Obama Rewrites Cold War History To Appease Our Enemies

Appeasement only works in the fantasy world of leftist minds. Out here in reality, it has never worked and only resulted in more devasting conflicts.

Read the following Liz Cheney column from the Wall Street Journal:

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week. Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.” The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism. It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said. Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies. The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.” Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much. The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history. Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs? The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.” Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally — by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities — as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies’ lies about us.

That column hits the nail right on the head.

You can access the orginal column on-line here:

Obama Rewrites The Cold War
Liz Cheney
Wall Street Journal
July 13, 2009

JB Williams: America Largely Silent While Obama Destroys The Nation

I can’t disagree with the title here. I see it everywhere. I see it on television. I see it in the retail stores. I see it on the Internet. There are a great many people who seem to simply not care about what is happening to their own nation.

I’m certain there were similar attitudes in Germany when the Nazis took over. (In fact, having read Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer, I am absolutely sure that such attitudes existed.) I am also certain that similar attitudes were held by the average Russian after Stalin siezed power.

That is why it scares me to see the same attitudes here in the United States while the Obama administration installs more socialist policies for which the response from the media and a majority of Americans has been nothing but silence, which Obama and his socialist cronies will take as tacet approval.

Writing for Capitol Hill Coffee House, J.B. Williams has the following observations:

Obamanation has taken the nation from a trillion in debt to over $4 trillion in debt in the first sixty days, with even more federal spending promised, which could put the nation $10 trillion in debt before the 2010 mid-term election cycle. Amnesty for illegals and ACORN led redistricting will make 2010 and beyond a moot point.

Now, Obama likes to use the excuse that he “inherited” this debt. Only up to a point. The quadrupling of the debt is entirely his fault as well as the fault of the Democrats who voted to go along with it.

Now here is where we have to wonder at the silence. If a trillion dollar debt is bad, then why would the Democrats consider a 4 trillion dollar debt to be better? Shouldn’t it be four times worse? Where is the outrage at how Obama and the Democrats are threatening to squander our children’s and grandchildren’s future?

More:

Old concepts have been redefined. Capitalism is now referred to as Fascism. Personal ambition is now called greed. Those who seek access to other people’s rightful earnings are called charitable, and those who demand a right to only that, which they earn, are called greedy. It isn’t just the words that have new definitions. The concepts have new meaning as a result. Words like socialism and communism no longer have a negative connotation attached to them. Most Americans have no idea what they are anymore, or why they don’t want to find out the hard way. The concept of liberal interpretations limits the meaning of words only to one’s individual imagination. The Constitution means only what someone imagines it to mean. If the shoe doesn’t quite fit, a new definition will solve the problem.

We’ve seen Timothy Geithner ask, in the name of Obama, for the power to go in and take over any private sector entity he deems necessary. (I can see how that power can be abused simply to destroy political enemies.) We’ve seen how Obama wants to control the auto industry by forcing out the CEO of General Motors despite the fact that the only thing Obama or any other government official would only be able to do is drive GM further into the ground.

This is socialism, folks! And it has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. We do not need to relearn this lesson the hard way. We simply need to crack open some history books and read. Read how the Nazis (National Socialists) drove Germany into the ground. Read how the communists drove Russia and Eastern Europe into the ground. Read how socialism is driving Europe into the ground right now.

What will it take?

Nobody knows for how long or at what expense, but so far, the people remain silent and Washington continues to profitably interpret that silence as broad-based consent. At this late date, I have no idea what will wake up the average American or how they might react once finally awake and ready to engage in self-governance. However, I am sure about two things… * When they finally do awake, they are going to be really angry… * And, the anti-American left won’t let up until then… The clock isn’t just ticking. Time has already run out as of the 2008 election. Washington DC is currently dismantling America, individual right by individual right, in an unprecedented massive multi-faceted assault on all things American.

I see the dangers and know the lessons of history.

Do you?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Americans Largely Silent As Their Nation Is Systematically Destroyed
JB Williams
Capitol Hill Coffee House
March 25, 3009

Obama And The Coming Collapse Of National Security

Dissident Dingo over at Resistance Day blog has penned a terrific essay about Barack Obama’s weakness on national security and what it will mean to us over the next four years.

Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama will be tested on the national security front. The tests will not come only from the Islamic terrorists either. Russia, North Korea, Iran and the Chinese all smell weakness. They see an inexperienced, un-tested and immature President who seems to believe that the power of his personality will be enough to keep our enemies under control. He believes that the entire world is no different than the American media who love him. He is wrong, of course, but will he realize this when the test comes? … Obama will be tested and he will handle it badly. Biden knows this and his comments were a plea for the media to stay in the tank and support him…no matter what. Remember, Obama is “too big to fail”. Obama is “historic”. We cannot let the first affirmative action President be a mediocre one can we? As conservatives, we take the defense of our country seriously. National security is serious business and failure, in this day and age, means a lot of dead Americans. That is why we don’t vote for the likes of Obama. We do not vote for leftists who view national security (and all other Constitutional functions of government) as a waste of time and resources that should be used for liberal, unconstitutional functions of government. … Wasn’t it the misguided former Democrat Senator John Edwards who called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker”? No, John. “Hope” is a bumper sticker. The War on Terror was President Bush’s response to an ideology that has the declared objective of wiping us out. And they’re still out there. They’re weaker and they enjoy far less support from countries that they could once count on when the Clinton Administration was napping. But, they’re still committed.

This essay is very powerful and telling. I hope that all members of the Republican National Committee read it and that the GOP takes it heart in 2010.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

National Security And The Coming Barackalypse
Dissdent Dingo
Resistance Day Blog
January 23, 2009

Video: Obama Supporters Interviewed, Show Extremely Limited Knowledge Of Their Candidate

The liberals are not happy about John Ziegler’s video and what is being portrayed on it. Twelve Obama supporters were interviewed right after they voted in order to see how Old Media influenced their vote and whether or not they had gotten the full and correct story. It does not paint the libs in a very good light at all.

But that isn’t the full story. An even bigger part of the story is the telephone poll conducted by Zogby which showed how voters knew almost nothing about the Obama/Biden ticket but were more often able to answer correctly the questions about the McCain/Palin ticket, specifically questions which dealt with those stories that Old Media pushed out about the Republicans. the questions that the Obama supporters were not able to answer dealt with issues that Old Media deliberately held back. Things like William Ayers and such.

Here are the results of that poll:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points 97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions 57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing). And yet….. Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And to show exactly how badly Old Media screwed the pooch in trying to get Obama elected:

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house.”

Sarah Palin never said that. Tina Fey said it on Saturday Night Live, but Old Media, either because they were so in the tank for Obama or because they are incompetant and don’t know how to do proper research, simply allowed the story to go without trying to correct it.

And here is John Ziegler’s interview on Fox News with some elements of his video as portrayed on Hannity & Colmes:

How The Media Helped Obama Get Elected
Fox News
November 19, 2008

Media Malpractice. How Obama Supporters Knew Very Little About The Election
Fox News
November 17, 2008

Sean Hannity is absolutely correct. The year 2008 will go down in history as the year in which journalistic integrity died.

You can access the complete web entry on-line here:

How Obama Got Elected
John Ziegler

A Look At What Joe Biden Meant Last Sunday And Democrats Resorting To Violence

Joe Biden let slip some very important information last Sunday when he spoke about how Obama would be tested in his first six months of his presidency and that his decisions would be unpopular with the American people.

Well, what would those situations be? And what decisions would be made?

Herb Denenberg of The Bulletin looks at that in his most recent column:

Why would they test his mettle? This was unsaid, but you test someone’s mettle when you don’t know what he’s made of or when you suspect he’s weak and you want to start testing for weakness. But here’s why Sen. Biden is wrong on the world testing Sen. Obama’s mettle. No one has to test his mettle. They know he is weak on foreign policy, and has a heavy tinge of appeasement, retreat, defeat, and surrender – as does the Democratic Party, which nominated him. Our enemies already knows Sen. Obama is weak and soft, as is his party, so our enemies will just proceed with their plans for terrorism and aggression. Why would the Russians want to test his mettle? They saw what he is made of by his reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, Sen. Obama called for restraint on both sides. So the Russians know, that in the face of aggression, instead of taking a firm stand with an ally and innocent victim, Sen. Obama calls for restraint on the part of the victim being invaded. Why test someone who has so clearly flunked his exam? Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama suggest the matter be sent to the Security Council. The Russians now know he is so wet behind the ears on foreign policy that he doesn’t even know the Russians have a veto in the Security Council and could make sure nothing happened there. Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama observe that we’d be in a better position to complain about this aggression if we set a good example ourselves. So the Russians know he equates their illegal, unprovoked aggression against Georgia with America’s legal, U.N.-sanctioned liberation of Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. This tells the Russians he doesn’t approve of America using armed force to defend its national interests and he doesn’t have the sense to refrain from criticizing his own country in a time of international crisis.

And on Iran, Obama is known for this:

The Iranians would lose no time in attacking one of their neighbors, most likely Israel. Perhaps by then armed with nuclear weapons, they would use them on a neighbor, or threaten to blackmail a neighbor or perhaps even a continent such as Europe, if certain concessions were not forthcoming. Obama would call for restraint, and assure the American people again, as he has already done, that Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat to the U.S. The Iranians know he said this while they were killing American troops in Iraq, sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq and serving as the headquarters of international terrorism. The Iranians know what others have already said – Sen. Obama is a Jimmy-Carter type, only worse. They know how President Carter locked himself in the White House and did not face down international lawlessness after the Iranian took American hostages at our embassy in Teheran. Why test his mettle, when his record suggests an enemy of America can invade, attack, and terrorize with impunity. Remember his reaction to 9/11 – the typical liberal, leftist response. We’ve got to understand why they did such a terrible thing. Anyone with good judgment would say we’ve got to kill and defeat all those responsible for this mass murder. When Pastor Rick Warren asked him what he would do about evil, he danced around like a confused college professor. When Sen. McCain was asked the same question, he said, without hesitation, you defeat it. Terrorists would be aware of Sen. Obama’s reaction to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He said you handle it with the legal system and prosecute wrongdoers. I’m sure al-Qaeda is trembling waiting for a grand jury and indictments from Obama? Will that really deter terrorists or just give them a fat laugh? Like Obama, President Clinton believed in the law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that mistake led directly to 9/11.

And Biden should know what it means to be wrong on foreign policy issues. He has made more than his share of mistakes along the way:

Our enemies know how naïve Sen. Obama is on foreign policy, as they know he announced to the world that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was and if he were in Pakistan, he would strike him without permission of that country. Sen. Kit Bond, an intelligence expert whose comments will be discussed in more detail later, says Sen. Obama “doesn’t understand how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.” His outburst on this subject betrays a lack of understanding on how to deal with a present ally in a most precarious position. And all the axis of evil would be emboldened knowing that Sen. Obama’s key adviser on foreign policy would likely be Sen. Biden, who has a record of being wrong and often weak on almost all questions of foreign policy. Consider a few of his hare-brained judgments: * After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Sen. Biden opposed the first war against Iraq. He apparently was willing to cede the entire Middle East and all of its oil to Saddam Hussein. * Before Sen. McCain succeeded in turning the tide toward American victory in Iraq, Sen. Biden wanted to break Iraq into a group of separate nations that would include a Sunni state, a Shia state and a Kurdish state.

And finally this:

Sen. Bond summarized the whole Obama approach: “He [Obama] dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists.”

It will not look good for the United States if Barack Obama gets into the White House. He will invite attacks against innocent Americans and then refuse to effectively respond to those attacks which will, in turn, invite more attacks.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Would Weaken, Destroy American Defenses And Bring Challenges
Herb Denenberg
The Bulletin
October 22, 2008

---

And here is a news story you will never see in the MSM unless the politcal affiliations were reversed. from Pajames Media:

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs. On a Monday afternoon, September 15, 2008, three McCain volunteers were holding campaign signs and distributing leaflets on a busy corner of 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. As they were peacefully talking to each other, they were approached by a man who, in the words of the victim, provided the impression of “a rather benign, doughy-looking guy — not a person I would have expected to assault me.”

Here is a picture of the attacker:

You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:

Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York
Pajamamedia.com
October 17, 2008