The Subversive President


It is not hyperbole to make note that literally every foreign relations policy or presidential inaction of the Obama administration has had detrimental consequences to the United States. The list of policy omissions and policy failures is monumentally lengthy - unprecedented, actually.

I have been willing to chalk up Obama’s tragic performance to his radical Left ideology. His emersion in the “blame America” educational culture of which he is clearly a product.

However, there are at least two actions/inactions on the part of this president that could lead a reasonable individual to conclude a much darker purpose; perhaps an overtly subversive purpose.

The first of these two actions centers around the Iran nuclear deal - a deal that guarantees Iran will go nuclear while we simply observe them doing so and as we listen to Iran’s leaders continue to threaten “death to America”. And we are going to free up over $100 billion to support Iran’s anti-American, terrorist sponsoring regime. Obama is not clinically insane. So, why the hell would he push for such a deal?

The second instance involves our inaction. Earlier this week information in the form of a video was made public showing an “ISIS bomb making university”. ISIS actually has a teaching facility in the ME doing research in weapons/missile development and training. It has been widely reported that the location of this facility is known. I think it reasonable to ask, why the hell haven’t we bombed the sh*t out of this facility - blown it into oblivion?

Whether born of willful ignorance or of calculated design, how can this administration’s actions be viewed as anything but subversive to the best interests of America and her allies?


Nobody disagrees that Obama is acting against the United States, the problem is that the GOP refuses to use their Constitutional authority to check these obviously subversive actions.

Obama would be a neutered lame duck if the GOP did not have his back.


Iran always seems to be just on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, but they never can quite pull it off.

"1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

On the other hand, the last time a country DID go nuclear, a Republican was in charge (North Korea, during Bush years).


You referring to the Clinton/Carter nuke deal with North Korea? I don’t recall a Repub POTUS cutting a nuke deal and providing the country with a $100 billion of support like Obama has done. Peddle the BS to someone else.


It is easy to see who is reading democratunderground and similar sites. Rumsfeld was an nonexecutive board director which means he had no power to effect anything. Nor is there any proof he had an hand in the decision to sell nuclear reactors. This is just another attempt to smear a republican.

Have you ever noticed how Cheney was smeared for Halliburton? When obama used the same company the democrats were silent about it.

Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea - SWI

Michelle Malkin | - Obama administration approves No-Bid Halliburton Contract…


No, I’m referring to the post axis-of-evil era and, specifically, 2006, when N. Korea tested it’s first nuke. To blame Clinton and Carter for something that happened six years into the Bush presidency is beyond partisan; it’s stupid.

When you read Chicken Little, you may not have grasped the moral, but I did. People have been saying Iran is close to getting a nuke for 20 years and it keeps not happening. Eventually, you stop drinking the kool-aid.


What you “grasped” was propaganda, for most of those “20 years” we acted upon the threat of nations like Iran getting a “Nuke”; that is why they did not “get a Nuke” until we changed policy and gave them permission and the money to “get a Nuke”.

Liberalism only makes sense when history revision is employed.

And it was Clinton who allowed the yellow cake to get to North Korea, that left Bush 43 no options except to try and thwart the intelligence they were importing to learn how to utilize it or invade to try and confiscate the material; 9/11 caused a profound shift in our priorities so North Korea finally succeeded.

6 years of frustrating their efforts is not bad considering they had all the materials to build a bomb the day Bush took office and Bush had a massive war to fight with threats who had left 3000 Americans dead in the streets of Manhattan.

But you go right ahead and give a Clinton a pass for all that, after all he did have all those problems figuring out where to store his cigars.


Talk about a humidor:rolleyes:


Uh huh. Blame Clinton (and Carter???) 6 years after the fact (in Carter’s case, decades). Makes sense.

What do you want to bet Iran doesn’t develop a nuke during Obama’s presidency? Less than a year’s left. Clock’s ticking…

But yeah, “subversive” Obama and all that. Meanwhile, 7 years in office and no new members to the nuclear family. Must be Bush’s doing…


Please explain your reason for believing that Clinton was not responsible for North Korea obtaining the materials for a Nuke.

They now have free reign to develop nuclear technology and the money to do it, no need for sneaking around anymore; please explain how it matters if they get a weapon together by next year or not.

Are you just setting up a scenario to say 6 years from now "It’s not Obama’s fault! Obama has been gone for 5 years!"

You may think viewing foreign policy in terms of how long it takes you to get your order at the drive through is a compelling argument but this forum has mostly adults who know that bad decisions by politicians often reap negative consequences years or even decades later.

Reagan’s Amnesty
Nixon’s EPA
Bush 43’s Medicare expansion (would be the largest screw up in U.S. health care history if Obamacare had not come along)
Eisenhower’s Federal Highway System (seemed pretty good until it became nothing but a channel to funnel “reward” tax dollars to Unions)

Since you see everything through only a Partisan filter I chose three GOP Presidents that were responsible for great catastrophes that did not rear their heads anytime even close their respective Administrations.

But I am sure your vast knowledge gleaned from democrat underground is far more reliable.

What a convincing argument! You certainly don’t need any facts when you have a great argument like that!

Let me guess, that argument draws exuberant applause on college campuses for it’s airtight reasoning and logical acumen?


In light of the potential existential threat to the United States and her allies presented by their long term, self-identified/declared enemies, history over the past 4 decades has clearly demonstrated that while Republican leaders have sometimes been feckless, Democrat leaders have nearly always been dangerous as a result of their delusion-driven actions and/or self-indulgent indifference. Carter, Clinton, Obama - hell, it’s not even open for debate.


[quote=“DHLiberal, post:3, topic:48075”]
Iran always seems to be just on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, but they never can quite pull it off.

"1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

On the other hand, the last time a country DID go nuclear, a Republican was in charge (North Korea, during Bush years).
[/quote] Wrong! They STARTED their nuclear project during Carter’s administration and exploded their first nuke when Clinton was President! Quit with the revisionism.


What country are you talking about? Iran doesn’t have a nuke and N. Korea tested their’s in 2006.

***North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009, and 2013***. As David Albright, a nuclear physicist and founder of ISIS told Business Insider, the fact that the tests were of relatively small yield suggests that North Korea has developed its nuclear weapons with miniaturization in mind.

North Korea said today it had performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test, a move that prompted swift international condemnation, with the prime minister, Tony Blair, describing it as a "completely irresponsible act".


So, the main problem is not Obama, not the Democrats and not those who elected Obama. The main problem is the GOP?

The country elected Obama twice when there were better choices - NOT GREAT choices mind you, but choices who recognized Russia’s global threat, did NOT favor leaving Iraq prematurely, did not favor abandoning Israel, did not favor observing the rise in terror as an observer/leading from behind in the ME. Congress was laboring under Democrat control (filibuster proof) for two years, a split congress for 4 years and Repub control for only the last year - All 7 years under a radical leftist Dem POTUS and you’re laying the primary blame for the mess at the feet of the GOP?

The country voted for Obama and his policies and it again, for a second time, elected Obama and a continuation of his policies. The substantial change did not occur until the election in Nov 2014 and the seating in Jan. 2015, when Repubs actually gained majority status in the House and Senate (but not filibuster proof) - still under a radical Dem POTUS.

I’m not going to excuse the fact that since Repubs gained majority status a year ago they have failed to perform. But to focus blame for our current predicament at home and abroad mainly on the GOP, while deflecting the bulk of the blame away Obama, the DNC/Democrats and the electorate, is absurd.


I have to agree that the sole blame does not lie with the GOP.

I will place it at the feet of liberals/progressives. What party they inhabit is irrelevant.


I didn’t see “the GOP is the main problem” or anything like it in his post. I don’t know if he thinks Obama is the main problem or not (I don’t; I think it’s his string pullers); but he’s stating that the fact that Obama is an enemy of the United States is a given.


Our Constitution is constructed in such a way as to prevent any one branch of government from practicing tyranny or acting as an enemy to the United States, these are called “Checks and Balances” and they work very well in mitigating the ability of a President to behave as a king.

Obama is responsible for every destructive, subversive and unconstitutional action that he has tried, the Party that controls Congress is responsible for allowing Obama’s criminal efforts to become a reality that every citizen must endure.

In this case that Party is the GOP, not for the last year but for the last 5 years that they have controlled the power of the purse as the clear majority in the House of Representatives. Those are the facts and excuses do not change the facts or what the facts reveal, the GOP was given power based on their promise to stop Obama and they have chosen to help Obama perpetuate his crimes instead.


[quote=“RET423, post:17, topic:48075”]
the GOP was given power based on their promise to stop Obama and they have chosen to help Obama perpetuate his crimes i


The GOP isn’t the “main” problem, but the GOP Establishment-types who seem to want to give the left anything they demand ARE the problem. They’ve had a year in control of the Congress and pray tell us WHAT they’ve stopped Obama from doing to the country? Nada, Zip, Zero! Except for Ted Cruz, none of them have even TRIED to stop him from doing anything–and when Cruz DID try, the rest of the GOP sat on their hands and did NOTHING to help him. Again Nada, Zip, Zero! Instead, they criticized him in the media.


The GOP even attacked Cruz when he tried to honor the promises that the whole GOP made to win control of Congress.