Update on the Cheng Guancheng Ordeal.

The Cheng Guancheng fiasco just gets worse.  Here are some of the more recent developments. Here is Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's statement about Cheng.

"I am pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng's stay and departure from the U.S. embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values. I was glad to have the chance to speak with him today and to congratulate him on being reunited with his wife and children.


Mr. Chen has a number of understandings with the Chinese government about his future, including the opportunity to pursue higher education in a safe environment. Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task. The United States government and the American people are committed to remaining engaged with Mr. Chen and his family in the days, weeks, and years ahead."

Who wrote this Hillary or the Ministry of Truth from 1984?


Now read the story located here at the Daily Beast:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/02/activist-chen-guangcheng-let-me-leave-china-on-hillary-clinton-s-plane.html


This excerpt casts a different light on the ordeal:

When U.S. officials escorted him out of the U.S. embassy shortly after 3 p.m. Wednesday, Chen thought he’d extracted a promise that at least one of them would stay with him at the hospital, he said. “Many Americans were with me while I checked into the hospital and doctors examined me. Lots of them,” he told me from his hospital bed, where he’s being treated for broken bones in one foot, an injury sustained when he fell after climbing a wall during hisdaring escape from house arrest late last month. “But when I was brought to the hospital room, they all left. I don’t know where they went.” The ordeal was all the more bewildering because Chen is blind and was hurt during his escape; he needs crutches or a wheelchair to move around.

Then there is this story that details the unraveling of the "deal" that had been supposedly put into place


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/02/state_department_we_did_not_relay_threats_to_chen


Here is the most important excerpt from this story:

The State Department insists that blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng left the U.S. Embassy of his own volition Wednesday and that U.S. officials in Beijing did not convey threats to harm his family by Chinese officials, as Chen claims.

"At no time did any US official speak to Chen about physical or legal threats to his wife and children. Nor did Chinese officials make any such threats to us," said State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. "U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the Embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to [their home in] Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification." 

Nuland was responding to accounts by Chen supporters, now repeated by Chen himself to the Associated Press, that said Chen was pressured into leaving the embassy via threats to the safety of his wife and family. Chen told the AP that U.S. officials told him the Chinese would take his family back to their home province in Shandong, where they had been under extrajudicial house arrest and in some cases physically abused, if he didn't leave the embassy.

Why is the State Department now so vociferously defending themselves against the thought that they had conveyed threats to Cheng?  I am reminded of Shakepseare's Hamlet when Gertrude said, "The woman doth protest too much methinks."


If one reads between the lines however, it is clear that the message conveyed by embassy officials to Cheng most likely was taken as a threat by Cheng, since the home that they were being returned to is the place where Cheng and his family were subjected to persecution and abuse.


Ultimately this fiasco illustrates one of two possibilities.

1. That the State Department and then by association the Obama Administration is incredibly naive and incompetent.  
2. The Obama administration has intentionally misled Cheng and others in order to appease the ChiCom government so that they will continue to buy US Treasury bonds and further fund the massive overspending that has been engaged by the Obama administration.

Either one of these possibilities sends the clear message that Obama is incompetent and needs to be defeated in November.  

The US is no Longer a Defender of Liberty!

When Reagan was POTUS, he often defended or provided verbal support to those people behind the Iron Curtain.  Lech Walesa, who was an outspoken Human Rights activist, and later President of Poland.  He was a man that stood up to the Polish puppet regime.  He was persecuted and was even imprisoned for a time because of his outspoken words against his government.  During this time Ronald Reagan offered the following to Lech and the movement he was defending.

"For too long the Polish Government has tried to make Lech Walesa a non person and destroy the free trade movement that he helped to create, but no goverment can destroy the hopes that burn in hearts of a people."

It was words like these that Lech Walesa and others behind the iron curtain heard, that buoyed  them up during the dark times and encouraged them to keep fighting the good fight.( Walesa said as much during a speech when unveiling a statue of Ronald Reagan in Warsaw)   The message the Ronald Reagan was trying to convey was, "We in America stand with those seeking freedom and Democracy."

Flash forward to the story of Cheng Guangchen, a blind Chinese dissident who had been imprisoned first and more recently had been under house arrest for four years.  He just last week made a daring escape from his house arrest and found temporary refuge in the US embassy in Beijing.  Cheng is a self educated lawyer and outspoken critic of China's forced sterilization and abortion policies that are a part of China's totalitarian government mandated one child per family policy.  In contrast to Reagan, here are President Obama's words in response to a news reporters question about Cheng.

“We want China to be strong and we want it to be prosperous, and we’re very pleased with all the areas of cooperation that we’ve been able to engage in.  But we also believe that that relationship will be that much stronger and China will be that much more prosperous and strong as you see improvements on human rights issues in that country,”

No mention of Cheng.  There is not even a statement condemning China's deplorable civil rights record. Following this statement, the US embassy turned Cheng over to China's government.  The initial report was that this was a welcome and voluntary move by Cheng.  I personally heard NBC radio news state that Cheng willfully had left the embassy and was happy to get back to his family.  It was also reported that assurances were made about Cheng and his treatment and safety.

However a few hours later, news stories started to surface that Cheng's family had been threatened with recriminations for Cheng's actions, if he did not return home.   Cheng was reported to have been taken to a hospital to be treated for injuries sustained during his escape from house arrest.

The only reason that I can think of that explains the Obama administration's lack of support for human rights in China, is that they need China to keep financing America's debt.

The US used to be a defender of liberty against totalitarianism.  Now we defend and provide cover to totalitarian governments so that we can continue to borrow money from them. The fact that the US cannot be a defender of human rights against a regime and country that represents all of the ideals that the US opposes, shows that we are certainly a nation in decline.

Obama has no interest in job creation...

With another 410,000 people filing first time unemployment claims and the "official" unemployment rate (I believe the true rate is much higher than that), one would think that Obama would want to do things that would help to create jobs.  President Obama and his administration's actions to stimulate job growth are like a gardener fostering growth in his or her garden by turning off the water.

The latest example of this comes from THIS story in the New York Times.  The headline reads that the Obama Administration objects to the Alaska Oil and Gas Development bill.  Never mind that such a bill would only help the US's issues with gas prices and US demand for foreign.  Never mind that the the environmentalist wacko's have hijacked this issue and are completely opposed to developing an area that is less than 1% of the Refuge.  Never mine that 75% of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR.  Never mind that using domestic sources of oil over foreign sources (from countries like Saudi Arabia and Libya) makes sense.

According to ANWR.org developing and drilling for oil in ANWR would create between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs.

Objecting or opposing this legislation makes no sense on so many levels. Look at the positives that this bill would bring:

1)  America's dependence on foreign oil would decrease.
2) A larger supply or even the expectation of a larger supply of oil would help to bring down the cost of oil traded on the stock market.
3) With advances in drilling techniques, the environmental impact on ANWR is tiny.
4) From this project alone as was stated above between 250 k and 750 k new jobs would be created.
5)  More people working means more people paying taxes, and more people spending which in turn will stimulate further economic growth.

High unemployment will continue to be a massive drag on any economic recovery.  The only real way that government can really affect the economy is through taxation and government regulation.  If Obama wants to have any chance at reelection, he is going to have to lower taxes and cut out regulations that hinder job growth.  Obama, however is a rigid ideologue who would rather sacrifice jobs to save the Caribou, than do what it take to get the American economy rolling again.  Obama's big ears seem to be deaf to the outcry from jobless Americans who are suffering.

Well at least Michelle, Sasha and Malia, will get to go to Botswana for their summer vacation, err "Official State Visit."

The Truth About Obama's Letter to Secretary Paulson

So, I got tired of Barack Obama claiming that he had written a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson claiming that he sounded the warning bell of the current financial crisis. Here is the quote from the first debate at the University of Mississippi.

Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.

Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it

Obama again said the same thing in the second debate. The key here is the context. His comments were in response to Senator McCain talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac how these two GSE's were a major cause of the current financial crisis. Obama has repeatedly said he wrote this letter warning of these problems.

Well, I found the letter. Here is the link to the letter on Barak Obama's Senate website.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/

Barak did write a letter, but it has nothing to do with the context the current financial crisis. The opening reads as follows:

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

The rest of the letter goes on to detail what he thinks should happen at this "summit" and what should be discussed. Nowhere did the letter point out how these foreclosures are at the heart of a coming financial crisis. He did point out that lower income people were losing their homes, and more would if something was not done. While it is admirable that Obama showes concern for the poor losing their homes, this cannot and should not be confused with Barack Obama sounding a warning bell about sub prime mortgages being at the heart of an impending financial crisis. The closest thing that I found to any warning is in the next excerpt:

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

I have highlighted the latter part of the post to illustrate Obama's lack of leadership on this issue. He speaks of mortgage market turmoil and says that HIS COLLEAGUES will develop legislation. IF this is a reference to the problems at Fannie and Freddie, which I don't think it is, Obama leaves dealing with this issue to his colleagues. I don't know about you, but this is not what I want to hear from someone who is supposed to be leading America.