Taipei Times Uncensored

I wrote and posted at the Taipei Times for almost 20 years. When I wrote a comment in the Taipei Times criticizing China for lying about the Wuhan Virus, and then lying about lying about the virus, and when I criticized Tedros for being the lapdog of the Chinese Communist Party for his heaping of oodles of praise on China for its “handling” of the virus, and the WHO’s official policies which inevitably suppressed the initial dangers of the virus in order to mollify Communist China for fear it would cut off the WHO’s access to facts on the ground, I was kicked off Facebook, though my post was published on the Taipei Times website without any issue. Facebook has been censoring comments critical of Communist China and/or Tedros and/or the WHO. As a consequence, I am unable to post at the Taipei Times or comment on any of the articles published there. I wrote to the editor to ask that the Taipei Times provide other access to posting, but thus far no changes have been made. After almost 3 months of being banned, I have decided to post my comments on the Taipei Times here under the title “Taipei Times Uncensored” instead of at the Taipei Times website because in order to comment or post there, you must have a Facebook account, and only a Facebook account. This in effect allows Facebook, which has previously had a pro-Communist Party approach, to censor the posting and comments at the Taipei Times, one of the world’s only pro-Taiwan news organizations. That is a tragic turn of events.

In the Taipei Times on June 6th on Page 8, an editorial was published entitled “States Risk Public’s Violent Anger”, written by Nigel Li, a student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. The first major mistake in the premise of the article is somehow conflating what is happening in the United States with either the Hong Kong protests, or with action taken by any number of totalitarian states against violent protests. There can be no comparison between the democratic system of government and justice in the United States and those dictatorships, where democracy and justice are unknown. Because the United States has one of the most objective legal systems in the world, and a strong constitution protecting freedom and justice, especially under the First Amendment and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, there is no need for violence except to wreak havoc or cause chaos, which is the objective of anarchy and revolution, two features of the current socialist/communist wing of the Democratic Party, pushing the Democratic Party run districts so far to the left it has become frightening. Thus every opportunity to cause chaos has been fully supported and in fact instigated by the Democratic Party, including the current riots regarding the death of George Floyd in police custody, which have been taken over by the extreme left.

Anyone familiar with the political climate in the US should by now understand the fear of the Democratic Party that the Wuhan Virus will be mostly resolved in the next few months, that the economy may come roaring back, and that these juggernauts will make it impossible to defeat the incumbent president, Donald Trump. Thus, racial chaos and anarchy is helpful the Democrats believe, to their cause. However, the Democrats are completely tone deaf because they still do not understand the extraordinarily high percentage of Americans who support the protests and yet loathe the riots, and can understand the difference. The calls by the Democrats to “defund the police” is simply another leftist wet dream to leave the state undefended in the face of the anarchy and socialist/communist revolution currently being instigated. Left up to the Democrats, any conservative who doesn’t use the latest leftist approved language should be arrested, but those who loot, steal, sell drugs, commit assault, murder or commit other felonies should not even be arrested, hence “defund the police”. But there are very few in the US who want to go down that road, and the cacophony in the media, which is overwhelmingly in opposition to the President, makes it seem the country is united in opposition to the president and hostile to the police. The left made the same mistake in 2016 and were shocked they lost the election. They are in for another rude awakening.

Secondly, “journalists” (in quotes here because almost all of the liberal press have been reduced to propaganda writers for the Democratic Party, not journalists) should not conflate protests and violence in the United States with those things in totalitarian countries, like Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and other dictatorships or with the life in Taiwan during the KMT rule, when it inevitably tried to deliver Taiwan into Communist China’s orbit permanently. There is a system of law and justice in the US which has been a model for the developed world for more than 200 years. Protests and even riots against the totalitarian rule of the KMT were justified. If anything, the socialist/communist wing of the Democratic Party is far more like China, the old Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela than like the US or Taiwan.

As for racial justice in the United States, the Democratic Party was the party I might remind you of slavery in the United States until Republic Party President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation and the success of the Civil War in America in the 1860’s. Moreover, the Democratic Party was hardly the party of justice for blacks in the US or for civil rights until the 1960s, and then the Democratic party embarked on a process to buy the votes of minorities in the US through welfare and other programs and to basically establish institutions of government that would spend the next 60 years keeping minorities dependent on welfare and similar programs in order to maintain their voting power. This prevails until today, and we are witnessing yet another step in the process of using race as a justification for anarchy.

When the Democratic Party lost to President Trump in 2016, it was shocked and dismayed, and has spent the past 4 years attempting a coup by a thousand cuts, beginning with a impeachment based on phantom charges of so-called Russian Collusion (failed coup), and then coming up with issue after issue as attempts to justify impeaching the President (all failed). The threshold for impeachment was lowered to ridiculous levels in the US by the desperate Democrats, and their willingness to try anything and everything to unseat the President has possibly damaged the US institution of government permanently.

When impeachment failed, the Democrats decided to use the pandemic as a new justification for criticism of the President and for renewed calls for impeachment, despite it being clear China and the World Health Organization at China’s behest misled the world on the origins of the Wuhan Virus. That failed as well. When the pandemic was turning the corner, cases and deaths dropped to far lower levels, and the economy was on the verge of reopening, the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer engaging in brutal force provided yet another opportunity for the Democratic party to interrupt the recovery by encouraging and supporting weeks of chaos and riots, including murder, violence and looting. The Democratic party, always the party that thrives on chaos, dead bodies and the promise of government money, is now calling for “defunding” the police (whatever the hell that is), and basically reducing the US to a nation without the ability to enforce its law. That is of course the end aim of a party wishing to foment a socialists/communist revolution. In order to do that, the police must be neutered.

On the issue of race in the US, I don’t know what “institutional racism” is. Prominent black leaders (including President Obama) and commentators have for years advised the black communities that single father households and persistent crime do far more to keep blacks from breaking out of ghettos and poverty than racism (“More than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children.”). There is no doubt racism exists, and there is no doubt blacks die at higher rates from gun violence. But the overwhelming number of deaths of blacks by gun violence are not at the hands of white police, or even white shooters, but at the hands of other young black men (over 80%, or more). These statistics are hard to dig out, as the prevailing statistical analysis (to support the Democratic Party narrative of institutional racism) is the number of black victims, not the number of black perpetrators. President Obama over his 8 years at President of the US did nothing to address this “black on black” crime, or the single father home in over 50% of black families, and the effect that has on sons and daughters. The welfare system designed by Democrats, that is paying money to families with a single mother with children and no partner, also encouraged these developments in single parent homes. Obama did speak of this problem a few times between 2008 and 2014, but his administration did nothing to address it. “In 1960, the year before Obama was born, 22 percent of black children lived with single parents. In 1968, the number rose to 31.4 percent. By 2006, the 1960 percentage had more than doubled to 56 percent.” [Politifact fact check]. 

What makes the US different from totalitarian nations like China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, Iran and many others is the US has a well-defined system of law and justice in effect and . The police involved in the George Floyd matter have been arrested and will be charged, and tried. They will be permitted to make a defense and a jury will decide their guilt or innocence when all of the facts are known. This does not take place in dictatorships.

The left at this moment does not wish for there to be a trial. They wish for there to be a lynching, and steps in that direction are censorship (e.g. if anyone questions BLM, they are censored), disbanding the police, controlling the populace to conform to the Democratic party’s ideology, changing history and destroying historical icons (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Andrew Jackson, and many many others), pulling down statues and monuments, desecrating the US national flag and National Anthem, imposing new language and banning common language (Drew Brees, a celebrated NFL Quarterback spoke about disagreeing with anyone desecrating the flag or the anthem, and he was pounced on by the MSM and the BLM movement, and forced to retract his statement – oddly, his statement is supported by a huge overwhelming majority of Americans). These things are happening now, and have happened before in every instance where socialist/communist revolutions occurred. Those revolutions were accompanied by millions and millions of deaths (in Cambodia over 1.5 million, in Communist China at the hands of Mao between 50-80 million), commonly of professionals, including lawyers, teachers, and others, and murder of capitalism, replaced by state control over every aspect of life. This is what the Democratic Party now seeks, as it is unhappy with a majority of American’s rejecting the Party’s extremist views on most aspects of American life, especially free speech.

The world should be quite worried. If the Democratic party prevails, the US will withdraw as it did under Obama, Taiwan and Israel will be under assault, and Europe will be required to lead the world, and it has demonstrated over and over and over, even today, it does not have the backbone to stand up to Russia, China, Iran, and many other nations determined to resist freedom as a way of life and destroy the West, and lacks the morals or the will or the ability to protect Taiwan or Israel. The world needs the US to be the defender of human rights and freedom, because frankly there is no one else on Earth suited to it or capable of doing it.

Bloomberg’s latest anti-Israel editorial is not only surprising, it is inane – Bloomberg says Israel is 100% responsible for the plight of Palestinians, not Hamas, not the PLO, not Abbas

Don’t look for the words Hamas, PLO or Abbas in the latest anti-Israel editorial offered by Bloomberg in the August 21, 2018 edition of the Taipei Times on P.9 entitled “The Palestinians cannot keep living under Israeli apartheid” penned by Hussein Ibish.

How is it possible to write a 3 page article about the “Palestinians'” misery and not mention the word “Hamas” or the term “PLO” or the name “Abbas”, lingering President of the PLO since 2005 (is there an election in sight)? The “Palestinians” are under the heel of those organizations and that man, not Israel. Israel affords more rights to its Arab citizens than most other Arab countries afford their own citizens. Tens of billions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians are wasted each year on terrorism, bombs, tunnels, brainwashing and corruption, and not to schools, hospitals, education and the betterment of the “Palestinian” people. Hamas and the PLO are dedicated to keeping the “Palestinian” people poor and wretched so that someone can write an article like this. In Bloomberg no less. What a travesty.

Golda Meir, President of Israel said 60 years ago “Peace? We will have no peace with the Arabs until they love their children more than they hate us.” Until they educate their children to be better and stop teaching them to hate Jews, the ultimate racism and Antisemitism in the world, there will be no solution. Israel’s motto is Never Again and it means Never. Ever. Surrounding nations should look to Israel as an example of how to have a successful democratic country in the midst of a sea of tyranny. Israel took a desert and turned it into an oasis. The Palestinians took an oasis and turned it into a desert, and now weep for living in a desert – like a child who murdered his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the Court as an orphan, seeking sympathy. The path to peace runs through Gaza and the PLO, not through Jerusalem. There is no negotiating peace with people who do not want peace, only genocide against the Jews once more. Israel, like Taiwan, is a unique nation, in Israel’s case fighting alone against a sea of racism, and in the case of Taiwan, against international greed and addiction for Chinese lucre. Great people and great ideas persist in the midst of adversity. Israel and Taiwan will prevail.

The fact Mr. Ibish’s article argues for Israel to be prevented from being a Jewish state (among a surrounding and nearby 24 nations which are Islamic states or Arab states where Jews are not welcome) is telling. This is another stab at destroying Israel, with immigration if necessary. The problem of the “Palestinians” is not Israel, it is Hamas and the PLO, both corrupt, both happiest when the people are the most pathetic, their “governments” are oppressive, there are no human rights, no women’s rights, no freedom, no due process (due process in Gaza means summary execution at the pleasure and fiat of Hamas leadership) and no accountability (and oddly no mention of either of them in this 3 page article). Abbas was “elected” in 2005 and he is still in power after 13 years and the people have not benefited one single bit in all that time. When the PLO and Hamas are thrown out of governing the people, there will be hope for a future. As long as the world, the U.N. especially, and anyone who wishes to destroy the notion of a Jewish state continue to support the “Palestinians” as cannon fodder, there will be no peace. Israel is a tiny Jewish state in its historical homeland of more than 3,000 years, the one place in the world Jews can be safe. That will never change again. Never. Ever.

Project Syndicate Adores China (and seems to Despise Israel) – Read Project Syndicate with Great Care, it is NOT Our Friend

I am writing with regard to the article published by Project Syndicate, and republished in the Taipei Times on May 1, 2018 on p. 8 entitled China Should Follow WTO Rules written by Martin Feldstein.

While not bashing Israel, Project Syndicate seems to make great efforts to glorify Communist China and the new Emperor Xi. This is another Project Syndicate “hail China” article. Is it any surprise? What is wrong with these people? George Soros continues to seek a revolution with totalitarian flavor in the world (a “World with Chinese Characteristics” – he would really love that, it seems). Truthfully, this article and Martin Feldstein, disgusted me from the very first line: “I am a great admirer of China and its ability to adjust its economic policies to maintain rapid growth, but now that it has risen to the top of the global economy…” WHAT ABOUT ITS TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND CRUSHING OPPRESSION OF ITS PEOPLE? Not one word. Not one.

Professor Feldstein recounts how he traveled to China in 1982, and how poor it was, and governed by a communist regime. Even then he makes no reference to the nature of the regime – and that is the point – very little has changed since 1982 aside from having beguiled the world into sending trillions of dollars into building up the world’s biggest threat to freedom. I think as an economist, Martin looks at the Chinese economic experiment and marvels at it, sort of like a biologist might examine anthrax or the plague and marvel at the complexity and efficiency at killing. At least the biologist recognizes the threat to humanity. Here, well….only marveling. This kind of appeasement of China is one of the most dangerous aspects of this platform, filling heads around the world with glowing praise for China, a silent killer adept at its own propaganda and blackmail.

Where does Project Syndicate find these pro-China hacks with stellar resumes? You would think that as a member of the Reagan and Bush administrations, Feldstein might have developed a healthy perspective on China’s menace to the world. Perhaps he was brainwashed and turned sappy when he served in the Obama administration and then the Council on Foreign Relations.

Here is an example of another Harvard economist overwhelmed with admiration by the ease with which a totalitarian government can manipulate its economy to become whatever it wishes on the backs of over a billion peasants. Amazing what killing 80 million of its own people, and oppressing billions, strictly controlling every aspect of society and foreign competition at will, and stealing every single item of technology within its sticky, greedy hands, and elevating industrial espionage to a national duty can do for your economy.

Remarkably, Feldstein focuses only on China’s compliance with WTO requirements to admit China into the world as an international leader, and nothing else. He already puts their economy at the top. However, not one time, not one word, not a whisper is devoted to China’s horrendous treatment of its people, the complete absence of any freedom, rights, justice, free will, license, democracy, free enterprise, its aggression towards the South China Sea, its neighbors and in particular its obsession with destroying Taiwan’s democracy, a threat to China’s malignant one-party dictatorship. How is it possible that Feldstein, a member of three Presidential administrations, a supposedly world class economist cannot even recognize China’s hegemonic intentions (e.g. his glowing view of One Belt One Road, ignoring its threat to the world) and complete domination of its people, or that its economic “success” is done with blood on the Emperor’s hands?

This is why we are in danger. People like this, like Feldstein, with long resumes, appointments at the best universities (Harvard in his case), a large platform and absolutely no brains whatsoever in their empty Project Syndicate heads (empty aside from some economic guidelines, formulae and statistics, devoid of morality apparently). In my opinion, Mr. Feldstein is a brilliant economist and a complete idiot (something I feel he has in common with Joseph Stiglitz).

 

 

 

Women’s rights are universal, not political – the left kidnapped the cause, making it exclusive, not “inclusive”

“The march in Washington took on the feel of a political rally when US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and US Representative Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats, urged women to run for office and vote to oppose Trump and the Republicans’ agenda.”  Washington Post, 1/21/18 (Celebrities join march for women’s rights, encourage voting)

I agree with most of the principles of women’s rights, especially equality on all levels. Most people in the U.S. do abide by those principles, even the President.

By turning the women’s movement into a leftist movement of the Democratic Party, it becomes not “inclusive”, but in fact “exclusive”. The idea that emerges is that women who do not support the “Party” (the Democratic Party) are not deserving of the same rights (in fact, the idea floated is that if you support the President, as a woman you definitely do not deserve any rights at all). This is the legacy of President Obama, the Great Divider. He championed the concept of “us or them”, either his disastrous ultra-leftist views or extremism on the right. As it turned out, there were 60 million people who voted otherwise, and an enormous legion of people who eschewed both the left and the right. But women’s rights should not be political.

Women’s rights are universal, not political. Yesterday, in Los Angeles, the marches for women were replete with political speeches against the current administration and any policies the Democratic Party does not support. Those issues have nothing to do with Women’s Rights.

In fact, and most importantly, many of the men who have been caught up in sexual harrassment cases (like Harvey Weinstein, a very high level high roller in the Democratic Party, and also Michael Oreskes, Chief of the news division of National Public Radio (who actually managed NPR’s coverage of the sexual harrassment narrative at NPR in recent months), and other TV and Screen stars) were high level members of, or supporters of the Democratic Party and extreme liberal views, proving that women’s rights transcend party lines. By co-opting the movement, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has isolated at least half the women in the world. Now how is that “inclusive”?

The “women’s movement” as defined by the Democratic Party, has been designed to include many issues irrelevant to the woman’s movement itself, such as BLM, anti-Trumpism, and illegal immigration. By swelling the ranks with many people with other axes to grind, it makes it appear the movement is bigger than it might be, and also part of the Democratic Party’s platform, but also in doing so it robs the women’s movement of its absolute purity and righteousness, and obscures the universality of women’s rights. Actually, the women’s movement needs to reach all women, not just liberals. Women’s right’s advocates have said that already, only the Democrats, so worried about economic success of the administration, have sought to piggyback on the opportunity of opening Pandora’s box of sexual harassment (and much to its chagrin, many of the casualties have been their very own male “treasures”).

Hypocrisy has come to reside in the left, to infect it really, and it is very scary and tragic. It is one of the chief reasons I abandoned the Party some years ago, because when I saw the ideological table, I was shocked to find the Obama wing of the Democratic Party sitting right next to the most extreme right wing acolytes, both adamant that their own speech is the only permissible speech, that only their own ideas were worthy of protection, and that everyone and everything else had to be suppressed, stopped, destroyed, even questioning the wisdom of free speech, and seeming to support China’s totalitarian system and Palestinian terrorism.  College campuses have become infected with this rot, and Obama’s political correctness has produced calls for many unconstitutional restrictions on speech. There is a name for that – fascism.

Grave Danger Posed by China’s Trojan Horse – One Belt One Road

I have written before here about the grave danger posed by China’s One Belt One Road initiative – it is China’s Trojan Horse in Europe, Communist Chinese lucre a smokescreen for the Chinese Communist Party’s power grab, continuing battle with the U.S. for influence, and for the Communist Party’s hegemonic designs.

Greece fell prey to China because it has been the EU’s pauper, and bristled at its treatment at the hands of German/EU austerity in response to Greece’s uncontrolled spending. Hence, China’s offer of billions to Greece was most opportune for the Chinese Communist Party and welcome for Greece – and as usual, any money China “invests” has strings – strings to support its totalitarian system, its political evil, and its continuing assault on Western democracy and any kind of freedom.

In an article published in the Taipei Times on Monday, January 8, 2018 on p. 5 (Europe Wary of ‘One Belt One Road’), the article notes “The former NATO chief said that Greece — a major recipient of Chinese largesse — had in June last year blocked an EU declaration condemning Chinese rights abuses.” Here is the rub – take money from China, kneel to Uncle Xi and his political agenda. The march of the Chinese Communists begins with the infection wrought from within its Trojan Horses. Greece bent over for Uncle Xi. More to come in Europe.

I for one don’t trust France’s Macron to resist China’s Trojan Horse offerings, trading access to a fake Chinese market (there is no Chinese market except for Chinese companies so long as foreign companies are required to partner with Chinese local partners, themselves Communist Party Trojan Horses) for softness on Communist China’s political demands and violations of human rights and every other fundamental French principle. France has been perennially rushing to China to get better market position and to tell the Emperor Xi his clothes are most lovely. I haven’t trusted President Trump with such issues either, the bright light of China’s phantom market a very juicy mirage hard to resist. Trump also is not so enamored with Democracy as he is with Businessocracy, and evening out the playing field with Communist China is a priority – but even that comes with risks of Trojan Horses. There is also the North Korea chess game that China has been playing with the U.S. for 25 years, and playing it very well against the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and continuing with the current administration, though Trump’s unpredictability and bullish attitude has China unnerved. The EU’s stance on North Korea and Iran is disappointing – appeasement at its worst.

Europe does not have the backbone to resist Communist China’s hegemony and political moves, because Europe has no stomach for conflict (its foreign policy is basically “appease, appease, appease”) and is so eager to jump on any advantage over the US with Chinese trade when there are conflicts, such as North Korea or the South China Sea. We do not see Europe sending carriers to the region or supporting the US in its opposition to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions (only softness, weakness and more appeasement). The same can be said of Iran, where Europe has lined up with China and Russia in failing to comprehend the value of a strong hand against a rogue enemy like Iran. Europe’s suicidal embrace of the enemies of democracy is both surprising and disgusting, turning my stomach every time I see it (note the loving comments made yesterday by High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini about Cuba and dictator Raul Castro, like the words of a lover). Consequently, I have no faith that Europe can resist Communist China’s quest to plant as many Trojan Horses as possible around Europe. Let’s remember that Europe failed to act to stop the conflagration in Syria, instead following Obama’s Oppeasement policy there, and the result was millions of refugees flooding Europe, something that will change adversely European culture, society and politics for many generations. Already many people are fearful of travel to Europe, caring about where it is safe…

One Belt, One Road will look bright and shiny to the EU’s infrastructure starved members. But the cost of that infrastructure is political suicide and being indebted to Communist China, a tyrant who demands obedience to its “life with Chinese characteristics.”

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?

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 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.

Charlottsville – the illegitimate child of Barack Obama, “The Great Divider”

Note: I was born in Brooklyn, New York. I grew up in a melting pot and I was raised not to see any color or creed or religion or race in other people, and that is how I lived my whole life. I am a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, though I have not supported the Party in quite some time, probably not since Bill Clinton’s administration. I would say I am an independent. I want to make it clear that Nazis, White Supremacists, KKK, racists and others of such ilk have no place in our society. When I see Nazi symbols I feel sick. When I hear the N word I am horrified and repulsed, (even when it is used by a black person). I grew up in dire fear of the KKK, as I was as much a target of their hatred as anyone else. I supported Martin Luther King, loved him, followed him, was too young to travel to Mississippi, and knew some men who died there fighting for civil rights and freedom.

Trying to sum up the 8 year legacy of former President Barack Obama, I was drawn to some former Presidents who had an impact on American history. Abraham Lincoln is known mostly as “The Great Emancipator”, and Ronald Reagan is known mostly as “The Great Communicator”.

I thought about this, since many of his followers have likened Obama to Lincoln, and many of his detractors have distinguished him from Reagan.

I began to think of these comparisons, and what former President Obama left us as his legacy. More and more, every day, it becomes clear that Barack Obama was “The Great Divider”. No better evidence of this is what happened in Charlottsville in the past few days. Many in the media have placed the blame for the violence in Charlottsville at the feet of President Trump. However, the enormous gap between the “far right” and the “far left” began long before Donald Trump even showed up on the political scene, it began back in the early days of Obama’s presidential campaign before he was elected.

While former President Obama talked often of uniting America, he did nothing of the sort. In fact, Barack Obama led liberals, progressives, socialists and communists, those who disliked the right, disliked conservatives, disliked religion, disliked Christians, disliked white people, disliked America, disliked Israel, disliked Jews who supported Israel, disliked drug control, disliked law enforcement, and many of the like out into the wilderness, for eight years. And when he returned from the wildnerness, with his tens of millions of followers, they had become rabid haters of all they had disliked, having been emboldened by how far to the left the President had driven the Democratic Party, my party, so far left, so extreme in their views, so intolerant, so politically correct, so sensitive, so violent, so vocal, and so hell bent on forcing their views on everyone, everywhere, that when the American conscience sat around the table that has been America’s melting pot of ideas, Obama’s followers and fascists, nazis, white supremacists and KKK members, who were many of the people who showed up in Charlottsville, were actually sitting right next to each other, because in fact the far, extreme, disgusting right, and the far, extreme disgusting left could no longer be distinguished, both imbued with hatred, both hopelessly irreconciliable, both so far to the left and right that their hatred was mutually bright and blinding, their methods equally offensive and loud, their hearts filled with murder and destruction and intolerance and both absolutely convinced they and only they are right about everything and that no one can disagree.

President Obama united nothing. He flung the world into chaos by refusing to act, whether out of a belief the US has no business in international affairs, emasculating the United States so as to convince the world the US was not a shining light, not the answer to any question or to any problem, or promising one thing and doing another (such as abandoning the Syrian rebels mid-stream), inventing the foreign policy doctrine of “Oppeasement”, and bowing to the likes of Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping, and Putin, not to mention Iran, North Korea and the Palestinians, managing to put Russia back at the top of the list and emboldening every evil in the world with his weakness, hesitation, indecisiveness and passivism.

Obama, the first black President, did not do one single thing to raise up black people in the United States, but merely encouraged them to rise up without leading them in any particular direction to give them the voice and wherewithal to achieve the equality they deserve and are absolutely entitled to in American life. He did not lead them to schools, but fashioned excuses for low performance, he did not pound on the importance of families in getting a good education, he did not exhort blacks to obey the law, but rather justified their fear of the law, setting minority against authority by injecting himself into legal matters the President had no business commenting on during investigation. He turned out to be wrong in every single case. He made the advice “when you see the man, run” the standing order of the day for minorities in America and tacitly approved of it, instead of encouraging faith in the legal system, and explaining that no one single significant shooting of a person of color in the years of his presidency would have occurred if the victim had only been encouraged by the President of the United States, the first black president, to obey a lawful order of the police, and not “run, when you see the man”, or resist arrest or carry a weapon, or take it out. I don’t recall a single time in eight years that President Obama supported law enforcement in the United States regarding the black community. In fact, the Great Divider drove a wedge between blacks and police, between blacks and whites, between rich and poor, between educated and uneducated, between lawful legal aliens and immigrants and illegal aliens (Obama using the euphemism “undocumented” to avoid “illegal alien”, the perfectly correct concept under the law (under the law of every country on Earth) applying to immigrants without the legal right to stay in the country).

Even in his own party, the Democratic Party, Obama was the great divider. If you did not support his extreme “progressive” and “liberal” ideas, you were not with the program. I often thought, wait, this is the Democratic Party, not the Liberal Party or Progressive Party, or Socialist Party or Communist Party. In his push to impose his extreme leftist views on his followers, he ended up making it necessary for white people to hate themselves in order to get into his Party. He even drove wedges between white people, and successfully made “old white men” a derogatory term, like the “N” word, which if I spoke, my parents would have washed my mouth out with soap (and I never did or could say it or any other derogatory term because I didn’t believe in that kind of racism against people I had always embraced and respected every diverse person in my life, which in New York was many).

Former President Obama divided American allies from America, almost all of them, his foreign policy based on “resetting” relationships, which all failed (every single one), and no more embarrassing than Russia, which Obama had proudly and arrogantly instructed his challenger Romney on when Romney said Russia was our primary enemy, saying the Cold War had ended decades before. Obama’s passivity elevated Russia to new heights, allowing Putin to assume the mantle of Russian dictator, and allowed Russia to once again stick its ugly head into foreign affairs in order to thwart every single American initiative. Putin also buddied up with Xi Jinping when convenient to form a block of totalitarian opposition to American support for freedom and democracy, those things being anathema to both Russia and Communist China. Former President Obama divided Jews and Palestinians (and Jews who swore by “never again” and Jews in Israel and the United States who followed his extremism so much so they hated themselves and pursued policies which could only lead to the eventual destruction of Israel). President Obama divided Christians and Muslims, by exhorting Islam and characterizing Christianity as the problem, creating deep conflicts in the US, and giving rise to a huge swath of discontented Americans who could no longer support his party, and went looking for something, anything else than his dogmatic American self-hatred, and many of whom ended up in Donald Trump’s lap (as much the fault of the weak, divided and hopelessly unfocused Republican Party, which could not even agree on debating rules, let alone policies for the American people or fielding a small group of leaders who could stand for election and actually get elected – debates turned into boxing matches which turned off most of the electorate).

Former President Obama made it a crime to be successful, to be comfortable, to have worked hard and earned a good living, he actually made it a crime to earn more than someone else – and the name for this is “socialism”. He made “taxing the rich” a mantra, and Obamacare was not as much about bringing 40 million Americans into the health care system as it was about decimating the health care apparatus for the other 300 million Americans. Obama’s own medical care for his family and him was not affected. The quality of health care dropped like a stone, waiting times tripled or were even ten times as long, insurance companies raised premiums because the system was untenable as proposed by the Great Divider. The end result was basically to sabotage the health care system, scrap it, and start from scratch, leaving hundreds of millions of Americans affected and fuming. The Great Divider achieved his aim of making sure success did not mean success – in his system, utterly opposite of the American system of working hard to get ahead, everyone was entitled to the same, even if the government had to pay to achieve that – socialism. To achieve this, Obama decimated the military to save billions for his socialist programs, trying to turn the US into Europe’s Mini-me.

The hatred demonstrated at the march in Charlottsville has been around for centuries. Nazis have been parading for more than 70 years. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it allowed under the Constitution? Absolutely. And here is the problem. Former President Obama actually divided the nation in what it could and could not say, by imposing Political Correctness on every single utterance, except those things said by his followers.

Nazis can march. They have always had the right to march. Our Constitution protects all speech. But the last five years have seen a tendency to characterize any ideas that infringe on the ideas of the left as illegal speech. This is not true. Nazis can march. We can stand on the other side of the street with signs and shout slogans against their disgusting racist un-American principles. We cannot assault them, we cannot throw stones at them, we cannot shoot them. We can say they have no place here, but they are entitled to their disgusting thoughts under our Consitution. And the minute that stops. the minute that segments of speech become prohibited, that is the moment we descend into autocracy, and that is the bus that President Obama was driving for 8 years.

The Great Divider – he left office with the world and our beautiful country in chaos. He was a great speaker, a great motivator, but his policies and principles were a million miles further to the left than Trump’s are to the right. President Obama elected President Trump just as surely as if he voted for him. Obama created an enormous silent majority of people who believe like I set forth here, not like a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, like a socialist, or communist, all of whom believe, based on Obama’s teachings, that their droppings smell like roses. Unfortunately, President Trump and his White House Circus have not figured out yet how to run the country, and so long as the President has a twitter account it will be so. He does not realize that every single word he utters has a consequence, and that he needs advisers to advise him before he speaks, not after. The concept of “damage control” has become the primary function of day to day White House life.

It will take some time, maybe another 8-20 years to fix the mess that The Great Divider left for us, both here in America and abroad. There are many fires to put out, and many concepts to re-purpose. But I think the fires that The Great Divider started cannot be extinguished so easily, and they are not the fires of progress but the fires of destruction. Of course Barry would rather burn down the house than let it survive. That is the definition of extremism. And we are on fire now, and it is not a good fire, it is a totalitarian fire burning on the left…look at Venezuela, if you dare.

Gay Rights in Modern Society and the Democratic Debate: A Reply to Marco Chu’s Article “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”

Marco Chu wrote an article in the Taipei Times on Wednesday, July 25, 2017 P. 8 entitled “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/07/26/2003675304/1

Here is some tough love, Marco.

Sorry Marco, while I completely agree with you that it is right that LGBTQ people are entitled to the same protections in law as a consequence of their inherent gender identity, and I agree that gay people are entitled to be free of discrimination and are entitled to live openly as they choose according to their gender identity, I completely disagree with how you arrive at that conclusion and your typically “progressive” selectivity of ideas and controversies as “enlightened”, and for lack of another term the opposition to those ideas as “evil”.

You have not said anything in your Taipei Times article that has not been hashed out for the past umpteen years in the United States, which, unlike Taiwan, is 80% or more Christian, and where religion is as much a part of daily life as is freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, which, by the way, have been heavily litigated for two hundred years.

You go off on a tangent that cannot be accepted, the notion that progressive ideas are somehow entitled to uber-protection and “golden” treatment because….because….well, because they are progressive! That is nonsense.

First, were a poll taken with secret ballots, you would find an overwhelming opposition in Taiwan to some of the LGBTQ issues you have mentioned, including “marriage”. However, since the Constitution is the Constitution and since it has been ruled by Taiwan’s highest legal authority that it allows gay marriage, but that the Government should determine how and when to implement that, debate is now forthcoming. Taiwan is a very traditional culture, with a very progressive epicenter, but those traditions are very strong among a majority of the population. Come back in another generation and the poll would likely change. Such is democracy, and such is human nature, where people are more careful and conservative in middle aged and older generations. Your notion that anyone in opposition to LGBTQ issues should be excluded from the discussion – well, there is a word for that – it is called “tyranny”. You are suggesting that only the LGBTQ voices can be considered in this debate (which takes away the very notion of a debate), and that anyone who opposes does not deserve to be heard.

In the US, the opposition usually takes the form of religious dogma. In Taiwan, it is likely the opposition is deeply rooted in ancient traditions and culture, just as Taiwan independence is naturally accepted among younger generations and harder to accept among the older blue-trained generations saturated with KMT dogma.

Progressive ideas do not necessarily smell better because they are progressive. This is a slippery slope. Some of the statements made in the article are somewhat dangerous.

1. The parallels offered (White Terror and human rights committee) are patently ridiculous and the parties taking part in the debate about LGBTQ are nothing like those named (“military personnel and police who tortured”) and comparing several million amah, who are likely not in favor of gay marriage to secret police is somewhat preposterous, don’t you think? (“Amah (Grandma), it is normal today, it is okay for a girl to dress like a boy, or for that boy next door to wear a dress, and for girls to marry girls and for men to marry men.” “No! Marriage has always been for a man and a woman, no one else, period. You need to see a doctor. Didn’t your parents teach you anything?” Tell me this conversation has not been had at least twenty million times in Taiwan).

2. “If the DPP government accepts religious extremists who have been discriminating against those who are not heterosexually inclined, even taking the lead in oppressing, attacking, ostracizing and cursing gay people, on the committee — imagining that this is diversity — it would not just be wrong” Basically, it is the progressive play book to say that anyone who opposes a liberal or progressive idea is an “extremist”. But this is patently false. There is a huge, huge portion of the population who are in the middle, not deep left and not deep right. Those people are ordinary everyday people who believe in their traditions, go to work, go to school, bai bai when necessary, and live their lives without “oppressing, attacking or ostracizing” anyone. They just disagree with you. Saying these people have no voice in the debate, is tyranny. Of course they should have a voice. They are a majority of the people the government represents.

Ahhh….this is the point. The progressive idea is so golden, it must be shoved down the throats of the populace because it is an enlightened position with which no one can disagree without being crazy or evil. Sorry, Marco. That just doesn’t work. And the people on the committee don’t have to be the extremists you mention, not on either side, LGBTQ or its opposition. You see, you want the extreme pro-LGBTQ voice to be represented, but not any other. Do you see the hypocrisy there? Do you understand that when far far far left ideas become like this, they become far far far right? Like Nicolas Maduro, in Venezuela, who is so far to the left, that he has crossed over into the far right, as a dictator, a socialist dictator.

3.”If a church or religion does not accept gay marriage, it can refuse to conduct same-sex weddings. That is religious freedom and cultural diversity, so while it might not be right, it cannot be criticized.” And yet, in the US, the movement has been to force religious groups, under Obama’s administration, to accept these ideas as givens, without any right to refuse to accept. In the US right now, a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There are huge numbers of people who oppose that. (Personally I think it is ridiculous, a cake is a cake and you are in business, so bake the damn cake already, but it is an explosive issue.)

What I mean is that it is a slippery slope and once you accept one position, you will end up accepting all of it, eventually. Progressives will call this “progress”. Conservatives will call this “revolution”.  Aren’t both voices entitled to be heard in the debate? Is that not what “free speech” is all about?

4. “The state should stand up for minorities and protect them from prosecution [sic] rather than dance to the oppressors’ tune while calling it ‘pluralism.'” Again, characterizing the opposition as “oppressors” certainly is a strong indication of the writer’s refusal to accept any other dissenting voice, and adopting the progressive play book in labeling opposition as “evil” as opposed to simply a contrary position. The progressive’s BM always smells like roses to the progressive.

Finally, I understand disappointment with the DPP for it not pushing through the changes that the LBGTQ community hoped would be made. Some changes have begun. To suggest the government has a duty to ignore the populace of the country and to cater to only some of its supporters also smacks of tyranny. Again, that is the tyranny of the left, that is the march towards dictatorship. If you listen to the verbiage of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez before him, you would hear the same progressive mumbo jumbo and the translation of the mumbo jumbo equals “I am your dictator, viva la revolution”. To stand up and argue that only your voice counts in a democracy is wrong.

Yes, pluralism has its dangers. The UN is an excellent example. In the UN a majority of countries often vote against history, fact and logic, because they have the votes for it. So they can vote that there is only one China and that includes Taiwan, even though Taiwan has been de facto independent for 70 years and Communist China has no dominion over Taiwan whatsoever, or that Jerusalem has no connection whatsoever to the Jews and wipe out 3,000 years of Jewish history, simply because there is a plurality. So too, in Iran and some eastern European countries, and in Russia, the leadership has actually said “We have no gays here” reflecting a plurality. That is either because they are hiding or were killed. Pluralism has its dangers too.

Stability requires deliberate action, and deliberate action requires deliberation, which by its very nature requires consideration of all sides in an issue or debate. By arguing the opposition has no voice, a beautiful thing called democracy becomes dictatorship.

There is nothing wrong with, as the DPP has said, promoting reconciliation. There is nothing wrong with considering opposing voices. “Considering” them and “obeying” them are completely different. Rejecting opposition is included within “considering” opposition. The writer’s fear of those opposing voices does not place sufficient faith in the process under the system of government Taiwanese have chosen. The alternative is the Communist Chinese way, where the supreme leader makes the decision, no debate, next case.

The LGBTQ revolution has already taken hold around the world. If you turn on the TV in the U.S., every other TV show involves LGBTQ issues, characters are in every movie, every TV show, on the news, in public life everywhere. While many in the US oppose this, there is not very much that can be done to stop it. It has taken hold in Taiwan too, in many ways. The culture is still a conservative culture. Only time will tell the extent to which the concepts are acceptable. As younger people step into positions of power, the nature of how these issues are decided will likely change. Many times sea change takes time. It requires patience (not less pressure, but patience).