About Me

Name: LowDownCentral
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

What A Character

MissileDefense.jpg Missile Defense picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

A nation’s character, like that of an individual, is determined by many factors.  Among these are promises kept, principles upheld, ideals embodied and sacrifices made.  Under the Obama administration, our national character has suffered in all these categories, most recently in regard to the cancellation of the missile defense system our nation previously pledged to erect in Poland and Czechoslovakia.  The system was designed to guard against attack by potential enemies with nuclear-capable missiles. When the installation was planned, only Russia qualified as such a potential enemy, but now Iran is also a member of the nuclear bully club.  The anti-missile system offered proven and advanced defensive technology to friendly nations who did not have the means to defend themselves against more powerful enemies.
 
The Obama administration last week announced that they would renege on this agreement.  Obama said that instead of the promised stationary defense system, the United States would offer a new, untried, high-tech, mobile sea-based system sometime in the indefinite future.  The announcement came on the same day that the IAEA issued a report that Iran was capable of producing a nuclear weapon.
 
When the Obama administration pulled the rug out from under Poland and Czechoslovakia, they placed allies in danger–not just the two nations in question, but all of Europe, which would have enjoyed the protection of the system.  Withdrawing our protection from Poland and Czechoslovakia is a tacit admission that we will not come to their aid in any substantial way if they are threatened or attacked.  We have abandoned them to the mercy of merciless enemies.
 
Both nations must be experiencing a bad case of deja vu.  In World War II, Poland was allied with England and France.  Both countries agreed to come to Poland’s aid in the event of attack by another nation.  On 1 September, 1939, Poland was attacked from the west by Hitler’s Germany and from the east by Stalin’s Russia.  British and French troops were alerted and mobilized, but none came to the aid of Poland, which was overrun and subdued in a matter of days.  After the war, the Soviets, who had taken all of Poland in their drive against Germany, broke their agreement to allow self-government in the occupied country, and Poland became part of the Soviet bloc.
 
In Czechoslovakia in 1948, when it looked like the communists were going to lose the upcoming election, they staged a coup to take over the government.  Thereafter, the communists purged the Czech military of non-communist officers and reorganized the Czech government along Soviet lines.  (“Purge” does not mean that these patriotic Czechs resigned, went to school on the GI Bill, and found other work in the private sector.  They were imprisoned or murdered.)  Czechoslovakia became a stalwart member of the Warsaw Pact.  Still, there remained much anti-communist resistance among the Czech people, and in 1968 the Soviet Union invaded with half a million troops, neutralizing the Czech military and making Czechoslovakia a submissive Soviet satellite.  The West did not interfere, and the Czechs lived under communist government until 1990 when communist influence crumbled, and Czechs had their first free election since 1946.
 
Now, Poland and Czechoslovakia have again been abandoned by a powerful ally.  Why?  The anti-missile system has long been a sore point with the Russians, the potential aggressors it was originally designed to deter.  President Obama has a meeting scheduled with Putin and Medvedev shortly.  It has been this administration’s policy to unilaterally make concessions in advance of any meeting with rivals, only to get nothing in return but more demands for concessions. 
 
Under Obama, our nation broke its promise to defend Poland and Czechoslovakia from missile attack, violated the principles of diplomacy by making this decision unilaterally without consulting the nations whose security it threatens, turned its back on the ideal of defending democracy around the world, and did so on the basis of fiscal economy and diplomatic spinelessness
 
Meanwhile, every American ally must be wondering who will be next to be abandoned by the Obama administration.  Under Obama, American promises mean nothing, our principles are expedient, our ideals for sale, and our allies cannot depend on us.
 
Obama campaigned on a promise to restore American prestige in the world.  Instead, he has irreparably damaged the character of the American nation by replacing it with his own.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Presidential Pants on Fire

Presidential20Pants20on20Fire.jpg Presidential Pants on Fire picture by LDCuploads07
 
by  Lance Thompson
 
During President Obama’s health care speech to a joint session of Congress, the President’s claim that illegal aliens weren’t covered in the legislation met with incredulity from the few people present who read and understood the bill.  But Republican congressman Joe Wilson said out loud what the rest were thinking.  “You lie!” 
 
Wilson’s honest reaction to a dishonest sales pitch was widely condemned on both sides, and Republican leadership even directed him to tender an apology, which he did.  This despite the fact that Democrats routinely called President Bush a liar (and much worse), from Senate majority leader Harry Reid on down.  (Reid apologized for calling the president a “loser,” but pointedly refused to apologize for calling him a “liar”).  The main difference with Wilson was that he had the courage to tell the President to his face, while Reid and the other Democrats mostly insulted Bush to crowds of enthusiastic supporters (in other words, journalists).
 
Still, it leaves us with a question: How does a member of Congress respond to a President telling whoppers of the magnitude of Obama’s claims that a government-run health care system won’t add one dime to the debt, will save half a trillion dollars by eliminating waste and fraud, and will serve millions more people than the market-based system we have now?
 
If two-word outbursts like Congressman Wilson’s are frowned upon, then we must have an appropriate way of communicating the sentiment, “Pull the other one, there’s a bell on it.”  Hillary Clinton, during President Bush’s speeches, would always find some way of looking disgusted, rolling her eyes, or just sneering as if she’d found a blue dress in her closet that wasn’t her size.  But this all seems hopelessly poor-sporty, and there’s no guaranteeing C-SPAN will catch less renowned members exhibiting such expressions.
 
If one were good-natured, as Senators and members of congress usually are--unless they’re Democrats coming out of a town hall meeting–they could respond as one would to an entertaining teller of tall tales.  “Ha!” one could exclaim, laughing out loud, slapping one’s knee, and exclaiming, “nobody can spin a yarn like that youngster from Chicago!” 
 
Since the Obama administration wants to create over fifty new bureaucracies with this new health reform bill, perhaps they could create one more for Truth Content.  This office might assign varying colors to degrees of truth in the President’s speeches, as the Department of Homeland Security has done for the terrorist alert level:  green for highest truth content, yellow for some stretchers, red for out-and-out-fibs, and perhaps neon orange if anyone actually spots the President crossing his fingers behind his back. Memembers could be given paddles with different colored panels to flash their reactions from their seats.
 
Perhaps, instead of the usual tepid response from the opposition party, the Republicans could arrange for some sort of simultaneous translation, with a close-captioned text crawl at the bottom of the screen.   As the president says, “It will cost not a dime more,” the text crawl could read, “not a dime more than two or three trillion.”  The same effect could be achieved by an inset box in the bottom corner of the screen, with an on-screen interpreter providing the truthful translation.  To protect her from retribution, she could be seen only in silhouette, her voice distorted, and her true identity hidden behind the pseudonym, “Polly Graf.”
 
But none of these has the power and directness of congressman Wilson’s from-the-heart response.  Wilson, by the way, has enjoyed a tremendous surge of support and increase in donations since his outburst, and seems destined for greater things.  This is even more galling to the Democrats, whose name-calling is so routine that if Republicans aren’t pilloried by Harry Reid, they send a reminder to his office asking if they’re being ignored on purpose.
 
Still, we must wonder why Democrats exhibit much greater outrage at having their honesty questioned than the GOP does.  Perhaps being accused falsely is frustrating, but being fairly caught is all the more painful.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »