan was elected President in 1980

Two other disturbing dates that evolve from Obama's birth number 29 are 1914, the start of World War I, and 2001, the year of the 9/11 attack, hence


And lastly, as 59 years separate Obama's announcement on April 5 from the sentencing to death of the Rosenbergs this number is a factor of the numbers 19175, giving us the year of the Russian Revolutiuon, and 19411, giving us the year of Pearl Harbor and America entering World War II, hence: 


Practically every new decision Obama makes on security, defense and foreign policy issues reinforce his image as a weak gutless confused leader on the world stage; a Neville Chamberlain on steroids who loves signed treaties and trusts without verification; who sets moral examples for our adversaries that they laugh at and scorn; who is acting out a fantasy of being a great world historical figure and peacemaker when in truth he's an ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic fool. In the real, predatory world of power politics this naive and senseless president is drawing us closer to conflict and war.