Tag Archives: Tyranny

Obama abandons Poland and the Czech Republic in order to appease Russia

The Heritage Foundation analyzes Obama’s latest foreign policy blunder.

Excerpt:

President Obama’s decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is entirely a political one – in order to appease Russia. This decision is a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its near-abroad. It represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and in future, America’s allies will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises.

It also leaves the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic – Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic – were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama has said he will now pursue will not satisfy those criteria.

Neither has Washington secured any great concession from Russia.

[…]The decision – to concentrate resources defending against short range missiles and not field defenses against long range missile attacks – makes no sense. To be truly strategic about national and international security, the United States must defend against current and future threats. Presenting a choice between defending against short or long range missile attack is a false one. Ballistic missile threats can emerge with little advanced warning, and as Admiral Mike Mullen (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) recently stated, Iran has already amassed sufficient uranium to build an atomic bomb.

Looks like President Chamberlain Obama is totally oblivious to the emerging threat from Iran. Not only is he abandoning Israel, but he’s leaving us open to long-range ballistic missile attack from abroad.

The Western Experience explains Obama’s “reasoning”.

Excerpt:

By taking on a non-confrontational role with Russia, President Obama hopes he can lure Russia into becoming a working partner with the U.S. against Iran and terrorism. Additionally, work closer on policy goals like disarmament. So the possibilities for President Obama, in his eyes, are win-win. But right now it looks more like a very huge gamble, if not a misguided attempt to secure cooperation through appeasement.

You’ll recall from my last piece that Russia is selling Iran S-300 defense systems that Iran will use to shoot down Israeli aircraft in the event of a pre-emptive airstrike against their nuclear facilities. And Obama has decided that the proper response to these developments is appeasement. What a surprise! The naive leftist sides against our ally, Israel.

The Independent records the reactions of our allies. (H/T The Western Experience)

Poland’s media bluntly summed up the feelings of the country’s political right towards President Obama’s axing of plans for an east European missile shield today: “Betrayed! The USA has sold us to the Russians and stabbed us in the back,” was the headline in one popular newspaper.

[…]In the Czech Republic, where the missile shield was also meant to be deployed, newspapers were similarly dismissive: “Obama gave in to the Kremlin,” commented the daily Lidowe Noviny.

None of this is surprising if you recall how Obama sided with tyrants in Iran and Honduras. The man has no moral sense.

Obama cuts off aid to pressure Honduras into communist dictatorship

Post from Hans Bader at the CEI’s Open market blog.

Excerpt:

The Obama Administration is about to cut off aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.

[…]State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a “military coup” to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).

[…]Confronted with the sound legal basis for removing the ex-president under his country’s constitution, the Obama Administration has responded with a series of increasingly weak rationalizations for stubbornly seeking to force his return on the Honduran people.

[…]Obama’s demand that Obama reinstate its would-be dictator has emboldened other elected leaders in Latin America to try to make themselves dictators. (Even the liberal Washington Post, which has not endorsed a Republican for president since 1952, admitted in an editorial by Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl that the Obama Administration has shown a “willful disregard of political oppression” by left-wing dictators in Latin America).

Obama’s demand that Honduras’s ex-president be returned to office has been supported by the Cuban communist dictator Castro and the Venezuelan socialist dictator Chavez, who counted Honduras’s deposed president as an ally, despite his background as a wealthy and corrupt landowner.

But allying with Castro and Chavez to force the return of Honduras’s would-be dictator has not even improved U.S. relations with their countries. The dictators Castro and Chavez continue to attack and oppose the United States at every turn, and oppose all of its Latin American initiatives, like its plans for bases in Colombia to fight drug trafficking. Obama has received nothing in exchange for his appeasement of Latin America’s left.

The article details the flaws in Obama’s support for a communist dictatorship in Honduras.

Obama’s appointee supports regulating free speech on the Internet

Consider this article by Kyle Smith. (H/T Jihad Watch)

Excerpt:

When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

…Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Cass Sunstein’s new book explains how he would like to regulate free speech.

Sunstein questions the current libel standard – which requires proving “actual malice” against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere “negligence” isn’t libelous, but Sunstein wonders, “Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?”

Recall my previous post about the Democrat bill that would criminalize blogging.

Excerpt:

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”

This makes me think also about my previous post about the Democrat Speaker of the House in California who said that dissenting speech is terrorism.

The Road to Serfdom

The greatest economics book of the 20th century was F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom“, which is analyzes the history of socialism and fascism in Nazi Germany and Russia. This book is #1 on Human Events’ Top 10 books every Republican should read.

Human Events writes:

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) was an Austrian economist awarded the Nobel Prize in 1974. He defended capitalism and individual liberty against collectivism. In “The Road to Serfdom,” he describes how government planning of the economy leads to tyranny. President Reagan cited Hayek as one of his favorite economists. “To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man,” wrote Hayek. “Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?”

I have a friend who is a Democrat, and every time I run these steps toward fascism by him, he never objects to them. There is a powerful impulse on the left towards controlling people’s choices to reproduce, earn, spend and work. Democrats believe that they are enlightened, so enslaving others is permissible for them. People today are willing to trade their liberty for a government handout, such as socialized health care.