The Truth Today is Very Popular – How About some Diplomatic Truth? Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, and Taiwan is not Part of China, and is Independent and Democratic!

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended the historical connection of 3,000 years between Jerusalem and Israel dating back to King David did not exist. The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act of allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace.

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended that the historical separation since 1895 between China and Taiwan did not exist, and has been willing to pretend Taiwan is part of China, for “diplomatic purposes” (read this as “greed”). The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace, and has allowed China to grow in belligerence and hegemony, threatening the world with totalitarianism, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Previous international policy on the Palestinians has failed miserably. In 1995, Congress passed the Embassy Act directing the US embassy be moved to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. President Clinton failed to sign the law, and it went into effect without his signature, his having failed to return it to Congress during the permitted time. However, Clinton, Bush and Obama all suspended the law for the past 25 years. Now, President Trump has actually complied with the law, saying out loud what has been true for 3,000 years.

Let the Palestinians and the rest of the world face the truth, the fact that Jerusalem and Israel are inextricably connected as they have been since King David declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel around 1,000 B.C. Appeasement has no chance of success, and hopefully the days of appeasing the Palestinians is over. Threatening violence in the middle-east because of this decision is nonsense. It is already burning in chaos with internecine conflict between Shia and Sunni, and many other peoples and sects clamoring for influence, territory and wealth for greedy leaders. Israel has nothing to do with this never-ending conflagration. All Israel ever did was turn a desert into an oasis, something the Palestinians should take note of, if they could put down their AK-47s, suicide belts and bombs, and Jew-hating long enough.

Let the world start acknowledging the truth that the Emperor Xi is naked, that he has no new clothes, that this is the truth, and that Taiwan is a free, independent, democratic nation of peace.

I hope today is the first day of the rest of our lives accepting the truth in diplomacy instead of decades of diplomatic lies and appeasement of evil. Let’s hope the American President’s fulfillment of his promise to the people of Israel is the beginning of “telling it like it is” and starting to get things done in solving the world’s worst conflicts. After the past 8 years of Obama’s polite appeasement and giving evil a pass in the name of false “peace”, it took less than 11 months and a little New York chutzpah to move America in the right direction. I hope it is just the beginning, and that China is next on the list to get a wake up call to something called “the truth”.

Opposition to Legislation Against Israel on the Spurious Grounds of Violating Palestinian Children’s Human Rights – Pro-Palestinian Groups using Palestinian Kids as “Human Shields”

This is an email I just sent to Betty McCollum, Congresswoman for the 4th District in Minnesota after learning of her sponsorship of a bill entitled Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act.  It seems the BDS lobby is now using Palestinian kids as human shields to try to hide the malice in the Palestinian campaign to end Israel and Jews. It is embarrassing there are actually people in Congress who have bought this ruse.

1. I am appalled at your bill regarding Israel.

2. A child aged 8 walks into a department store in downtown St. Paul wearing a suicide bomb vest. What should you do? After the child is tackled to the ground by an heroic officer, and apprehended before the vest can be detonated, what to do with the child? Catch and release? Release to parents (who armed the child in the first place, or failed to stop Uncle X from teaching the child to kill)? Detain the child pending further investigation? How about if the story is about thousands of child/teen bombers over a longer time period?

3. Instead of focusing on a tiny nation fighting against a billion adversaries all religiously committed to exterminating them and all Jews worldwide, how about focusing on the brainwashing in Palestinian schools? How about preventing a child from taking part in terrorism by halting aid to a regime that indoctrinates its children with the notion that suicide bombing Jews is the highest achievement they can attain, and that all Jews must be killed? This is the basic curriculum in Palestinian schools. Not be a doctor. Not be a lawyer. Not be an artist. Not be a scientist. Be a terrorist, be a Jew killer.

4. There are hundreds of millions of children suffering around the world, many many many many of them suffering at the hands of Islamic societies using them as child soldiers or as child brides or as slaves. And yet, you focus on Israel, the only true democracy in the region, a nation of around 8 million people, not on the 1.5 billion in Arab nations surrounding it eager to kill every Jew alive. Imagine, if only the region were focused on actually educating their children instead of indoctrinating them to murder? Golda Meir said “Peace? There will be no peace until the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” She said that 60 years ago. It is still completely true today. By the way. The doctrine for Israel is “Never again.” I wonder. Have you ever visited Dachau? Auschwitz? Buchenwald? If you haven’t been to a concentration camp, you cannot viscerally understand what Israel is dealing with.

5. Palestinians always have had the opportunity for normalcy. But having been chosen by the Arab world as cannon fodder, they have decided to torture their people to try to destroy Israel. Congratulations for buying into the lie that Israel is persecuting Palestinians. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the Palestinians and used there to pay terrorists’ families when they have murdered Jewish children, or to build bombs, or tunnels, not build schools, hospitals or commercial enterprises. Israel created an oasis out of a desert. The Palestinians have turned an oasis into a desert. Go figure.

6. My fervent hope is that this legislation dies an ignominious death in some Committee somewhere. However, given the recent insanity gripping my Democratic Party, I am not sure of the support. Imagine having to turn to Republicans for common sense. What a strange and twisted thing liberalism has become. You were among a group who sponsored the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 – are  you really going to conflate the Holocaust with Palestinians opposed to Israel’s battle for survival against all adversaries determined to kill all Jews? Perhaps you believe that Hamas is a charitable organization?

The Pyongyang Shuffle Redux

The Chinese Communist Party’s strategy of playing the White House and the EU for suckers is in full swing with attempts to resume the six-way talks with North Korea once again, only this time after North Korea violated every single other agreement, developed long range missiles and a hydrogen bomb all because Obama and the West did nothing about it, except take away Kim Junior’s allowance. This was Obama’s solution to every single international problem (sanctions, or lifting them) and I can’t think of a single example of it working, and in fact it made each situation worse (Russia with Crimea, Ukraine, or Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, etc.) because it left the actions with little downside and emboldened each horrible regime to double down on infamy.

We imagine Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is on his way to North Korea, riding the secret train, and right now we are back in the midst of the Pyongyang Shuffle Redux, a dance choreographed by the CCP and Kim Jong-il, and now Kim Jong-un, which has been the number one hit in China and North Korea for the past 20+ years.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the two “leaders” meet (Li has been diminished as Xi has been elevated, and Kim Junior leads by exterminating all perceived enemies, it seems, including family members).

Kim: (to Li, while watching some old Elvis movies): “Congratulations on sixty-eight years of absolute power. It is almost as long as my family’s 69 years of absolute rule.”

Li: “Thank you. One party rule is definitely the way to go, especially when your family or your best friend runs the party (they both laugh). Now, as for the purpose of my visit, we want you to try to be nice for a change.”

Kim: “I’m always nice.”

Li: “Yes, well, the Americans don’t understand that. We want you to offer them something. A meeting perhaps in exchange for movement on your nukes. Give Tillerson something he can work with.”

Kim: “I’m not giving up the nukes.”

Li: “I know that, you know that, but they don’t know that, and we like it that way. As long as they think you are being genuine, we will have this very useful leverage over them. It’s called ‘six-way talks’, but we know it’s ‘four plus two talks’. As long as they don’t know that, it’s better. If you play along with us, we will take care of you, as always.”

Kim: “Yes, and along those lines, I need some more beluga. And lots more of that Dom Perignon you sent last time, the limited edition – though I hear there’s a nice Perrier-Jouet limited edition for a mere fifty thousand Euros – you can have someone stop off in Epernay next time you’re scamming the Europeans. And duck – fat, juicy duck, and lots of it. You know what I like.”

Li: “Anything for your people?”

Kim: “Oh, them. You can also send along some trainloads of rice and cabbage. The people love rice. You can never have enough rice – or kimchee.”

Li: “Okay. So, this is how it works. Right now, the world is anticipating this trip of mine. I will go out there, and face the cameras, and put on a look of serious contemplation, like this (makes a stern face – Kim laughs). Then I will tell the reporters with a straight face that we have made some progress towards denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, talk about peace in Asia, common goals, blah blah blah. Maybe I will call it a breakthrough, give a little gift to Trump.”

Kim: “But we’ll know better (chuckling).”

Li: “Right. Do you want to stand next to me?”

Kim: “No, not this time. We can find some old footage. I put on a lot of weight with that champagne and caviar diet, and I look fat and a little puffy and weak. I can’t appear to be the powerful juggernaut I am commanding a two million man army if I weigh more than 150 kg and have trouble walking. It’s okay. It’s part of my enigmatic personality if I don’t appear. The people accept my lofty nature.”

Li: “Okay then. So, we offer them some movement, and then let’s plan to string out these latest talks until after Trump’s next State of the Union address in late January, 2018. That’ll give him something to brag about, and soften him up on human rights, democracy, Taiwan and Tibet, and other areas, like trade. We can make some good progress in our plans. Then, say March, you can pull out, or fire some missiles or anything to justify breaking away from the talks, and we will start all over again. Just don’t hit anything with the missiles.”

Kim: “Can I hit something uninhabited? It’s getting boring spending all this money to sink my missiles in the ocean. The boys need something to encourage them.”

Li: “Not at this time. It’s a delicate balance with all those American ships and the aircraft carrier parading around in our sea just off our coast. And don’t get too close to Guam. Ever. This guy in the White House is not the same as Obama, who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Trump is just itching to roll out some nukes. We don’t need that right now.”

Kim: “Okay, okay. I get the point. You know how to make me happy. What will your position be in March?”

Li: “Mock surprise and horror of course. But don’t worry, it’s only for show. I’ll send along some nice dumplings and a few hundred fat ducks on the next train, and see if I can get someone to stop off in Epernay. And maybe some Krug 1995.”

Kim: “There’s one other thing. My son.”

Li: “What about your son?”

Kim: “Well, that’s the thing. I’m not finished making sons yet, so I don’t know. But when I do know, I need your promise you will support him in all that he asks. He will need to consolidate his internal power. I will have taught him to play this little game of ours. At this rate, it can keep going for at least another 30 or 40 years years. By the way…”

Li: “Yes..?”

Kim: “I’ve got a little something going on the side with that nice fellow, the Ayatollah. Quite a little supply thing going on. It’s good cash right now. Any problems?”

Li: “No, not at all. But do understand that at the U.N. we will sound upset. But we won’t vote upset. Don’t worry. And stop using ships that can be tracked.”

Kim: “Okay. That guy is always begging for a nuke. ‘Give us one, even a little one, something nuclear, anything…’ He won’t take no for an answer.”

Li: “Well, you can give him something very small, but make it defective, and you can blame it on the sand or Israel. This nuclear intrigue gives us more leverage over the Americans, but we need to control the Iranians in different ways. They copied this game from you and play it well, and we go along with them on watering down the Americans’ sanctions, but they don’t listen to us like you do – they don’t like champagne and caviar, and they don’t want nukes just to play – they want to actually use them. You at least understand us. The Iranians hate us, and love us at the same time. Actually, they call us ‘infidels’ behind our backs, but they buy our weapons every day, anyway. As long as we can use them to make the Americans sweat without risking nuclear war, we’re happy.”

Kim: “Yes, well, they are all westerners as far as I’m concerned. Maybe they will kill each other off. Here, have some more kimchee, and a Big Mac. Wash it down with this Moet you sent me for my birthday.”

Li: “Don’t mind if I do.”

Stay tuned for more of the Pyongyang Shuffle as the saga continues.

Appeasement is not a Viable Strategy with North Korea, as 25 Years of it has Shown

An article appeared in the Taipei Times on Sunday, October 29, 2017 on p. 6 regarding the North Korean crisis entitled Talking Must be the Only Answer by Ian Inkster  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/10/29/2003681233/3

Mr. Inkster very instantly and blithely dismisses the most important concept identified by President Trump, that “the US has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years,” at the outset of Inkster’s article.  President Clinton made the horrific mistake of trusting North Korea in 1992, and the agreement with North Korea was violated by North Korea before the ink was dry. Years of Chinese prevarication, talking, and “statesmanship”, as Mr. Inkster lovingly suggests, in particular over the past 8 years by the great statesman President Obama, produced nuclear weapons, long range missiles and a hydrogen bomb. So much for statesmanship. As I mentioned before in my blog post, and here, and in others, President Reagan scared the Iranians so much they released the hostages they had held for a year within hours of his inauguration, after years of wimpiness from President Carter. Curiously we find ourselves in a similar position, with 8 years of extraordinary wimpiness from President Obama followed by a very loose and sometimes scary but apparently resolute cannon (despite not being the brightest bulb in the marquee of life).

Mr. Inkster refers to the Cuban Missile Crisis. He must have viewed it as a young teen through the foggy mist across the pond. From here, in New York, a hop, skip and jump from Washington, I saw and felt President Kennedy’s “bluster”, which Mr. Inkster says Kennedy did not display, but his spine, and his temerity, his willingness to meet move with move and show of strength with show of strength, and the backdoor channel ready to receive a message of contrition from Khrushchev is what made the Russians back down and get the missiles out of Cuba, not “statesmanship” alone. In those days, the US had 16 times as many nuclear weapons as the Soviets, and Khrushchev knew it. Were Kennedy instead Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, Cuba would be a colony of the Soviet Union with nuclear missiles on our doorstep. Make no mistake. Kennedy played chicken well, and Khrushchev blinked, and then a basis for resolution was found. Junior knows the score. He is crazy but he is not an idiot. He looks for weakness and tries to exploit it. But like a rat, he has no desire to die.

In Europe, the strategy for everything has always been, compromise, compromise, compromise. Even with Hitler. Even with Russia. Even with Iran. Even with N. Korea. Particularly with China. It is this unwillingness to show strength to achieve compromise that has always led to horrible deals. I am not surprised by this (and Europe had a willing partner in Obama, whose foreign policy was taken directly from Europe’s playbook, which is why his foreign policy was reviled in the US, and loved abroad).

As soon as Trump spoke his mind (and the more unhinged he sounds, the better at present for strategic purposes) the European members of NATO were on their hands and knees begging for talks with N. Korea. To what end? To what compromise? To give a lunatic encouragement? Let an insane regime have a hydrogen bomb? There will be no resolution to this situation unless NATO grows a spine and plays its part (which is not begging, but rather trying to convince junior that Trump would love to test the US arsenal), and when North Korea weighs its options well, it will find a way to save face and back down.

And the answer is not relying on China. China has been playing the North Korea game for 25 years, playing every President and every administration and Europe for fools, just as the Palestinians have. It is a farce. Bullies only understand one thing. A punch in the nose, or the very real threat of one. Tea on the veranda is not the approach.

 

Senator Kamala Harris misunderstands the genesis of DACA dreamers’ problems – the answer to every question is “President Obama’s illegal DACA order”

Today, Kamala Harris, Senator from California, made a fine speech about what she called “Dreamers”, people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. She promised she would not vote to fund the US Government at the end of the year unless Congress resolved the Dreamer’s status.

The trouble with this is, the US Congress has resolved this issue for 16 years already by refusing to enact legislation that would allow Dreamers to remain in the United States. Let’s be very very clear about how the current situation arose. There are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States (President Obama preferred to call them “undocumented”, a euphemism intended to divert attention away from their illegal status in the United States. The euphemism does not change the fact they are illegal immigrants.

After the Congress refused to enact President Obama’s pet project the Dream Act in the 112th Congress, to grant permanent residency to Dreamers, the President decided to go around Congress and avert the immigration law himself, not by Executive Order, but rather by instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano (now the head of the State Univesity in California which has allowed thousands of illegal aliens to apply to and attend California state universities) to apply prosecutorial discretion, and refuse to enforce the U.S. immigration law regarding Dreamers. This basically illegal program was called DACA (Deferred Action for Childhod Arrivals). Note the part that says “deferred”. Well time and again the Congress considered this “deferral” and rejected it, but President Obama persisted in his illegal program, and so many years later here we are again.

Kamala Harris complained in her lengthy speech, that the U.S. Congress has abandoned these “Dreamers” and they are terrified. She said “They relied on us.” I disagree. They relied on President Obama’s illegal actions, not on the actions of the U.S. Government. He invited them to come out from the shadows, promising he would not treat them as illegal. But he did not have that power beyond his administration. That also applies to the Iran deal, which President Obama also entered into outside the law because he knew he did not have the votes to pass it, and many other actions he took outside his authority.

I listened to public radio the other day, and one of the pieces I listened to was an interview with a couple living in New York City who were from Mexico. The piece examined their nervousness about their status, having been in the U.S. for more than six months, and having to take care of their 2 month old child. The piece was intended to present a sympathetic, warm and fuzzy view of the tribulations for immigrants.

However, the couple entered the US on tourist visas, which clearly provide that the holders can not work. But their intention was to “sneak” into the US on tourist visas, have a baby, get an apartment and jobs, make as much money as possible, and then try to get into Canada, which is far looser about immigration, considering the size of the country and the fact they have less people than California.

The piece did not go into the fact that the woman was pregnant when she entered the U.S., that their plan was to give birth to a U.S. citizen while in the U.S., to work against the terms of their tourist visa, save money and sneak into Canada. The point of the piece was to highlight the difficulty these travelers faced, who risked the journey to find a better life. There was no mention that the tourist visa disallowed working, or that they violated the terms of their visa by intending to give birth in the U.S., thus establishing some connection to the United States with an anchor baby. To be perfectly honest, in any other country on the planet, if a couple overstayed their tourist visa and got an apartment, had a child and got jobs, they would be found by Immigration, and deported forthwith. Not in the U.S. under Obama.

This, in a nutshell, is the argument made by those on the left, such as Senator Kamala Harris, who think this story is about immigration, when it is in fact about violating immigration law. There is existing law about refugees, and immigration levels from all countries. We already have 330 million people, and our social service lifeline is hundreds of billions each year. The Congress has the right to determine the extent to which our doors are thrown open to immigration, and the laws are there. If the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Congress, not President Obama, or Senator Harris or President Trump.

Harris and her colleagues in the Congress have argued that the US should take more refugees from Syria. The real question is why are there so many refugees from Syria? The answer to every single question like this is the same. President Obama. He is the author of every single such problem with his refusal to follow the law, and his foreign policy of Oppeasement, which allowed Russia and China and Iran and North Korea, and many others to have a field day while he sat in a circle and sang Kumbaya. Allowing Assad to survive in Syria with Russia’s help after promising to help, and then abandoning the rebels created a huge vacuum in Syria, leading to millions of refugees.

So here is my question to Kamala Harris – she said in her speech “And let me be clear. I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country.” So, when the Congress rejects the DACA legislation again, will she accept this as the law of the land? Or does she believe that she, like Obama, can do what she likes because what she does is the right thing, and any other point of view is hateful? That seems to be the platform of the party these days. But that is not democracy. It is hubris.

I don’t disagree that some children of illegal immigrants in the US for many years have no connection to their home country, and deporting them there is cruel. I think they cannot acquire citizenship in the U.S. beause they are in the US illegally, nor can they become citizens as the parents of citizens, since they may have children who are citizens because they were born in the US (anchor babies). They can never acquire the right to vote. They are subject to the laws of the US. If there is an exception that can be created it should only apply to those that arrived prior to President Obama’s administration since his policies encouraged so many hundreds of thousands or millions to cross the border into the U.S.

Over a hundred years ago, the borders were flung open for mass migration, mostly from Europe, and those immigrants helped build this country. Times have changed, and we are a nation of laws that should be enforced. Every country on Earth enforces its immigration laws, except the U.S. I see no problem building a wall, I see no difference between a wall and a fence with cameras and thousands of border patrols, except a wall is more effective. The stream of illegal (forget “undocumented”) aliens needs to stop, and a wall will pretty much stop that flow.

America is a land of diversity, opportunity and freedom. It was built by immigrants. Legal immigrants.

Chairman Xi’s Chinese Dream – Only the Manual Can Discern the Truth

Regarding an article which appeared in the Taipei Times on Tuesday, Oct. 24th on P. 8 entitled “‘Chinese Dream’ will become a nightmare”, and with a nod to Chen Fang-ming (陳芳明), who wrote the article, confusion regarding Xi Jinping’s real motivations and intent can be discerned from reference to the Chinese Communist Party Manual of Commonly Misunderstood Terms (the “Manual”), which is essential when attempting to parse CCP policies, statements and doctrine. Now that Xi has become Chairman Xi, and venerated to the status of Mao, it becomes important to understand Xi’s true intentions.

First, the article refers to a proposal by the Chairman/ President/Leader/Commander/Icon/Top Guy/Numero Uno Xi Jinping called his “Chinese dream”, a slogan which came with the goals (according to the article) of “prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, harmonious, free, fair, abide by the rule of law, patriotic, just, honest and friendly”, words which are uncommon normally having anything to do with the Chinese Communist Party run government in Communist China, possibly the world’s worst and most repressive totalitarian regime.

Referring then to the Manual, we can more easiliy understand what Xi meant when he talked about these goals in the context of his “Chinese dream”. Xi has used the word ‘democracy’ before, but clearly he is referring to the definition of “democracy” in the Manual, which is “democracy with Chinese characteristics”. In the Manual, the definition of “democracy with Chinese characteristics is “the right to vote for the Chinese Communist Party slate of candidates in the order provided, a right given to only those members of the Party given permission to attend and vote according to Party directions at the National Congress held every 5 years”. There is another second definition, written in smaller print that says that the definition of democracy in the Manual is “2. No democracy – see Freedom”

Going on then to the definition of ‘freedom’ in the Manual, we find some help in understanding Xi’s animus. “Freedom” is defined in the Manual as “The right and legal obligation to obey each and every order, rule, regulation, law, statute, directive, policy and dictate of the Chinese Communist Party and each and every of its representatives at all times and in all places, failure to follow which is punishable by any means dictated by the Party.” That clears that up, doesn’t it? The Manual offers a secondary definition as follows “Freedom – 2. No freedom”.

Now we are getting a better idea of just what Xi meant by his liberal pronouncement for the future of Communist China.

As to “prosperity”, there can be no question that China has been more prosperous than at any time in the history of the Chinese Communist Party, in large part because it abandoned ‘communism’ and adopted “communism with Chinese characteristics”. In the Manual, ‘communism with Chinese characteristics’ is defined as “not communism per se, but rather allowing free enterprise under strict control by the Party, and all enterprises subject to control by the Party to the greatest extent possible, and otherwise open to free exchange of capital subject to Party rules and regulations, violation of which are punishable by death”. Basically this is capitalism with Chinese characteristics, otherwise known as “prosperity” for Party members, until the Party decides a member is too powerful, and then prosecution for corruption is required.

As for “strong”, the Chinese Communist Party is certainly set to become stronger under “Chairman” Xi, considering the power the Communist Party has accumulated, and Communist China itself has become stronger partly because it has been devoting double digit parts of its GDP to its military, partly because through espionage it keeps stealing technology and advances from others (mostly the US). Also, as liberal democracies in Europe have become weaker and more reliant on Chinese Kommunist Kash, Communist China has become stronger through weakening resistance to China’s temptations, large bucks and its enormous supposedly “open” markets. However, in the Manual, “open markets” has been defined as “segments of the Chinese economy open to foreign entities under strict regulation by the Party, and only when a local Chinese partner participates in at least 50% ownership of the entity, such Chinese partners subject to absolute control by the Party”. Also, though the Manual is silent, it is well-known that the Party philosophy on local partners is they have 3 years from acquiring their interest in the foreign business to steal all available IP, set up backdoor avenues for walking products and technology out the back door, and to acquire complete control of the business, or set up a competing entity which can take over the business that is left when the foreign owner runs away.

As for civilized, I presume Xi is referring to the Party no longer starving its citizens or murdering them in public. However, all that the Party has done is taken these tools inside, where all options are available to the Party to ensure compliance with any of its dictates. Being one of the worst human rights violators in the world, Beijing has a long way to go to reach “civilized”. In the manual “civilized” is defined as “The Party rules require the government to conduct its security processes in a civilized manner, especially during official secret arrests, torture, and blackmail.” It’s not much, but it’s an improvement.

Xi loves using the term “harmonious”, but the true nature of this concept is set out in the Manual, where “harmonious” is defined as “every citizen following the Party’s instructions in every aspect of life in Communist China obediently, and making sure not to criticize the Party or the government under any circumstances.” It is easy to see how wonderful it is for China to be harmonious for Chairman Xi.

As for “fair” and “abide by the law”, we need to jump around a bit to understand this core principle of the Communist Party. First, “justice” in China is defined as “any ruling made by a Court with the approval of the Party shall be considered full justice.” Though you have to dig through the Manual to find it, “justice process” (also called due process in the Manual) is defined as “having the absolute right as a citizen in the People’s Republic of China to be subjected to the Party’s justice through the rulings made by judges in the Party’s courts with the abolute directives of the Party”. It reads a little differently than other common views of due process. There is a footnote under the entry for “due process” as follows: “2. Due Process – no due process”. Actually, as Xi knows, there can be no due process without an independent judiciary, but as the Manual identifies in the definition of “Court”, there is no independent judiciary in China (in the Manual “Court” is defined as “the tribunal dealing with legal matters subject to the directives of the Party to do justice as the Party shall see fit.” Gotta love dictators. They really know how to get results.

As for honest, the Manual defines honest as follows: “Honest: The truth is what the Party says is the truth. Honesty is absolutely keeping to the truth as mandated by the Party in all things, no matter how ridiculous it seems, upon pain of death.”

As for “friendly”, there is a reference in the Manual as follows: “friendly: see Taiwan”. Under the entry for “Taiwan”, for some reason, it says only: “Grrrrrrrrr.” There is a secondary entry under Taiwan that says “Taiwan: 2. Chinese Taipei, Taiwan, China, China, China, China”.

As we can see, Xi’s Chinese Dream is really not much of a dream, unless you define dream to include nightmare. In the Manual, “Chinese dream” is defined as “the Party becoming the most powerful government in the world, adopting the slogan ‘My name is Chairman Xi, Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!'”

 

 

The Problem for Taiwan and Israel is not China or the Arab World – It’s European Appeasement…Again….Will They Never Learn?

In an article by Alexander Gorlach, which appeared in the Taipei Times on Saturday, October 21st on Page 8 entitled “Taiwan, China: the European view” Mr. Gorlach states: “Declining support for the values of Western liberal democracy across the world in recent years, which not only led to the Brexit vote but also to a rise in mostly far-right xenophobic movements, does not serve as a breeding ground for compassion and action for a far-away nation such as restricted Taiwan.”

This is a somewhat delusional statement. To think that “liberal democracy”, particularly European liberal democracies, are either compassionate of foreign struggles for democratic evolution or capable of taking action to actually support and protect foreign democracies, is laughable, at best. Two examples which immediately come to mind are Taiwan and Israel, two of the smallest and brightest stars in the celestial glow of democracy, both completely abandoned by those useless “European liberal democracies”.

The height of liberal democracy might be considered the administration of the recent liberal God, President Obama, whose foreign policy doctrine of Oppeasement basically betrayed all of the American allies, most pointedly Israel and Taiwan, and allowed the world to erupt into flames, and evil dictators around the world to hastily move with aggression (and celebrate) while he danced and sang Kumbaya, and said to Putin, “be my guest” as he sped by into Syria to take over the fight there, but on behalf of Assad, not the opposition, betrayed by Obama over and over. Obama did nothing for Taiwan. European democracies have their lips pressed too hard to Daddy Xi’s buttocks to even notice Taiwan, welcoming the One Belt One Road honey trap (extolled on these very pages in article after article by George Soros’ ultra liberal Project Syndicate) with open arms, rubbing their hands together and chortling at the prospects of Kommunist Kash filling their coffers.

In 70 years, the US is the only ally with the guts to pass law after law in favor of Taiwan and keep China at bay. NATO couldn’t without the US, the European powers cannot and will not, nor will the UN. This trend has nothing to do with the death of liberal democracy, but in fact is the direct result of liberal democracy’s tendency to retreat in the face of danger or conflict, and prefer to “negotiate” rather than confront (e.g. totally misunderstanding evil such as N.Korea, and rather than employing an enormous stick and a teeny carrot and a kick in the teeth, are on their knees holding a gigantic carrot and a toothpick, begging Kim to come to the table and talk (and doing the same with Iran, which is an order of magnitude more dangerous)), having NOT learned the lessons from World War II of the dangers of APPEASEMENT and the unquenchable hunger of evil regimes for more power, more land, more death, more everything. Actually, in the case of Israel, its biggest problem is not the Arab nations that surround it (who know they cannot defeat Israel) but rather liberal democracies in Europe, which have done everything in their power to destroy Israel by being weak in convictions, weak in morality, weak in policy, weak in support, weak in their faux liberal democratic ideals.  The same can be said for Taiwan, which cannot rely on liberal democracies around the world for support, except the United States Congress.

China is not a problem of Trump’s making, nor is Iran or N. Korea or the Middle East. These are problems left on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office by Blinking Barry and his Oppeasement policy on the way out. President Trump has extraordinarily difficult tasks ahead undoing the damage done by Obama in eight years of weakness and betrayal, and in this instance specifically to Taiwan and Israel.

I am skittish about President Trump’s meeting with Xi. Not because Trump is not a liberal, but because he is not the brightest bulb in the marquee of life, and while China has always played three dimensional chess, Trump is having difficulty with checkers because there are two colors. However, I have less fear of Trump meeting Xi than Obama, who bowed to the Chinese leader on several occasions and projected such a weak image of the US, that China has become far more belligerent and aggressive than before Obama’s era of Oppeasement.

When you show me liberal democracies growing spines, I will listen to this “European View” drivel. In the meantime, so long as they appease evil around the world, I will ignore them as the weak, timid, fearful, feckless, useless regimes they are, pretending to be important, while planning the next business trip to Tehran or Beijing. (“hey, China is not so bad, just because the Communist Party is the worst totalitarian regime in the history of the world – they have pandas and lots of money, we just have to say “One China” and keep Taiwan out! And if we sell jets and missile and nuclear technology to Iran, of course they won’t bomb us – they’ll bomb them (Israel)!”).