Palestinian terrorists have fired scores of missiles into the state of Israel since the beginning of the year. There is only one reason news broadca
Palestinian terrorists have fired scores of missiles into the state of Israel since the beginning of the year. There is only one reason news broadcasts have not been replete with scores of Jewish victims’ funerals in the Holy Land: the Iron Dome. That’s Israel’s version of the anti-missile defensive shield that rational Americans have been touting ever since Ronald Reagan was president.
Those of us who were politically active in those halcyon Reagan days remember the visage of Gen. Daniel Graham, one of the early proponents of the idea that we could foil our enemies’ attack through superior technology, traipsing through the halls of Congress pushing our elected officials to fund development of this vital defense program. Graham was a tireless proponent of the missile shield, but alas, did not live to see it built. So far, neither have we. As soon as the idea was proposed, liberals attacked the plan, traducing it as “Star Wars.”
For the next 25 years, those who wish to defend our nation and our allies against nuclear blackmail have been locked in battle with those who feel it is somehow offensive and insulting to the world community for America to defend itself.
The spurious thinking of missile-shield opponents is that those who have the missiles that can destroy our cities – such as Russia – would feel threatened if we had a missile shield, that somehow, with a missile shield, we would be more likely to launch missiles at them. Thus, we should leave ourselves undefended so as not to insult those who are most capable to attack, allowing these same nations and others a clear nuclear shot at our populations. Only from Washington, D.C., can such insanity emanate.
Until this week, liberal felo-de-se policy has relied on negotiating our defenses away to get some pointless agreement with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. It’s pointless because, unless one gets an enforceable agreement with every party on earth who has nuclear missiles – or could have nuclear missiles – lowering our shields would do nothing more than encourage some other aggressor, palpitating with anti-American rage and waiting for the chance to strike. Such a regime currently exists on the landmass once occupied by the Persian Empire.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his band of loony cutthroats have not only been sprinting to acquire a nuclear warhead to strike at Israel; they have also been testing missiles that fly 6,500 miles. Guess which Great Satan lies within 6,500 of Iran? Need a hint? Washington, D.C., is 6,340 miles from Tehran. New York is 6,131 miles. Fortunately, Hollywood and San Francisco still seem safe from these guys.
Until this week, we thought our fearless leader, President Obama, was merely planning to trade away our missile-defense shield for marginal reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal. Then came the incident of the open microphone.
Into an open mic, a temerarious Obama promised the ersatz president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, that, after the November presidential elections, he would have more “flexibility” in dealing with that pesky missile shield that so offends the Russians and their clients. Even Obama’s allies seemed stunned that he would so recklessly let the cat out of the bag, and give credence to Republican warnings about a second Obama term in office.
Sentient citizens must be wondering what the president has in store for us if he is secretly assuring corrupt anti-American regimes with missiles pointed at our cities that he will give them what they want once he can get through his last election. What other promises is he making and keeping secret from the voters? What has he promised the unions? What has he promised the Occupy movement? What about Cuba? Iran? The possibilities are endless and frightening.
Based on the radical agenda of his first term, the very notion that Obama would be unleashed, never having to face voters again, should scare America straight. Obama should compile Electoral College totals reminiscent of Walter Mondale: 13 total votes. Jimmy Carter’s vice president carried only his home state of Minnesota – and barely at that, by only 3,761 votes. With his promises to Medvedev, the only voters willing to return him to the White House should be those who reside in the suburbs of Moscow. But, sadly, there are plenty of dupes on this side of the Atlantic to ensure the race runs close.
Actually, given his past difficulties with hot mics, political parlance for enabled microphones, it’s pretty shocking that the president was not more careful. It was not too long ago that he was caught in flagrante delicto impugning the reputation of Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of our only consistent Middle Eastern ally, Israel. Republicans are not immune to the open-mic problem, either. In the midst of his re-election campaign of 1984, Ronald Reagan was caught joking into an open mic, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
Wouldn’t it be a great country again if no one had to point out the fact that Reagan’s open-mic communication defined the then-Soviet Union as our enemy; whereas Obama’s open-mic persiflage hints that he intends to let their successors continue to hold a knife to our throats?