The beacon of hope and freedom dims under the Obama administration

That’s the conclusion one easily comes to when they read something like this:

ChenGuangchengIn a series of dramatically conflicting developments on Wednesday, the Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng left American custody under disputed circumstances, and what briefly looked like a deft diplomatic achievement for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton turned into a potential debacle.

Mr. Chen, who was inside the American Embassy compound here for six days as the Chinese and American governments negotiated over his fate, left Wednesday afternoon in a deal that American officials hailed as a breakthrough because it would fulfill his wish to live safely in China.

But even as Americans were releasing photographs of a celebratory send-off of Mr. Chen from the embassy, his friends questioned the reliability of any Chinese promises to allow him to live openly in China, and Mr. Chen later said his decision to give up American protection had not been fully voluntary.

In a telephone interview Thursday morning from his bed at Chaoyang Hospital here, where he was receiving treatment as part of the deal between the Americans and Chinese, Mr. Chen, a lawyer who is blind, said he had left the embassy on his own volition after the Chinese government guaranteed that his rights would be protected. But he also said he had felt some pressure because he was told that Chinese officials had threatened to beat his wife to death if he remained under American protection.

Asked if American officials had encouraged him to leave, he said, “To a certain degree.” While he was treated well there, he said, “the U.S. government was not proactive enough.”

He said American officials contacted him Thursday morning and said they would visit later in the day.
Mr. Chen said he wanted to leave China, preferably for the United States, because “guaranteeing citizens’ rights in China is empty talk,” an assertion that sharply undermines the American rationale for releasing him from diplomatic protection.

“My safety and my family’s safety are not guaranteed even now,” he said. “Their promises have not been fulfilled.”

This is the second time in 3 months that a Chinese asylum seeker has not been helped (as I covered in an update to a post put up yesterday morning):

The office of Vice President Joe Biden overruled State and Justice Department officials in denying the political asylum request of a senior Chinese communist officiallast February over fears the high-level defection would upset the U.S. visit of China’s vice president, according to U.S. officials.

The defector, Wang Lijun, was turned away after 30 hours inside the U.S. Consulate Chengdu and given over to China’s Ministry of State Security, the political police and intelligence service.

Wang has not been seen since Feb. 7 and remains under investigation. His attempt to flee China set off a major power struggle within the ruling Communist Party and led to the ouster of leftist Politburo member Bo Xilai and the arrest of his wife on murder charges.

Sad times for those looking to the United States as they seek freedom.

Sadder still if Obama is re-elected in November.

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 3, 2012.
Filed under China, Obama Weakness.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • Commander_Chico

    The Chinese own the USA now, what do you expect?

    • Brian_The_Adequate

      Unfortunately correct as long as we refuse to bring our deficit under control.

      • jim_m

         And obama is only too willing to make our enslavement to the Chinese even more difficult to escape.  But don’t worry Chico will be certain to cast his vote in November in any way he can ensure that obama does not lose.

        • Commander_Chico

          As the representative of bondholders, offshore companies and slave-drivers, Romney will be just as in thrall to China.

          • jim_m

             The question is whether or not he will make the bondage worse.  obama certainly will. 

  • Hank_M

    This would never have occurred under a W administration, or any Republican president.

    • Commander_Chico

      Dream on.  Money talks,”human rights” BS walks.

  • Guest

    I’m always amazed at the extent to which conservatives fail to grasp the nuanced dance of diplomacy.

    Maybe it has something to do with driving a pickup truck with a gun rack in the back window. To conservative right wing nuts, a gun rack in the back window is all the “diplomacy” one needs.

    • GarandFan

       Yeah.  Too bad Neville Chamberlain didn’t have one.  Would have saved several million lives.

      • Guest

        Well, you saw what happened. Romney jumped all over Obama for “not protecting freedom” — of course, this was when he only had half the facts.

        Usually, half the facts are enough to hang half-assed half-wits like Romney on their own petard, and that happened here. 

        Who dealt the blow? The GOP’s own Bill Kristol.

        In the meantime, Mitt Romney seems eager to condemn U.S. efforts in this case, a move even Bill Kristol found foolish.
        “To inject yourself into the middle of this way with a fast moving
        target I think is foolish,” Kristol told Fox News, adding, “There is no
        need to butt into a fast moving story when the secretary of state is in
        Beijing with delicate negotiations.”

        Gun rack diplomacy mentality from the right has Six Gun Rmeny firing off his loud mouth, and ending up looking like a real ass.

        • GarandFan

          When ya got nothing, baffle em with bullshit.  Right?

          Of course there was nothing wrong with Nancy-poo interjecting herself into foreign policy.  Right?

          Or Splash Kennedy talking to the Soviets behind the president’s back.  Right?

    • Brian_The_Adequate

      Yeah, if you are a good liberal you have no need to worry about all those icky principles and morals.  A good liberal knows that freedom of concious should be thrown under the bus if worrying about it would be inconvenient. 

      Besides it is just one whiney dude that can’t see that Communism is a good thing.  Really if he would just shut up and listen to his betters like a good worker, there would be no need to threaten his wife. 

    • LiberalNitemare

      It’s only a naunced dance if your name isn’t Chen. For him, its not very naunced at all.

      Chen and his family are probably going to die for the crime of believing that the USA would help them.

      I wonder if Obama will be so quick to claim credit this time?

      • jim_m

         obama is doing Chen a favor.  The sooner he can finish his “reeducation” the sooner the torture will stop. 

    • iwogisdead

      Yes, and Obumble has two left feet in that “nuanced dance.” Take, for instance, how he has dealt with England. Quite a diplomat, our Obumble. 

    • retired.military

      Better than kissing someone’s ass and then taking it up yours which the liberals dont seem to mind at all.

      • Guest

        I’ll trust your experience in the matter as to which is better.

        And I think it’s very brave of you to come out of the closet to let us know your preferences. It must have been tough for you during “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

        • retired.military

          Nice try chickenshit.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Musgrove/100000620620015 Doc Musgrove

      No, a gun rack in the back window full of rifles is all the diplomacy one needs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Musgrove/100000620620015 Doc Musgrove

      ..and as far as your “nuanced dance of diplomacy”, you and obumbles wearing pointy shoes and tutus, while providing comic relief for your communist/socialist friends, has done nothing but result in increased threats from China as well as threats by the Russians to attack our missile bases overseas.   

  • PBunyan

    Not only do the Chinese not own us (sorry Chico), but they need us way more than we need them.  However, anyone who is surprised by the actions of the Obama regime is simply not paying attention.  Obama always sides with the Communists– always has, always will.

    • jim_m

       There is some truth to that because if we default on the debt they are screwed.  Not only because the money they loaned us is gone, but because if our economy really tanks they have no where to sell all the crap they are manufacturing.

    • ackwired

      They need us.  But I don’t think they need us more than we need them.  They are building a middle class to replace us as their number one customer.  Our need to borrow does not appear close to being resolved.  The D’s will not step up and take responsiblility to cut entitlements.  The R’s will not step up and take responsibility to cut miltiary spending and pay for the government they want.  Rather than discuss the problem and look for solutions both sides just blame the other and look for ways to demonize them. 

      II looks like this will continue until our economy starts to collapse.

      • jim_m

         We have closed bases and reduced military spending a lot over the last 20+ years.  Sure there is the ability to do more, but entitlements have done nothing but grown and the dems play this game of “We have to fix this crisis NOW!!!” when the GOP is in office and “There is no crisis, the GOP are a bunch of fear mongers!” when the dems are in office.

        The dems are deeply unserious about entitlement reform.  They understand that entitlements are what they can do to buy votes.  We have already heard from dems in Congress that if people who are unemployed want benefits they must vote for the dems this fall.  Hook the people on government aid and then threaten to remove it if they don’t support you.  Tar and feathers would be far too kind for these people.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          We’ve reduced miltary spending?  How’s that $1.5 trillion dollar plane working out?

          • Hank_M

             “How’s that $1.5 trillion dollar plane working out?”

            About as well as  the 82 federal programs we have to improve teacher quality; 80 federal programs to help disadvantaged people
            with transportation; 47 federal programs for job training and employment; and 56 federal programs to help people
            understand finance.

            But back to the plane….ironically enough, this one can be blamed on the democrats, Bill Clinton to be more precise.
            Amazing, isn’t it? However, in the interests of fairness, McCain supports the plane also.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            [citation needed]

          • Hank_M

            The link for the fed agencies which I had bookmarked a while ago. Figured when confronted with the question of what exactly to cut from the budget, this was a good start.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

            And for the plane….

            http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,0

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Dont’ forget to demand citations of Jay from now on whenever he asserts something.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            I already do my own citations Rodney.  Pay attention.

          • jim_m

             More evidence of how unserious the left is about entitlement reform. They won’t even address it as an issue.  It is a non-issue for them.  Entitlement reform is what they promise to do after everyone else has given them everything they want.  Of course, once the left has everything it wants, it won’t have to give on entitlement reform because it will be using entitlements as a weapon against their political enemies.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Jim, I ask one question and you move to some other topic.  It’s so great that you can’t even handle a logical debate without moving the goalposts.

          • jim_m

             I didn’t move to another topic.  I pointed out how your response was evidence of what I was saying.  Don’t blame me if you are too dense to figure that out.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You didn’t answer the question at all. Here’s the plane.   The issue is about how entitled Boeing is in giving us a plane that knocks out our pilots, over priced, over budget, and doesn’t work at all.  And what’s the returns to the military for this?  Not a damn thing.  The US pays for the plane that Canada, Saudi Arabia and other countries will use once all the bugs are fixed.  You can’t even stay on topic just push more idiotic rhetoric that makes you incredibly stupid.

        • ackwired

          This is the problem I was pointing out.  R’s demonize D’s for not taking responsiblility and D’s demonize R’s for not taking responsibility.  Concerning military spending, a 40% cut would put military spending at approximately the level it was in the last balanced budget (2000).  We still have over 700 bases overseas.  We spend about the same amount on military as the rest of the world combined. 

          It’s time for the R’s and D’s to step up.

          • jim_m

             The issue, as I addressed it is that we have cut military spending.  We have reduced bases and infrastructure.  We have done zero, zip, zilch for entitlements.  The left forbids it.  It isn’t a question of how much we spend compared to someone else, it is a question of where the greatest opportunity lies and where the greatest danger lies.  Entitlements are far more of Federal spending than the military. 

            The greatest opportunity to reduce spending is where the most money is spent.  The greatest risk to financial solvency is where the spending is most out of control (entitlements, seeing as the future demand for spending increases beyond our ability to pay for it.  The same cannot be said of military spending.)

            The left is focused on the military for ideological reasons and refuses to look at entitlements for ideological reasons.  The left needs to get over themselves and their 1930′s ideology and get back to the real world and look at cutting and reforming entitlements.

          • ackwired

            I think you have been given some bad information.  Here is how the spending breaks down.  Categories for which we spend more than 200 billion are:

            MIlitary…….902.2
            Health Care..846.1
            Pensions….819.7
            Welfare….451.9
            Interest….224.8

            Obviously both the R’s and D’s have not taken responsibility and need to take responsibility.  Cuts need to be made in Entitlements and Military spending and taxes need to be raised to pay for the government.

          • ackwired
          • jim_m

             So entitlements are more than twice military spending and part of the military budget you list is actually foreign aid.  You are still taking the BS lefty stand that we should focus on the smaller opportunity because you are ideologically blind.

          • ackwired

            Me and Simpson Bowles, David Walker, The Peterson Project and every other non-ideological expert to comment on the problem.

          • jim_m

             I assume you mean the Peterson Foundation and not the Blues Trio.

            So you are claiming that none of these believe that entitlements need to be addressed?  I seriously doubt that.  I am not saying that further savings cannot be had out of defense spending, but that greater gains can be made by reforming entitlements.

            I notice that you do not deny this, but you cling bitterly to your opposition to defense spending on basically ideological grounds.

          • ackwired

            If you read my posts you will notice that I favor cuts to ENTITLEMENTS cuts to military spending and incrases in taxes.  I don’t know why I post this.  I’m sure you will just ignore it again and assign me any view that you want to argue against.

          • jim_m

            Then why do you argue that cutting the military is more important? It represents a smaller target, has already been focused on extensively, does not have a major predictable increase coming if nothing is done…

            My point is that you focus on the military and are saying very little about entitlement reform.  When entitlements are brought up you say we need to cut military spending .  It creates the appearance that you really aren’t interested in doing anything but paying lip service to entitlement reform.

          • ackwired

            I didn’t. 

  • jim_m

     Frankly, I have to think that this is less about how much the US owes the Chinese and more about how a dem administration does not believe that anyone can be oppressed under a communist regime and anyone opposing it deserves what they get.

  • LiberalNitemare

    Another “tough gutsy call” from our glorious leader.