ARRA News Service - BlogRadio Page  

ARRA News Service - by Jeff Jacoby, The Patriot Post: Barack Obama had ample reason to recall the Berlin Airlift of 1948 during his dramatic speech in the German capital last week. The airlift was an early and critical success for the West in the Cold War, with clear relevance to our own time, the war in Iraq, and the free world’s conflict with radical Islam. But having reached back 60 years to that pivotal hour of American leadership, Obama proceeded to draw from it exactly the wrong lessons.

The Soviet Union had blockaded western Berlin on June 24, 1948, choking off access to the city by land and water and threatening 2.5 million people with starvation. Moscow was determined to force the United States and its allies out of Berlin. To capitulate to Soviet pressure, as Obama rightly noted, ‘would have allowed Communism to march across Europe.’ Yet many in the West advocated retreat, fearing that the only way to keep the city open was to use the atomic bomb—and launch World War III. For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. ‘We stay in Berlin, period,’ he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers... Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air. Military planners initially thought that with a ‘very big operation,’ they might be able to get 700 tons of food to Berlin. Within weeks, the Air Force was flying in twice that amount every day, as well as supplies of coal. ... It would take nearly a year and more than 277,000 flights. But in the end it was the Soviets who backed down. On May 12, 1949, the blockade ended—a triumph of American prowess and perseverance, and a momentous vindication for Truman.

But not once in his Berlin speech did Obama acknowledge Truman’s fortitude, or even mention his name. Nor did he mention the US Air Force, or the 31 American pilots who died during the airlift. Indeed, Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America’s military might. Save for a solitary reference to ‘the first American plane,’ he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of ‘the airlift,’ ‘the planes,’ ‘those pilots.’ Perhaps their American identity wasn’t something he cared to stress amid all his ‘people of the world’ salutations and talk of ‘global citizenship.’... Sixty years later, it is a very different kind of Democrat who is running for president. Obama may have wowed ‘em in Berlin, but he’s no Harry Truman.” [Full article: Missing From That Berlin Speech]

ARRA News Service - Who do You Want As the Next Commnder-in-Chief in the Oval Office handling the Russian threat? Brietbart reporting on the confirmation hearing of General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff quoted General Schwartz response to the question, "what he would recommend if Russia were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba." The question was based on the a news report by Iszvestia on Monday which quoted "an unnamed senior Russian air force official in Moscow as saying that Russia may start regular flights by long-range bombers to Cuba in response to US plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe." General Schwartz said that Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba." [Read - US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba] For those too young to remember, Google "The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis" and learn about the event that brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of war.

Bill Smith, Editor: Remember Dan Quayle and the alleged gaffe over misspelling the word potato which later proved to be an alternative correct spelling of the word. The news media hounded Quayle to the ground. Over the years the only conclusion I could find for the intensity of the main stream media is that Quayle was not a liberal. After suffering through the election losses of liberals Al Gore and John Kerry, the "main media" networks (the ones existeing before Fox) have identified their problem. They reported too much truth about their former liberal boys. This year they seem to be wearing 'duck tape" over their months and to have locked down their "keyboards" when it comes to reporting truth about stupid comments, errors or flop-flops made by Barack Obama. They are following the new liberal craze of speaking no ill of the Obamassiah.

Obama has continually tripped over his tongue in expressing facts and ideas and perfroming flip-flops on issues. Now, consider the latest Obama gaffe that will not be "jumped on" by the main stream media. They are not going to ridicule and insult Obama as they did Quayle. Even though the spelling potato had nothing to do with being president, it was reported and reported and reported. However, Obama's latest gaffe has everything to do with understanding the constitution and the presidency -- consider the gaffe!

H/T The Pink Flamingo for the following comments:

. . . well, it's just another day and another dumb to dumber remark.

"...Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years..."

Yes, you read this correctly. Barack Obama is planning on being in office for at least eight to ten years. Jack Tapper's blog picked up this latest Obamassiah gaffe. I would like to remind Pink Flamingo readers that Barack Obama was allegedly the editor of the Harvard Law Review. As such, he should be even remotely familiar with a little ditty called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's get this, he is an attorney, former head of the Harvard Law Review and is a sitting senator. He Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years and was a lecturer for four years for 12 years. We can conclude that the news media should have grasped that Obama should have known the fundamental fact that a President of the United States serves no more than eight (8) years. But after noting many of his other statements and proposal, one should ask if he plans to be around as "leader" more than eight (8) years.

To name just two proposals, Obama advocates the creation of a government funded and controlled Civilian National Security Forces equalling the US Military. Obama's Global Poverty Tax Bill has passed the House and Senate Committees and waiting for a vote in the Senate . The bill would subject the United States to UN provisions including banning “small arms and light weapons.” Obama has said he would disarm America with respect to our nuclear defense missiles and would stop actions for a protective missile defense shield. All these actions and many more should be flags to a "free press." Why aren't they red flags? As stated before, the liberal news media wants to elect a liberal president. The value of a "free press" like all of our other personal freedoms is does not appear to be their concern.

"Senator Obama should not get even one vote from anyone who cares about the sanctity of life and who believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman!" - Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families
-------------
ARRA News Service - Guest Editorial by Gene McCoy: What constitutes the most important issue is debated during every election cycle. Among those most commonly suggested are the economy, immigration and the war on terror.

Albert Schweitzer said, “If a man loses reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all life.” A candidate’s position on the sanctity of human life measures integrity, principle, trustworthiness, character, and godliness more than any other issue. If you want to know the candidate’s soul and the validity of his / her claim to know and love God, probe the strength of his / her stance regarding the sanctity of human life. This will also reveal the sincerity of any claim to be compassionate toward the poor and needy and the motive underlying their position. Is it really out of genuine concern for the individual and the country? Or is their true motive to simply gain power and influence? Is it principle or politics?

Most candidates claim to be Christians and will make reference to the Bible and affirm their reverence for God. The Bible says God created all that is (Gen. 1:1) and that man is distinctly superior to all other creatures (Gen. 2:7). God recognizes viability and personhood before birth (Ps. 139:13-16). God not only knows each person before birth (Jer. 1:5), but He has a purpose for each (Is. 49:1, 5; Gal. 1:15-16).

Taking human life is a capital offense (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17). The only exception ordained by God, other than self-defense, is the execution of evildoers (e.g., murderers), and that only by government (Rom. 13:4). God requires us to defend the innocent and protect the defenseless (Ps. 82:3-4; Prov. 12:6; 31:8-9). We must not give consent of power to candidates who favor legislation that violates these Biblical values and principles.

The likelihood that two pieces of such legislation will be enacted depends upon the person who next occupies the White House. One is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) , which would nullify the ban of partial-birth abortion and reverse virtually all laws that protect the unborn. Another related issue is the Equal Rights Amendment. This would have sweeping implications on abortion laws, resulting in the continued slaughter of the innocents.

The Declaration of Independence states that we have not only the right, but the duty to remove or prevent a government that does not promote and protect the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To fail in this is not only to jeopardize our liberty and to become subject to godless despots, but also to forfeit the blessing of Almighty God. The Declaration of Independence states the fact that government derives power from the consent of the governed. The Christian citizen must recognize and reject any candidate who does not honor the government’s role as it pertains to preserving our unalienable right to life.

Any candidate who favors the taking of innocent life (e.g., the unborn, the sick and infirm, etc.) and the preservation of a capital offender’s life is not only self-contradictory but also rebelling against God. We cannot honor God by giving government the power to destroy human life! Your consent is given at the ballot box. Voting for a presidential or congressional candidate who can justify the taking of any human life apart from capital punishment and self-defense is consenting to government sanctioned murder.
--------------
Gene McCoy is an active advocate for life. He is the past-president of the Baxter County Right to Life and is a preacher at Memorial Christian Church in Mtn Home, Arkansas. See also: An online comparison of the presidential candidates’ positions on life issues.