Sunday, November 15, 2009

Flame of Conscience

I came across this article by Prof. Jerome A. Cohen, currently at NYU Law School and formerly of Harvard Law School. Prof. Cohen has a very good Chinese name of 孔傑榮. When he was at Harvard he once mentored a chap by the name of Ying-Jeou Ma who happened to be elected President last year by the people of Taiwan, Republic of China. Regardless his background, his article "Flame of Conscience" is a super objective view that is hard to find nowadays from the Obamania mainstream media anymore. This article is appeared at the Homepagedaily site:

Sunday will mark President Barack Obama’s first visit to China. Will he be stricken by Marco Polo-itis? The Great Wall and the Forbidden City can be mesmerizing. But so too can Obama, especially if allowed to speak freely on Chinese television.

President Obama will have only three days in China and will visit Shanghai and Beijing. He confronts some tough choices, not only between meetings and sightseeing but also in choosing among the unprecedented number of difficult issues on his potential agenda.

Climate change? World financial crisis? Tariff war and currency revaluation? North Korean nuclear weapons? American arms sales to Taiwan? U.S.-China military cooperation? Afghanistan and Iraq pullbacks? Iran and Pakistan dilemmas? No previous Sino-American summit has confronted so many issues. This testifies to China’s increasing prominence. How much room will this week’s agenda have for “human rights”?

After diplomatic relations were normalized in 1979, and especially after the Tiananmen slaughter of June 4, 1989, human rights became an important issue in Sino-American summits.

Yet, until this week’s announcement of nine executions in the Xinjiang region, the Obama administration, contrary to the expectations raised by the president’s election campaign rhetoric, demonstrated little interest in stimulating the People’s Republic to abide by its international human rights commitments, such as the UN Convention Against Torture.

Nor has it applied public pressure for China to take on new commitments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Beijing signed in 1998 but has not ratified. To be sure, many agenda items involve human rights of one kind or another. The rights to a habitable environment, a decent job and protection against nuclear extermination are universal.

The lives of tens of millions in the Near and Middle East can be affected by other decisions reached next week. And Taiwan’s free society has a huge stake in any cross-strait military arrangements.

Yet none of those items addresses “human rights” in the sense of the political and civil rights of 1.3 billion Chinese. During the past three years, the Communist dictatorship on the Mainland has again tightened restrictions on its own citizens’ most basic freedoms of expression–speech, publication, assembly, organization and religion.

Those who challenge these restrictions have been arbitrarily and harshly punished through a comprehensive array of informal, administrative and criminal sanctions.

The cruelty to which many courageous people have been subjected for attempting to experiment with democracy, implement a genuine rule of law or practice their religion is unworthy of a government that has made great social and economic progress in recent years.

Despite such progress, the regime is facing a rising tide of popular protests against a broad range of grievances in many areas, not only Tibet and Xinjiang. Instead of establishing democratic institutions to provide satisfactory outlets for processing these grievances, Beijing’s response is unremitting repression. Rights defenders and lawyers who seek to utilize existing weak legal institutions are themselves often harassed, beaten, deprived of their livelihood, detained and prosecuted.

Many of them who fall ill in prison are denied necessary medical care in an apparent effort to permanently incapacitate them and deter others. Probably millions of Chinese hope that Obama will condemn such abuses and press their leaders for reforms. Obama’s bargaining position is not very strong. Not only does he need Chinese cooperation on many problems, but he also represents a government that has itself been a deserving target for human rights criticisms.

The invasion of Iraq and the disgraces at Guantanamo and Abu Graib symbolize America’s most shameful international misconduct in decades. Moreover, Obama has been disappointingly slow in undoing some of his predecessor’s worst civil liberties violations at home as well as abroad. Will the able team recently assembled by Obama and Secretary of State Clinton persuade their Chinese counterparts to undertake systemic reform and cooperate in some substantial human rights initiatives?

It won’t be easy, even if Obama and Clinton decide to press harder than they have to date.

Bland Washington statements and a private talk with China’s President Hu Jintao are unlikely to bring transparency and fair trials to Chinese justice.

There is a conservative climate among Beijing’s leaders, and, with the aid of Cuba, Sudan, Egypt and other massive human rights violators, their diplomats at the UN are now adept at fending off foreign censure and suggestions. Reflecting China’s heightened influence, the country’s new nationalism and America’s own human rights vulnerability, the leadership has apparently decided to tough it out, while throwing the U.S. a face-saving bone or two.

Renewal of the largely ineffectual, on-again, off-again official bilateral “dialogues” that China uses to placate foreign democracies will not impress increasingly skeptical American human rights NGOs.

Nor will a return to the regime’s old trick of releasing a few high profile activists from confinement, while quietly locking up more. A stirring speech to the Chinese people and a serious meeting with dissidents would at least demonstrate Obama’s sincerity, but are not scheduled.

So will the young president return home with much to show human rights supporters?

Originally published at the South China Morning Post, click view for more information

Prof. Cohen ends his article with a rhetorical question. I am very certain that he knows the answer. Let me spell out the answer now: No, no no! Nein, Nyet, Niente. Obama ain't go there to worry about human rights mumble jumbles. He would wish to learn more on how to deal with his political enemies. He'll be basically capitulating. Just hope he does not do another wow bow to Hu Jintao again.

Billboard at Mason City, Iowa


American are waking up in the heartland, seeing it and telling it as it is! God bless America!

(Can you believe it? The Obamanian media (e.g. this) are reporting complain about this billboard but afraid of showing a picture of this billboard.

What are they complaining and afraid of?

The TRUTH, of course!)

Saturday, November 14, 2009

See Obama, see Obama bow low, mmm mmm mm!


Did you see that? Mmm mmm mm! Bow low is obviously Obama's specialty by now. This time to the Emperior Akihoto of Japan. This Los Angeles Times article this morning asks "How low will he go?" and calls it a "wow bow" completes with videos and pictures. Please go read the article. I suspect that it might be there for too long.

For comparison here's how former U.S. Vice President show his respect:

And of course here's also a picture of General Douglas MacArthur with Akihito's father Hirohito.


It was General MacArthur who decided to allow Japan to keep its emperior as a" ceremonial unifying institution within a nascent democracy" as this LA Times article recalls the history.

Well I said it's Obama's specialty to bow low, objections? Here's an previous bow:

Now that's "wow bow" Obama, Mmm mmm mm!


Update 11/17/2009

You can just count on brilliant cartoonist to put things in real perspective:

Thanks to Mr. Michael Ramirez and Investors Business Daily.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Veterans Day 2009

Fox News has a good historical background about the day today, the Veterans Day:

For 90 years, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month has been a remembrance of those who served America in a time of war.

But the Nov. 11 Veterans Day commemoration began as a day to celebrate peace — the silencing of the guns of World War I, "The Great War," which claimed the lives of more than 15 million soldiers and civilians.

On that day in 1918, at the 11th hour, Germany signed an armistice with the Allied Powers — including the U.S., France, Britain, Japan and Italy — ending major hostilities in a war that nearly wiped out a generation of men.

A full peace was concluded the next year in France at the Palace of Versailles, and the first Armistice Day was proclaimed and celebrated by President Woodrow Wilson on the anniversary of the ceasefire: Nov. 11, 1919.

It was fully established by Congress as a legal holiday in 1938.

But Armistice Day honored veterans of only World War I, essentially ignoring millions of soldiers who served in peacetime or fought in World War II, Korea and other engagements.

So in 1954 Congress extended the holiday to honor all vets, giving it the name Veterans Day, which it has kept for 55 years.

Today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are some 23.2 million veterans in the United States. That includes 2.6 million who served during World War II, 2.8 million who served in the Korean War, 7.8 million in the Vietnam War, 5.2 million in the Gulf War and about 1.7 million who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly 120,000 are still stationed in Iraq, and about 68,000 will be deployed in Afghanistan by the end of the year, according to the Census.

Just one American veteran who served in World War I is still alive: 108-year-old Frank Buckles, who drove ambulances in England and France after enlisting at the age of 16. Buckles also fought in World War II and was taken prisoner by the Japanese.
God Bless America!

Monday, November 9, 2009

Sunday, November 8, 2009

A craven dodges the center stage for freedom

I just read this great commentary in telegram.com of Worcester, Massachusetts. The non-authored article is entitled "Obama's absence" with a byline "Berlin is center stage for freedom." Yes, I have heard that Obama will not be in Berlin to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the torn down of the Berlin wall. But this article really pointed out all the significance of this event and why it is so regrettable that the President of the United States should choose to be chickened out from the historical celebration. Here's the article in full:
Modern history holds fewer dates with greater significance than Nov. 9, 1989, the day the Berlin Wall fell, signaling the beginning of the end to the Cold War, and the political, social and economic liberation of millions who had lived behind the Iron Curtain since the close of World War II.

Monday’s 20th anniversary will be a celebration not only for Germany — now reunified for a generation — but for all the nations and peoples who were able to put fears and divisions in the past and look to a more hopeful future. Berlin has been center stage in that process, and U.S. presidents have played vital roles upon that stage. Harry Truman’s approval of the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49 saved lives; John F. Kennedy’s 1963 speech in West Berlin declaring “I am a Berliner” gave hope to a city newly divided; and Ronald Reagan’s June 1987 challenge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall!” stands as one of the watershed moments of Cold War history.

It is regrettable that President Barack Obama has declined German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation to attend Monday’s festivities at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. Germany and the U.S., one-time bitter enemies, are now partners and friends. Mr. Obama’s absence won’t change that fact, but his presence at the head of the U.S. delegation would have been an eloquent reaffirmation of our nation’s commitment to freedom, and a fitting tribute to those who died trying to escape oppression during the wall’s 28-year history.

Surely, a president who could find time to go to Copenhagen to lobby on behalf of Chicago’s bid for the Olympics could have found time to go to Berlin, epicenter for the political earthquakes of 1989 that marked a new birth of freedom for Europe and the world.
Mmmm mmmm mmm, only a lame duck will chickened out from the center stage for freedom. Now we have an unmitigated evidence!

P.S.

In the readers comments to this article, a reader by the name "factsplz" made another good point: "how could Obama possibly appear at an event that highlights how great America is? America's greatness is NOT in his game plan."

P.P.S.

Now here's a totally different but equally valid view from a completely different viewpoint by Ellis Washington of WorldNetDaily that suggests why Obama can't go to Berlin. Mr. Washington has a lot to say. Here are the parts I like the most:

On Nov. 9, 1989, the torch of liberty was lit for more than a billion people (one-third of the world's population) when they started their path toward freedom with the fall of the Berlin Wall; a seemingly impregnable symbol of imprisonment that Khrushchev erected in 1961 to stop the exodus of East German citizens fleeing the slavery of communism for the freedom and liberty of democracy in West Germany.

Twenty years later, President Obama, as the anti-Reagan, is trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by brick with fascist policies designed to undermine freedom of all Americas and the liberties of those people around the world yearning for a republic founded on the rule of law. Obama wants to place those same shackles Stalin put on the Soviet-bloc countries on America with his socialist health-care bill, which, if passed, would place government in our lives from cradle

to grave.

Washington Times Editorial has the same idea:
Some have criticized President Obama for not visiting Berlin to commemorate this historic moment, but he made the right choice. When Sen. Barack Obama wanted to speak at the venue during the 2008 presidential campaign, German Chancellor Angela Merkel thought the request "a bit odd." It still is. Mr. Obama was on the other side of the policy divide during the Reagan years, and if his party had remained in power, we have no doubt the Soviet Union would have lasted longer as a going concern. Mr. Obama should not attempt to associate himself with that historic moment, when a man with vision had the ability to see the future and the courage to realize it.
So he made the right choice to stay away all right. He can't possibily in the same league with Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan anyway. He is probably not a craven. He is just hoping to be a despot! Please, please God help America!

P. P. P. S.

Well, the whole world is joyfully commemorating the historical moment. Here we see in Taipei, Taiwan, the Republic of China, they are preparing to celebrate freedom and liberty from communist tyranny by unveiling a small section of the Berlin Wall that was given to the democratic government of Taiwan.

Let us pray!


On this first Sunday after the terrible Ft. Hood massacre, this blog joins Lucianne.com to offer "Our prayers and thoughts to the family and friends of those murdered at Ft. Hood, Texas."

God bless America!

And let us salute and pray for the true American heroine, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, she shot the terrorist thug four times, even after being hit by a bullet that passed both her legs as reported by U.K. Times online. Yes, how sad, we have to read a U.K. news about the the heroic act of Sgt. Munley:

Her swift reaction and courage were being praised last night for preventing many more deaths.

“It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer,” said Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, Fort Hood’s commanding officer. “The critical factor here was her quick response to the situation.”

God bless America! God bless Sgt. Kimberly Munley and for her total recovery!