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?

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.

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).

There are still “communist sympathizers” who believe China is their Eden…it is hard to believe, I know

I was reading posts regarding Communist China, and came across a post entitled “Is the People’s Republic of China a Force for Good?” https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/9954326/posts/12507, a post addressing an article discussing the People’s Republic of China’s influence in Australia.

The post is basically more than an apology for the People’s Republic of China, but actually a celebration of its communist roots and a system of government far “superior” to Western “bourgeois democracies”.  As soon as people start using “bourgeois”, I start getting nervous. I wrote a comment on the post, and you can read the original post yourself to see the depths to which an apologist for totalitarianism will go to justify it (even as against those evil human rights proponents such as Liu Xiaobo calling for democracy, because they are committing “treason”). As soon as people start saying it is treasonous to call for human rights, due process and democracy, you have reached that Twilight Zone called Communist China.

Here is my comment on the post in full. I am not sure it will be published there:

“I suppose it is ironic this was posted on June 4th, the day on which the rest of the world remembers Tienanmen Square’s massacre, another dark day in the totalitarian history of murder and oppression in The People’s Republic of China, which is basically the most horrendous “communist” dictatorship, in this case run by the Chinese Communist Party. The only tie remotely between communism and the People’s Republic of China is that it is both a totalitarian nightmare, like every communist regime in history, and the state owns and controls everything, including speech, thought and actions. To pretend, like some book group discussing the writings of Marx, that the PRC is some benign and beneficial nation of peace and harmony requires checking one’s brain and entire nervous center before waking. China is not “cooperating” with the West, it is co-opting the West with its basic capital, which is blackmail, propaganda and prevarication, undertaken under the guise of trade and economic development, using such projects as the One Belt One Road (One Noose One Way), which is a web of influence which will allow China to affect the thinking and policies of all the nations involved and affected. China has corrupted the United Nations into becoming a Communist China mouthpiece and automaton. If people with the principles discussed here reject Liu Xiaobo in favor of Xi Jinping, I really don’t know what to say, except trying having a discussion about Liu in a coffee shop in Beijing and see how long before you end up in jail. And that is free speech with Chinese characteristics. By the way, this website is not available in the PRC, and “Communist Heaven” is actually a room without light in a special corner of Hell.”

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – Taiwan’s Democracy, the U.S. Pledge, and the Chinese Communist Party’s Constant Nightmare – “Freedom”

Regarding the editorial in the Sunday Taipei Times (“The Liberty Times Editorial: Opportunities and independence”, Jul 16, 2017 – Page 6), and speaking of the U.S. position on Taiwan’s independence, the paper notes “Therefore, arms sales to Taiwan, but failure to support its independence is a curious mix-and-match of action and rhetoric.”

Actually, if one thinks about it, this is not so curious. Failing to support independence out loud is not opposing it, even if those words come out of some official’s mouth at some point, because at its root, opposition to independence is not the policy of the U.S., it is merely a tool aimed at defusing a flash point with an arch enemy with nuclear weapons.

However….there is a time to every purpose, and war between the U.S. and China is the potential result of a declaration of independence by Taiwan unless it is the right time, so it is a matter of great importance that the time be right.

What does that mean? It is not so easy to define the right time, or pinpoint. It does depend on the steady progress of Taiwan towards being de facto recognized around the world out loud as a democratic nation on its own, and it could also depend on the resolve of the people of Taiwan. Few believe Taiwanese are willing to take up arms and fight Chinese soldiers in the streets of Taiwan. They say, this is 2017, who does such things, or would want to?

In history, including recent history, there have been very few declarations of independence not accompanied by bloodshed – no country’s overseer will so easily give up its captive.

The U.S. fought a long and very bloody Revolutionary War 241 years ago propelling the U.S. into history and George Washington into the Presidency. In the course of the 8 years of war against England, over 30,000 civilians lost their lives, and there were over 200,000 military casualties. The result was “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The bloodshed and resulting democracy has served as a beacon of freedom for billions in the centuries following. Are Taiwanese willing to shed their blood for this?

I think in civil society today, we do everything we can to avoid such conflict, though evil revels in blood and gore, as Tiananmen Square, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap and so many other horrific events in Communist China have shown. It also revels in intimidation.

The result? The “One-China policy” that acknowledges that this is what Communist China says, and that the U.S. has its own idea about that. And the purpose of the ambiguity is to allow the U.S. to stand behind Taiwan, firmly, and between Taiwan and Communist China, firmly, and protect Taiwan with the full power and beauty of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of freedom and democracy now inherent in Taiwan’s system of government, and wait for the right time to help bring Taiwan into the family of recognized democratic nations, which it truly already de facto is.

All of the machinations dealing with Taiwan’s de facto independence are designed to avoid a war between two nuclear powers, especially with a North Korean powder-keg sitting just a few clicks away. We have seen how Communist China deals with resistance historically, by its brutality in Tibet and Hong Kong. The U.S. did not stand behind Tibet and wag its finger, having just completed the Korean War a few years earlier. Genocide through eugenics has ensued in Tibet. The U.K. does not have the muscle to stand behind Hong Kong even though Communist China recently stated that the 50-year agreement between the UK and Communist China no longer applies – in other words, England has no power to enforce it, so too bad, Hong Kong’s One Country-Two Systems system is now One Country-One System.

But the U.S., recognizing the tremendously important role that Taiwan plays in ensuring Asia’s democratic existence, and the beauty and grace in having its democracy flourish, and having the same freedoms as exist in the U.S. in Taiwan for its 23 million people, does stand behind Taiwan and wag its finger at Beijing and say “don’t even think of it, buddy”. It has not yet become “Make my day, punk,” but it is implicit in the military presence in China’s neighborhood, and projection of the U.S. military might around the world.

Despite the bellicosity of PLA (People’s Liberation Army) generals, China’s military is no match for the battle-hardened U.S. military might, and for all those nay-sayers in the U.S. who complain about its defense budget, it is like the defense budget for the entire free world (because as we know well, Europe is not going to mount a military that can fulfill that role) and that gives the U.S. power to keep democracy vital and dominant, protecting the freedoms of the people of the U.S., and its friends, despite the efforts of the world’s worst totalitarian regimes, from Communist China to Russia, to Iran to North Korea to Venezuela to Cuba to  those in the Middle East.

Were the U.S. to back off Taiwan, I don’t want to think of the consequences. Our law provides support for Taiwan, laws which always pass with overwhelming support in Congress. Presidents follow diplomatic niceties, but the U.S. Congress does not have to follow suit. Few in the U.S. speak glowingly of a unified Communist China and Taiwan. An overwhelming majority acknowledge that Taiwan is already a democratic nation whose own Constitution provides in Article One it is a nation with a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

That is the basic foundation of Taiwan today. And it is the basic foundation of Charter 08, offered in 2008 by Liu Xiaobo and his co-writers as the foundation for a future China. Imagine that. Taiwan is the example of what the people of Communist China can look forward to. No wonder the Chinese Communist Party is so damn afraid of tiny Taiwan. And no wonder the Chinese Communist Party is so damn afraid of India, a great U.S. ally and a democratic nation of more than one billion people – demonstrating that the Chinese Communist Party’s argument that China is too big for democracy is nonsense.

To answer the question inherent in the editorial, the democracy and independence dance is not only a dance between Communist China and Taiwan, truly of necessity for Taiwan’s benefit and survival. If it were, it would be a very short and painful dance. It is a very complicated dance and the dance floor is quite crowded, and Communist China is by far not the dancer with the biggest footprint and most destructive kick, and while the U.S. is dancing far from home, Communist China knows that doesn’t mean a thing after over 100 years of projecting power for good across the oceans and seas to stand behind freedom against oppression whenever and wherever it is found.

Also, while the dance is going, and it is going, Taiwan is evolving, and as the pro-Communist China KMT is in steep decline, Taiwan is edging closer and closer to fully realizing the power of those words above…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a nation “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Assimilate that, Chairman Xi and your Chinese Communist Party, anachronisms of despair from the 20th Century, and hollow wraiths in the shadow of Taiwan’s massively free and beautiful society.