|
|||||
|
By Dennis Prager From the moment the Tahrir Square demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak began, optimism has dominated American reporting and commentary on what is being called the Egyptian revolution. I fervently hope I am wrong, but I find it hard to share this dominant view, even as I identify with all those Egyptians and other Arabs who yearn for freedom. I offer eight good reasons for my pessimism: 1. Countries almost never go straight from dictatorship to liberty. For the past 250 years, the general rule of revolutions has been this: The more tyrannical the regime that is overthrown, the more tyrannical the regime that replaces it. Though post-Soviet Eastern European countries might seem to invalidate this rule, they do not. The reason Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria became more or less free countries almost immediately after overthrowing communist dictatorships is that all those dictatorships were imposed from abroad (the Soviet Union). When a country overthrows a homemade dictator, it rarely replaces him with a free society. The French Revolution replaced the French monarchy with revolutionary terror. The Russian Revolution replaced the autocratic Russian czar with totalitarian commissars. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following: Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses. Continue reading from The Heritage… The State Department continues to assert that the new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, called New START, imposes “no constraints on deploying the most effective missile defenses possible.” This sweeping assertion is simply inaccurate. New START limits U.S. missile defense options at two levels. The first level is the essential context within which the treaty exists and that—according to both the Obama Administration and Russian leaders—permits the treaty to be viable and effective. The second level is within the text of the treaty itself, where there are several direct limitations or other requirements regarding missile defense. 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age is a one-hour documentary produced by The Heritage Foundation that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one of us. The truth is brutal – no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from it would take 33 Minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy. WATCH THE 7:48 TRAILER BELOW
The concessions President Obama made to Russia to get the New START signed are precisely why the Senate should not ratify it. New START is another Obama giveaway at the expense of U.S. citizens. The treaty mandates strategic nuclear weapons parity with the progeny of an old Cold War foe, yet allows the Russians to maintain a 10-to-1 tactical nuclear-weapons advantage. Whether in warhead and launcher limits, verification, or missile defense, America loses. The treaty dampens the U.S. ability to defend against missile attacks and makes America and her allies vulnerable to rogue nations while receiving nothing for our concessions. Continue reading… Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and Remember: freedom is never free! I hope you will show your support by sending this to as many The NAACP passed a resolution Tuesday night condemning Tea Party activists, or at least some Tea Party activists, as racists who want “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.” Tea Party groups across the country have vehemently denied that charge, calling Tuesday’s resolution a hypocritical act on the part of the NAACP — which has traditionally fought against stereotypes. In a session that was closed to the media, the resolution that ultimately passed was toned down, according to the NAACP, to just “ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party.” An original draft appeared to suggest — and many Tea Party leaders inferred — that the resolution accused the entire movement of being motivated by racial concerns. When P.A. (Palestinian Authority) leader Mahmoud Abbas met with President Obama in the White House Wednesday he received a commitment that the U.S. will be sending the P.A. $400 million to build schools, roads, and homes in Gaza, as well as the West Bank. When asked how the U.S. will assure that the money will be used for the proposed purposes, Obama said that his team will clarify the conditions of the flow of money. Signature foreign policies often define presidencies. For Ronald Reagan, it was standing up to communism and advocating “peace through strength.” For Bill Clinton, it was sponsoring humanitarian interventions in the former Yugoslavia. For George W. Bush, it was promoting global freedom and using pre-emptive force and other tough measures to prosecute the war on terrorism. |
||||
|
We The People of Longview, TX is Stephen Fry proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache |
|||||
Leave a comment