For Us or Against Us?

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is responsible for sorting through the mountains of data mined by 16 intelligence gathering agencies, in order to determine what information gets presented – and how it gets presented – to the president and senior policymakers.  As such, the person who heads the NIC has enormous influence on how well our government is able to defend the nation from its enemies. 

 

What would you think if that person was a man who believes that China’s communist government was justified in its crackdown against freedom demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, during which it murdered one of them by running him over with a tank?  What would you think if he was recently on an advisory board of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, which is owned by the communist government and known for its ties to many of the world’s dictatorships?  What would you think if he had literally worked for the Saudi royals whose nation is the world’s largest exporter of terrorists?  What would you think if he is currently president of an anti-Israel organization that receives the bulk of its funding from the Saudi king?  What would you think if he believes America brought the September 11^th attacks on itself by being allied with Israel?  Would you think that person really believes in America and has her best interests at heart?

 

Well, the above description is the real biography of the man recently named head of the NIC.  His name is Charles Freeman.  His ties to China go back at least as far as 1971, when he served as an interpreter during Richard Nixon’s meetings with its government.  His ties to Saudi Arabia go back at least as far as 1989, when he became U.S. ambassador to that country.

 

The position of NIC Chair does not require Senate confirmation, so it often goes under the radar.  Freeman was named to the post on February 26^th, not by President Obama but by Dennis Blair (director of national intelligence).  Obama can undo it, however, and he should.  If he does not, this country is on a predictable path to disaster – and by extension, so is freedom everywhere.

On a side note:  Notice how you hear virtually nothing in the media about Freeman being tabbed to lead the NIC, but you hear so much about the Obamas buying a swingset and choosing a dog and the president's hair starting to turn gray?

Decision 2008: National Defense

National defense is far and away the most important responsibility of the federal government. A case can even be made that it is the only reason we have a federal government, since other public responsibilities are best understood and handled at the state and local levels. And when it comes to national defense, John McCain is so much stronger than Barack Obama that there's almost no point writing about it.

McCain has always been a proponent of a strong military used intelligently to protect America and defend freedom against violent despotism. Just as important, when it comes to identifying violent despotism, McCain does so.

On the other hand, Barack Obama dwells in the mush-minded world of moral equivalence. When international acts of violence occur, such as Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, he instinctively responds by saying that both sides are to blame and by refusing to name the aggressor.

But most chillingly, Obama wants to weaken our national defenses against the rest of the world. Think I'm a paranoid fear-monger? Well, Obama himself is on video saying the following: “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.”

Like the double-talking politician that he is, he uses Clintonian adjectives in the hope that he can use them to deflect criticism — like employing the phrase "unproven missile defense systems" because he knows many voters won't bother to realize that every missile defense system is unproven until it receives the "investment" of expensive and lengthy research and development.

And consider everything else Obama says in the above quote:

He depicts the simple fact that we may use our ICBM's to respond to aggression by depicting those ICBM's as being on "hair-trigger alert."

He says he will not "weaponize space," but declines to point out that other nations, especially China, are already doing that and will most certainly continue.

He says he will "slow our development of future combat systems" and "will not develop new nuclear weapons systems" — ignoring the fact that our enemies are constantly speeding up their development of new weaponry, including new nuclear weaponry.

He says he will "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons" and "seek a global ban on the production of fissile material," but he declines to acknowledge that there is no way in hell despotic regimes will ever go along. His comment about negotiating with Russia is similar in that he seems oblivious to the fact that Russia never lives up to its end of any deal it negotiates.

Obama's proposed course of action is inherently dangerous, predictably disastrous, and completely irresponsible. And if that weren't enough, his stated goals will never be attainable so long as human beings are human beings.

Like Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb." When it comes to the most important duty any president will ever face, Barack Obama is either stupid or naive, or perhaps he really doesn't think that American ideals are worth the cost and energy required to defend them. Any one of those automatically disqualifies him from the presidency, even if he were the stronger candidate on every other issue.