How to Not fight Your Enemy

I will admit, I did not watch a moment of the President's speech last night on how he and his administration were going to handle the ISIS threat.  Why?  Because I knew, because I think I know this President very well now, that he would not say or commit to doing what really needs to be done.

Why do you ask?  Because Dinesh D'Souza, despite what you might think, is spot on about President Obama.  Obama adheres to an extremist, liberal view of American History.  I am all but certain that he has read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.  Obama therefore believes that America was founded at the least under dubious circumstances and at worst its history is ripe with genocide (of Native Americans) and was built on the foundation of slavery and other human rights violations.  This is why the President has signaled a retreat of America as the "Light on a hill" that the world can look to as the example of liberty and democracy in the world.  Thus, because of Obama's perception of US atrocities in its history, Obama does not think that America has the moral authority to be the lead the free world.

He also has absolutely no understanding of the nature of the enemy that we are fighting right now.  I must admit, though, that until recently I did not truly understand radical Islam.  It was not until I read two books over this summer.  The first is Son of Hamas written by Mosab Yousef, who is the son of one of the founders of Hamas and became a spy for Israel and then converted to Christianity.  The second is The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright.  This book traces the roots of radical Islam and how it lead to the attacks on 9/11.  After reading these two books I have come to two conclusions:

1.  Radical Islam, while a small minority of Islam, represents about 91 million people in the world.  They are hard-lined zealots that see the rest of the world both moderate Islam and the Infidel as needing to be conquered, and put under the flag of Islam.

2.  They will never stop.  Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate, with Sharia Law as the basis for this government.  They are not moderate, and they cannot be negotiated with.  They welcome death in the name of their cause as they then can be called martyrs and hopefully lead others to this extremist view of Islam.

When one couples Obama's reticence to lead the world, along with his lack of understanding of the Islamic world, there was no way he was going to do what needed to be done.  Yes he is most likely going to bomb the crap out of them, but bombings alone have never won a war. Unfortunately, due to his retreat from Iraq he allowed ISIS to gain power. He will not do what needs to be done, and I fear for whoever is the next President of the United States.

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.