About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Those cherished memories! Will they ever fade?

 

They don't call him the "comeback kid" for nothing:

 

Newsflash: In a Rasmussen national poll, ex-president Clinton's popularity has risen SHARPLY.

 

Overall, 58 percent of voters said they viewed the former president favorably, compared with 40 percent, who had an unfavorable opinion (the other 2% voted "present").

 

And of course, Bill Clinton (or as the Asians pronounce it..."Brill Krynton") has always been highly popular in the Far East- ESPECIALLY with the Chinese and the North Koreans, due to the secret boost Clinton has provided for both countries' strategic weapons development. 

 

FACT: In 1995, the Chinese could barely boost a satellite up into earth orbit, having failed in 14 of 20 previous tries.

 

FACT: In 1995, North Korea was haplessly struggling to reverse-engineer primitive 1-stage Scud missiles, given to them by Russia back in the late 1980's.

 

But now, barely a decade later, the Chinese are holding military exercises on shooting down orbiting sateliites; and North Korea is threatening Hawaii with its latest multi-stage Taepodong 3 ballistic missile.

 

And how was it all possible? Of course - because of the incompetence, power lust, and dastardly treason of President William J. Clinton - "champion" of  the Asian cause.

 

In Feb. of 1996, President Clinton - undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would harm U.S. national security- authorized the export of critical booster-rocket technology to the Chinese. 

 

A New York Times reporter had uncovered a smoking gun (in the form of an admission by Democratic fund-raiser - Johnny Chung) that he had given the Democratic National Campaign Committee nearly $100,000 for Clinton's re-election in 1996.

 

And now, Clinton's reckless actions with China (as our 42nd president) have greased the skids for a possible future war.

 

Clinton not only pulled off a treasonous "quid pro quo" for re-election money, but also made one of the most foolhardy foreign policy blunders of any president since Jimmy Carter's Iran hostage debacle in 1979.

 

In spring of 1996, the U.S. and China had actually faced off in the Strait of Taiwan:
 
The Chinese had responded angrily to a thoughtless decision by President Clinton to allow Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui to tour America, and hold "strategic talks" in Washington with the State department. 

 

In retribution, China began "war games" - missile launches in the Taiwan Strait - tests that were clearly meant to intimidate the people of Taiwan.

 

Clinton - ignorant of the "brinkmanship" game he was playing-- dispatched two aircraft carriers to Taiwan, the Independence and the Nimitz, to ensure "peace and stability," and fulfill America's "role" as Taiwan's security guarantor.

 

After Clinton's dire provocation, an incensed China - at the brink of war - instead vowed revenge. The Chinese had learned their lesson...it was time to "muscle up. Beijing had decided it would go all-out to develop a way to wipe out the nearly invincible U.S. "umbrella defense" shrouding all American attack carriers.

 

The result? China's deadly DF-21 missile. an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers up to a range of 2000 km.


The sheer size of the DF-21 attack missile enables it to carry a warhead with the capability of destroying a massive American super-carrier in ONE initial strike.

 
But what's most intimidating is the incredible speed at which it flies upward - making it highly invulnerable to interception.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at an astonishing Mach-10, (7000 mph) reaching its maximum range in only 10 minutes. It then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance, to strike a moving target at sea-- thereby rendering our US naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

And the Chinese are manufacturing DF-21's by the THOUSANDS, with long-on odds of getting through any possible US anti-missile defense - using sheer overwhelming numbers.

 

But China would still be playing around with mere satellite launches had it not been for the treachery of Bill Clinton.

 

Back in the early 90's, Chinese "boost vehicles" were not reliable. On average, only one satellite launch in four could be expected to succeed.

 

So Slick Willie then "encouraged" U.S. companies to "collaborate" their booster technology with Red China - the premise being cost: using a Chinese booster was just $25 to $65 million per satellite launch, as opposed to four times higher in the United States.

Thus, in pursuit of Clinton's phony "efficiency goal," U.S. space companies (Motorola, Hughes, and Loral) decided to share America's most sensitive missile technology - what is termed in aeronautical engineering parlance as...the "kick motor" (used with a missile's 3rd stage). 

After repeated tests in the late 90's, China's perfection of this "kick motor" has given them the same American technology to launch MIRVs (multiple, independently targeted re-entry vehicles) that vastly increase the firepower of nuclear missiles.

Naturally, Clinton saw to it the intricate details involved in the transfer were completely scrubbed from all official U.S. documents. But the damage has been done; the 8 years of the Clinton presidency coincided with the most massive breach of military security in American history.

Now, playing fierce catch-up mode, China is modernizing its military at an astonishing rate.

 

Once again: the Chinese are going all out to develop weapons to shoot down U.S. satellites - something else that the liberal media has chosen to censor.

 

Also, back on January 6, 2000, a story broke in the "Washington Times" (again, largely ignored by the mainstream media) with the headline: "China Breaks Vow, Sends North Korea Missile Technology."

The story went on to reveal how China was supplying materials for North Korea's long-range missile program (despite promises China would  tighten exports of such technology).

 

A Pentagon intelligence report had uncovered the details of the transfer:

 

-In October 1998  China had supplied fiber-optic gyroscopes (guidance tech) to North Korea.

 

-In March, 1999, China sold specialty steel to North Korean for missile frames.

 

-In June 1999  China supplied accelerometers, and special high-tech machinery to North Korean missile manufacturers.
 

If any ONE of the above had been traced back to its original source, Bill Clinton's presidency would have made Nixon look saintly.

 

And if the Chinese scandal on campaign donations had ever reached the FBI (back In '96), Bill Clinton would have not only lost to Dole, he'd have been impeached for "high crimes," instead of his "Monica misdemeanor."

 

So is it any wonder that all Clinton (Krynton) had to do was literally "show up" on Kim Jong's doorstep, and the puny North Korean dictator would at once release the two captured American female journalists?

 

There was no big deal involved; nothing Clinton had relinquished.

 

Without Clinton, Kim Jong knows he'd probably be trying to catch some scrawny rat to eat - working in the dandelion fields north of Pyongyang -instead of a bellowing, ballistic-missile-wielding power broker on the world's stage.

 

It was all because Clinton had sold out his country by transferring military secrets to the Chinese - and then on to Kim Jong.

 

North Korea's selling of missiles to IranSyria and Pakistan is one of the few sources of hard currency enabling Kim to fund his nuclear program - thereby keeping the country from revolting against him.

 

So thanks a lot there, ol' slick Willie Clinton- America will never forget you; especially if North Korea or China ever try a pre-emptive launch of their ballistic missiles, and attack our country -or our satellites- or embroil our country in a nuclear war.

 

Yup - those 90's were sure some great years.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The liberal doctrine of appeasement-- "decrying war for the sake of peace"


QUOTE: "A liberal is one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of education, publicity, politics, economics, business, law and religion, which will bring peace and the maximum of well-being to the greatest number of human beings...Henry Wallace (circa 1953).

Henry Wallace? Does anyone even recall who this ultra-liberal was...or what he did?

Wallace was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933 to 1940, and Vice President from 1941 to 1944, and is basically regarded as little more than a blip on the timeline of American history.

But he is best known as being FDR's most liberal lieutenant-- a man whose determination to "fashion a better world" made him (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith), "second only to Roosevelt as the most important figure of the New Deal."

As you would expect of any idealistic liberal, Wallace bravely championed big-government programs--the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Credit Administration-- and founded the New Deal's version of food stamp and school lunch programs.

Wallace was the Ted Kennedy of his time, and of course, he would have been a shoe-in to become one of Obama's right-hand cronies were he alive today.

During the1930's, Walllace's growing stature as a broad-based liberal caught the eye of FDR, and in the summer of 1940 (after making the decision to run for an unprecedented third term), Roosevelt selected Wallace for the vice-presidency.

But in the summer of 1944, the fate of America took a turn which would affect history down to its very foundations, and altered the course of time in a seminal (and most fortunate) way:

At the '44 democratic convention, bitter wounds remained from the aftermath of Wallace's 1940 nomination, and when it came time for FDR to choose a running mate, he discovered Wallace faced fierce opposition among the democratic party leadership.

Exhausted by war (and not up for a floor fight) Roosevelt offered Wallace only a limited endorsement to the convention, saying that..."he would be glad to run with Senator Harry S. Truman, or Justice William O. Douglas, should they be selected." Wallace's support quickly dissolved, and the VP nomination went to Truman.

In retrospect, we can look back and see it was good ole American regional politics that saved the day for our country, and the Supreme Being had intervened. In April, 1945, Roosevelt collapsed from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Truman became his successor in the Oval office.

Then on August 6, 1945, the B-29 crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it took a second Nagasaki bomb, otherwise the obstinate Japanese would not have stopped the conflict. It was their militaristic culture that would have prevailed over the futility of continuing a hopeless war.

If you were an American serviceman slated to invade Japan in late 1945, the Bomb was the greatest thing on earth. It stopped the Japanese from fighting. It saved countless lives on both sides.

But what if Truman had also been a liberal, and as Wallace put it..."one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of democracy."  What would have been the fate of all those World War II soldiers and sailors back then?

After the bloody capture of Okinawa, the U.S. military began preparations for the greatest invasion that NEVER was-- thank God and President Harry Truman.

Plans for “Operation Downfall" --the invasion of Japan-- called for two massive military operations. The first invasion was code-named “Operation Olympic,” and scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945, to hit the island of Kyushu. The second invasion was scheduled for March 1, 1946, code-named “Operation Coronet,” and would be an attack on the main island of Honshu.

Historians estimate that if the invasion of the Japanese homeland had actually occurred, one million Americans would not have returned back home to mom after the war.

To this day, conservative arguments defending President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb are still raging, as liberals decry the brutality of incinerating over 100,000 Japanese.

EXAMPLE: In Obama's G-20 trip to Europe, he all but went out of his way to apologize for Truman's use of the bomb. And if Truman were alive today, Eric Holder would undoubtedly be threatening hearings for "crimes against humanity."

In the research room collection of published materials in the Harry S. Truman Library, one of the stories in 1995 was titled: “Sailor Had No Qualms About Use of Bomb." In a quote from that sailor, we can see just how fortunate it was that Truman had acted decisively..."To the many thousands of us who were spared, Harry Truman was our savior, and made the right decision."

But what would Henry Wallace have done, if it had been HE that succeeded Roosevelt as president, instead of Truman?

One can only conclude Wallace would have nixed the Bomb as "being unfair" and "in-humane," and the invasion of Japan's homeland would have gone forth, and perhaps cost America more casualties than ALL of our other previous wars combined--and possibly the war would not have ended until 1947.

Even 20 years later, holdout Japanese soldiers were still being discovered on remote Pacific islands, so fanatical was their resistance to their American enemies, and their dedication and willingness to fight to the end.

And in the early 1950's, were it not for the ultra-rightist Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy,  who knows how many more Communist sympathizers could have been organized into a leftist faction, and possibly seized control of the democratic party back then, just as the liberals in Congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no president Kennedy, but instead, a democratic liberal candidate opposing Richard Nixon in the election of 1960.  And had a democratic liberal been in the Whitehouse back then, what would have been the outcome in the Cold War's greatest showdown, the Cuban missile crisis?

What would a weak foreign policy liberal have done against the blustering Soviet bully, Nikita Khruschev, back in Fall of 1962? Would he have sold out America for "peace in our time" (ala Neville Chamberlain)?

Imagine how different American history would have gone if Cuba had become an armed nuclear camp-- 90 miles off the coast of Florida-- were it not for the heroic, iron-willed decisiveness of John F. Kennedy. How would events have gone for America if the Russians had installed nuclear missiles, that were aimed directly down our throats?

In the 70's, ultra-liberal Jimmie Carter may have been a nuclear engineer in the Navy, but the appointment of his college roommate, Stansfield Turner-- who literally destroyed the CIA in 1977-- has had repercussions to this very day, and could trigger the next nuclear attack, possibly in the Mideast.

Also during the 1970's, the U.S. Senate held highly politicized, public hearings on CIA operations. The Senate investigating committee was chaired by Idaho's Frank Church, a liberal Democrat who craved the presidency.

Now lets play what if: What if Church had defeated Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980, and had gone onto defeat Ronald Reagan? What would have been the course for America in the1980's?

Would Church have ordered the bombing of Libya, which removed another possible Muslim terrorist dictator (Moammar Khadaffi) from the world stage? Would Church have ordered the buildup to a 600-ship ocean Navy? Would the Soviets have detected another spineless, treasonous, lily liberal in the Whitehouse like Carter, and chose to escalate--rather than end-- the Cold War?

And what about now, with Mr. Appeaser himself-- Barack O'Carter Obama-- calling our foreign policy shots?

So far, Mr. Obama has a nearly spotless record.

As a polar opposite of John Kennedy, Obama chose to back down to the threat of another Communist dictator-- Kim Jong IL-- in the recent North Korean missile crisis.

All Mr. Obama would need to have done is show a little spine, and simply had Jong's missile blown up on the launch pad. The result? Right along with his missile, Kim Jong's blustery dictatorship may have toppled, and perhaps a less repressive "administration" would've taken over, and ceased the mindless funding of North Korea's military in lieu of feeding the famished population.

Kim Jong has literally starved his hapless country to death-- there are no small animals or birds left in North Korea, because the people have hunted them to virtual extinction, so desperate are they for food.

But our great liberal humanitarian, Barack Obama, chose the Carter-esque, non-confrontational way out, and opted for a strongly-worded UN resolution, to which Kim has reacted by thumbing his nose at America.

Now-- having successfully tested his missile to the third stage-- Kim Jong will be able to sell them to the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly even Chavez and Raul Castro in the Western hemisphere, and could eventually precipitate yet
ANOTHER Cuban missile crisis.

You can always count on liberals to bring upon war, in the name of championing peace. It's called "brinkmanship"-- the same thing Hitler did in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's, Stalin did in Berlin in the late 1940's, and what Krushchev did in the early 60's in Cuba.

All of these events changed the course of world history as a result of either a liberal backing down (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), or a forceful leader standing firm (Truman & Kennedy).

And now, for his next liberal trick, Barack O'Carter will appease the Iranians, who will be thrilled to talk about "peaceful uses" for their nuclear program-- grateful for the opportunity  to keep increasing the number of centrifuges they buy from the Russians-- and will howl behind Obama's back as he grants them the one critical facet to facilitate their nuclear weapon program to completion--TIME.

By "talking" to the Iranians, does our anti-president even realiize he's giving them time? Does Obama understand that Vladimir Putin is the one behind the push for a nuclear Iran, as the Russian economy has collapsed along with the price of oil?

Mr. Putin would be thrilled to witness the outbreak of yet another Mideast war, where Iran launches a missile strike at Israel, and blocks the Strait of Hormuz-- and the price of oil skyrockets as Mideast oil imports cease.

And would Obama then hide in the Whitehouse, as he did recently during the Somali piracy incident? Would he retaliate with a "strongly-worded resolution" against Iran from the UN, and wait for the world "to come together" to stop the fanatical Mamoud Akmidinejad?

Meanwhile, the fate of Israel would hang in the balance; the Russian economy would be 'stimulated' with a wartime price of $200/ barrel oil; the US would be caught flat-footed, and our strategic petroleum reserve would be quickly bled dry.

Now lacking oil, our military would not even be able to sustain itself in the event war was unavoidable.

Throughout history-- whenever liberalism meets fanaticism--- fanaticism wins, and people suffer grievously as a result.

Be it war or any political confrontation, the liberal doctrine (as defined by Henry Wallace) that believes in a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way, ALWAYS invites that very conflict which the liberals seek to avoid.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »