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)!”).

NFL Players Kneel for the Anthem – TV Audiences Turn Off the NFL – Free Speech Goes Both Ways

To be sure the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of free speech in its First Amendment allows anyone to criticize the government, but exercising free speech does not mean you are free from that speech having consequences. Of course, the government cannot take action against the speaker or the speech, but some free speech is intended to provoke, and the speaker is not insulated from the lawful reaction to the speech of private citizens and businesses.

In the U.S. right now, it has become popular for some NFL football players to kneel during the National Anthem supposedly to protest police brutality against black communities. It was started by football quarterback Colin Kaepernick. He said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color”. His very direct purpose was to “disrespect” the country and its flag and anthem because of what he perceived as “injustice”. Others trying to avoid being seen as disrespecting the country, flag, anthem and military servicepeople since his words have tried to spin the protest as not involving disrespect for the country or the flag, but most people are not having that prevarication.

Kaepernick is absolutely entitled to protest. Especially as a spectator. But as a player, as an employee of an NFL football team, there is less flexibility in his choice of when and where to exercise his free speech. Since his protest, and since he decided to leave his team, he has not been rehired. Some say he is not a good enough quarterback to get hired, some say it is in retaliation for his controversial protest. But there were consequences for his exercising his extremely unpopular free speech. Employees represent the companies they work for, even if they earn tens of millions of dollars.

His protest has been taken up by other players. And a huge number of spectators of the NFL have consequently decided to turn off their TVs and not watch football if the players are going to kneel during the National Anthem. Under the Constitution, the players can exercise their free speech in the absence of a direction from their employer, but the spectators also have the right to decide not to watch. The NFL is losing its share of Sunday’s TV audience because so many people are not watching the games anymore. The teams are trying to get the players to protest outside of their games, so as not to project a stand on Kaepernick’s complaint. The teams of course just want to play football (and so do many other players), and virtually all of the audience just want to watch the games without the politics.

On Sunday the Vice-President of the U.S. attended a game, and several players from one team kneeled and others wore shirts that protested. The VP left the game in a protest of his own, saying he would not attend a game where the players disrespected the country, the flag, the anthem and the men and women who fought for freedom, the soldiers and others.

Many have said the players who kneel should be fired. This is a First Amendment legal issue. Companies presumably have power to determine whether their employees can engage in political speech while on duty (for obvious reasons) and even to discipline them if they do something against the team’s policies (a famous baseball player was fired for political speech aligned with President Trump). Now it is becoming a struggle for vast sums of money affecting the teams. A team which pays a player more than $10 million to play football, does not want that player doing anything that takes away hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Players who wish to protest can do so on their own time, the argument goes.

I don’t agree with Kaepernick’s complaint. A man who earned tens of millions of dollars playing American football complaining about a country where he could live such a wonderful like makes it seem he is ungrateful for the opportunities provided. Also, 70% of the football players are people of color, a huge disparity in demographics. I also don’t agree with his assessment of “injustice”. The U.S. is a country of laws, enforced by police in general. While there have been cases of people of color killed by police in the line of duty, there have been lots of cases of white people also killed in the line of duty. It is very hard to convict police officers of murder because most people respect the split second decisions officers must make when faced with aggression, possible weapons and situations requiring orders to perpetrators who may or may not follow the directions of the officer. In almost every case questioned by Kaepernick. the perpetrator refused to follow the officer’s directions, which usually are “Stop. Police. Raise your hands.” In almost every case of protest, a jury has found the police officer innocent, or the Grand Jury has voted not to indict the officers. Due process of law applies in both directions as well, for the individual, and for the officers, who are also entitled to it.

In any event, there are two sides to free speech. The speech, and the consequences. Both are likely within the First Amendment’s parameters. Many Americans just want to watch football, not protests. And the more protests there are, the more people there will be watching baseball or soccer or golf or the news or movies instead. The owner of one team has said that his players will not kneel during games to disrespect the flag or the country. Perhaps there will be some case about this. One ESPN commentator vociferously argued that the NFL audience should turn off the game to protest this team — I think she completely underestimated the sentiments of the people watching football. Those in favor of the protests form a tiny tiny fraction of NFL enthusiasts. She was suspended by ESPN for suggesting the boycott, ironically a violation of ESPN rules. Free speech does have its limitations for employees.

The protests have basically backfired. I don’t believe in this protest against the country or the flag. The complaints by Koepernick have nothing to do with the country or its flag or its national anthem.  If Mr. Koepernick detests the country so much, he is welcome to find another place in the universe where he could earn millions of dollars a year for throwing pigskin around or for which fame anyone would listen to him.

The discussion about the police and alleged brutality has been aired and has been subjected to legal action. During the Obama administration, the government almost always took the side of the individual against law enforcement (and always on the wrong legal side, eventually), creating a huge divisive undercurrent against police. The result of this has been an enormous spike in violent crime, especially in the former President’s own backyard in Chicago, where the crime rate is through the roof, probably because the police modified their procedures to avoid getting caught in the kind of situations with minorities that created the failure to obey and resulted in shootings. The minority neighborhoods have run amok, and gun killings are out of control. It is ironic.

Those protesting have to understand it goes both ways. Free speech is a tough lesson in democracy. While they may have permission from their teams to protest and say the things they believe in, the audience has the right to reject their speech and turn them off. And if the teams suffer financially, they may insist their players follow the rules. If the players do not follow the rules, they can be disciplined by the team and told to stand during the National Anthem or be benched. Free speech can have consequences. Nothing stops those same players from kneeling at every playing of the National Anthem on their own time.

It is time that people who protest on the left take off blinders and begin watching and listening to the other side of things. All I hear from their point of view is that it is the only point of view that is valid. Thinking like that leads nowhere pretty quickly, and is anathema to the Constitution’s notions of free speech. How ironic, and hypocritical.

The Chinese Communist Party Emperor’s New Clothes – Buck Naked and Waiting for the Truth from the World

Taiwan is completely independent, it is just mildly schizophrenic, because one very small side of it (the die-hards of the Chinese Nationalist Party (a/k/a KMT)) keeps mistaking itself for Communist China.

We are in fact stuck in the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, and in this tale, the entire world, fearful that the Chinese Communist Party will bar them from selling their goods at the Communist Party kasbah, is willing to tell the CCP that the “Emperor’s” new clothes are delightful, and anything else it wants to hear, including that they believe Taiwan is not independent and is a part of Communist China (nudge nudge, wink, wink). In fact, as we know, the Emperor is buck naked, and the Chinese Communist Party is simply delusional if it thinks Taiwan’s full-fledged democracy is going to go back to the stone age of tyranny (Japan for 50 years and the KMT for 50 years), except this time with Communist China’s communist dictatorship.

Oh. And no one believes Taiwan is actually part of Communist China. They just say that so they can sell their whatever to China, or buy China’s really cheap stuff, get Kommunist Kash from it, or avoid China squeezing off their oxygen because they made the mistake of telling the truth.

We are waiting for the day the rest of the world actually has the guts to tell the Emperor that he is naked, and Taiwan is a great independent democratic nation of 23 million fantastic people who are not communists. Only when the world has the courage of its convictions and stands up as one to tell this to the Emperor’s face will the world be free from Communist China’s blackmail, propaganda, prevarication, and bullying, and the people of China free from the Chinese Communist Party’s 70 years of suffocating tyranny.