Obama Helps One Chinese Activist While a Billion Still Suffer

Bookmark and Share  The Obama administration had a hand  in assisting the blind Chinese lawyer- Chen Guangchen escape from the ‘motherland’ – China.  For Obama and crew the decision to help the self educated lawyer was a delicate one. After all, Mr Chen was under house arrest for the ‘crime’ of exposing the fact that communist officials in China actively sterilize people and force women to undergo late-term abortions. The problem for Obama was that if the US were to help, then the US would be taking a stand against China’s brutal regime.

The background is that Chen was under house arrest for ‘crimes against the state’- a euphamism for ‘telling the truth in China. While unconstitutional, the practice of  house arrest is quite common in China. The communist party, however, does not like to air their dirty laundry, as it were.

For the communists, a man like Chen was problematic, and needed to be stifled. But then again he was problematic for the US as well. How could the US leaders help such a person? How could Obama actually take a stand against the leaders of China?  Would it have been possible for Obama to do something as simple as say, “Hey Mr. communist leader, don’t you think you should slow down the abuse of your people?”

But of course Obama cannot or will not do this.

The reason is that in China the human offenses typically spring from members of the ruling communist party.  Calling into question such a thing as the sanctity of freedom and life is akin to an attack on the ruling class in the PRC.  Highlighting such abuses would cause the communists to ‘lose face’.

Another problem is Washington’s hypocritical stance on human rights abuses and China. Washington can castigate the Chinese and call for change, but in reality this is all bluster. For instance, how would Obama feel about decrying China’s abuses after his  cheerful meetings with Hu Jintao- aka the ‘Butcher’. Yes, Mr. Hu, China’s President and leader of the communist party obtained the moniker ‘the butcher’, for his  reign of terror on Tibet. Here is a quote from the book –Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama is Hastening America’s Decline and Ushering A Century of Chinese Domination-Decker and Triplett II

“Hu Jintao, the current general secretary of the Communist Party…the president of the People’s Republic, has a lot of Tibetan blood on his hands. In March 1989, Hu declared martial law and ordered PLA troops to fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters led by shaved-headed, Saffron-robed monks. As many as 700 innocents were killed for marching in what would be considered a normal assembly…in Washington, D.C. “

Would Washington lose credibility by decrying China’s deplorable abuse of its citizens while at the same time currying favor with a man known for ordering the death of innocent monks?

Perhaps I am selling Mr Obama short, for when confronted with a person such as Mr Hu, Obama knew that any discourse on helping mankind would fall on deaf ears.

Or maybe it is  poor statesmanship to call out the failings of a country in front of its leader, I am sure that Germany in the late 30’s would not have stood for such a thing.  But I digress….

The truth is that Obama and company would like to laud the fact that it was they who freed this one man from the terrors he had faced. And sure enough, that action was admirable. But my question is if that was enough.

It was recently reported that communist officials in China forced women in late term pregnancies to abort their unborn children. And this is only the tip of the icebergy. China regularly enslaves the mentally handicapped and forces them to work in brick kilns, while shackeled to machinery. The communists are known to harvest organs from live prisoners and religious practitioners. Aside from this, members of the commuinst party have been active in the buying and selling of stolen babies. But what should we expect from a country whose two Nobel Peace Prize winners, are either in exile or in a Chinese prison?

The question I have for Mr Obama and the  rest of us is – Was it enough to help that one man when there are still over one billion left behind?

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann, Lincoln Agree: Founders Opposed Slavery

George Stephanopolous probably thinks he’s a pretty smart guy.  At least he didn’t call Michelle Bachmann a flake.  But his attack on her facts about our founders just might backfire against his own credibility.

For most, it really is no secret that many of our founding fathers did oppose slavery.  Even the ones who owned slaves saw it as more of a necessary evil.  To borrow from Hillary Clinton, who said this about abortion, they believed it was “horrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal”.  They understood though, that if they tried to fight the revolutionary war and civil war at the same time, they would lose both.  Still, they did fight to end slavery, even if only laying the groundwork for it’s final elimination.

John McCormack, writing in the Weekly Standard, is now demonstrating that Abraham Lincoln believed the same thing as Michelle Bachmann about our founder’s work to end slavery.  He used that argument in his own speeches against slavery.

From the article:

“The Founders put slavery on the path to ultimate extinction, Abraham Lincoln said. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 threatened to bring about slavery’s resurgence by opening up new territories to slaveowning. In 1854, Lincoln made this argument in a series of speeches on behalf of candidates opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. “In these addresses Lincoln set forth the themes that he would carry into the presidency six years later,” writes Princeton’s James M. McPherson in the Battle Cry of Freedom. McPherson summarizes Lincoln’s argument:

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution, but referred only to “persons held to service.” “Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution,” said Lincoln, “just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.” The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

Here’s what Lincoln said of the Founding Fathers in his 1854 Peoria speech:

The argument of “Necessity” was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory—-the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade—-that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory—-this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries—-as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808—-the very first day the constitution would permit—-prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

In Lincoln’s famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution’s framers—George Washington—signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly….””

 

%d bloggers like this: