So Is Abortion A Right Or Not?

We’re told abortion is a right. It’s no big deal. You’re just removing a collection of cells. . . a tumor. And to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want is an outrage! It’s a violation of her human rights! Right? Then why do liberals want to restrict abortion now in certain cases?

The liberal position on abortion has been that abortion is a right. Indeed, they’ve argued since the 1960s that abortion is both a fundamental human right and an absolute right guaranteed under the Constitution. And when something is a right, that means you can exercise it without permission because if you needed the government’s permission to exercise a right, then it wouldn’t be a right, it would be a privilege which could be revoked at any time.

So riddle me this. How do we square the liberal position that abortion is a right with the newly-developing liberal position that women must be stopped from aborting fetuses for sex-selection reasons? Here’s the deal:

When people are given the chance to abort their babies, they do so for a variety of reasons. Those reasons include prejudices, like the preference for boys. This has been going on in China and India and other parts of Asia for decades now and has resulted in millions of missing girls. In China alone, 40 million women are missing from the current generation. That means there are 40 million men who will never find wives because they simply don’t exist because they were aborted. (LINK)

Well, now it’s happening in Canada and probably the United States. Indeed, many of these dirty foreigners who have come to these enlightened lands of abortion have apparently not given up their evil ways. Thus, a recent study in Canada found that while the ratio of first born children in Canada’s immigrant population was similar to what nature creates, the second child skewed significantly toward males and third children skew overwhelmingly toward males. In response, Canada made it illegal to obtain an abortion if the reason is sex selection -- otherwise there are no limits on abortion in Canada. The Economist and many liberal groups are now urging a similar law in the United States to prevent those dirty Canadians from sneaking across our borders to have illegal abortions. Oh the irony.

Think about this. If abortion is a right and you can have it for any reason, then how can the government decide that you can’t have one if you are trying to off a girl? Does this make sense to you? Either abortion is a right or it is not, and if the government is going to tell you that you can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever except reasons they don’t like, then it’s not really a right anymore, is it? And if forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is akin to slavery, as many liberals have argued, how is it any less slavery just because you don't want them to get rid of girls? Is there really "good slavery"?

The reality is that liberals don’t see abortion as a right, they see it as a tool for social engineering to help women economically. And when that goal clashes with other liberal social engineering goals, abortion must give way to the cause. Maybe, it’s time we called them on this and demanded that they clarify how this can be a right if they can restrict it when they don’t like how it gets used?

Moreover, perhaps it’s time to point out other problems with abortion to our liberal friends to split their coalition. For example, as I told you a long time ago, once science locates the gay gene, that will be the end of gays because the combination of abortion plus being able to identify gay children will mean parents will eradicate gay children. Other traits will probably follow as well as we learn to identify unwanted traits. Perhaps we should ask gays how they feel about this?

Similarly, I suspect that blacks will soon catch on that they are the biggest victims of abortion. There have been 50 million abortions in the US since 1973. And while 60% of those have been whites, blacks are disproportionately more likely to have an abortion. In 2004, for example, there were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women. So blacks were five times more likely than whites to be aborted. At some point, blacks will realize what this means and they will call this “genocide.” At that point, it would be easy to see calls to ban abortion for certain ethnic groups, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps the time has come to ask liberals to explain themselves on this issue?

Thoughts?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Sucker Bait From China

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

Slow Joe is at it again. Last time he was calling Tea Party supporters terrorists. Before that he was calling women lacrosse players “gazelles” and complaining that “the wrong people end up collecting the women” in the financial crisis. Now he's praising China’s “repugnant” forced abortion policy.

Starting in the 1970s, China introduced a policy that limits families to one child per couple. This includes criminal sentences and forced abortions for parents who violate the policy. Ostensibly, this was done because China was facing an over population problem -- although China’s population was actually declining at the time the policy was put into place.

As an interesting consequence of this policy, China is now facing two of the world’s most extreme demographic problems. First, the elimination of several generations of young has left China with the world’s worst retirement problem, as China’s elderly population far outweighs its productive population (4 retirees per worker) -- this is much worse than in the United States (3 workers per retiree). Secondly, because the Chinese prefer boys over girls, this meant that mostly girls were aborted or killed as infants. Thus, China is about to face the problem that there are 40 million more eligible bachelors than there are wives. To get a sense of how large this problem is, consider that this is the same number of marrying age males in Britain, France and Germany combined. It is also the entire population of California.

China’s single-child policy is largely responsible for both of these problems and there is serious pressure to end the policy. Even China’s official press is questioning the policy, which is highly unusual. Moreover, last month, one entire province demanded a waiver of the policy. It seems that the policy will soon end.

So what does this have to do with us?

American liberals were initially big fans of China’s one-child policy. Why? Well, the 1970s was the age of the next Global Ice Age, the Population Bomb, and fantasies of global famine. We were all going to starve by 1992. And let’s face it, liberals have always loved Eugenics.

But at some point, most liberals realized that forced abortion was not a very defensible thing. So they decided that China’s policy was not something they could publicly praise, even though many continue to support it in private. Indeed, even now, you will occasionally find liberals who openly defend the policy. For example, there was a laughable AP article last month that claimed that girls had it better under the one-child policy than they did before. Of course, that’s only the girls who aren’t killed as children or fetuses and aren’t imprisoned or forced to abort their own children. Moreover, the article failed to grasp that economically, the whole premise of its argument was crap. But hey, these are liberals, what do you expect?

Enter Slow Joe Biden.

Biden is in China for reasons unknown, possibly to get him out of town until the election or maybe as collateral for our bonds or maybe he just got lost on his way to see Santa? And let me tell you, the Chinese are not pleased. They have already had to cut off one of his speeches because it was too idiotic to be translated. Then they asked him what he thought about China’s one-child policy. Here is what Joe said:

“The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one child policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oops, sorry, that’s what Biden’s spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said (and no, I did not make that name up). Here’s what Biden actually said:

“Your policy has been one which I fully understand--I'm not second-guessing--of one child per family.”

Feel free to compare the quotes, you may find a slight discrepancy. Either Barkoff is lying or Biden is “not second-guessing” China’s “repugnant” policy. . . or both. Who keeps letting this idiot out of his rubber room? Seriously, if I were Obama, I would have Biden shot to the moon and then get Huntsman to run as my VP.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Nobody Does It Better (Than China)

Anyone who would be foolish enough to draw parallels between the "pro-democracy" rebellions in Egypt and China is making the mistake of thinking that the repressive regimes running those two benighted countries are equally vulnerable to a successful revolution. Most repressive regimes, Egypt among them, are generally old-school and unprepared for modern dissent.

Hosni Mubarak seems to have been caught flat-footed, unaware of the growing anti-government movement in his country. Like dictators of old, he didn't know whom he could trust, he didn't prepare for the onslaught, and his intelligence agencies dropped the ball by missing the great organizational tool of this "spontaneous" revolt--the Internet. There was a great deal of reaction but very little planning by the Egyptian government in advance of the big demonstrations.

The Chinese government is much more media savvy, and watches the Internet like a hawk. Where it has not succeeded in suppressing anti-government net traffic, it has been fully aware of it, and made plans months in advance for any possible attempt at revolution. What the people attempting to dislodge the dictators knew, the government knew. And when it was time for the protesters to act, the troops were ready to quell. The dictators didn't want a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Bad for the public image, bad for business as usual. So the dictators made sure they knew everything they needed to know about the plans of the protesters before the protesters could assemble in large numbers in very public places.

Naifs were touting the "Jasmine Revolution" that would take down the Chinese Government and bring true democracy to the Great Oppressor. Fat chance. American Internet users assumed that the Chinese mandarins were as unaware of the web chatter as Mubarak's regime was in Egypt. Fatal error. Encouraged by the seeming success of the Middle East Internet-fueled revolts, Chinese dissidents began a huge web campaign to stage massive protests in Beijing and other major Chinese cities. The protests were supposed to burst on the scene this past weekend.

Chinese dictators learn from their mistakes. Having read every Internet transmission, deciphered every plan, singled-out all the potential leaders, and knowing the proposed locations of the protests, the Red Guard sprang into action. Why wait for an embarrassing slaughter of civilians in large numbers and in highly public places when you can knock off the opposition early and in much less visible ways? There would be no repeat of Tiananmen Square. Why bother?

Suddenly, there were mass arrests of dozens of anti-government human rights activists. Those few activists who did manage to gather enough numbers to stage any kind of protest were quickly rounded up amidst the occasional beatings. The problem is that in the Internet Age, spontaneous demonstrations actually have to be spontaneous, as well as successfully clandestine. Organizing via the Internet may have worked in Egypt, but it ain't gonna work in China.

It didn't help that the calls for protests largely originated on Chinese language sites in America. The government knew in advance the thirteen cities which would be targeted, where the protesters would gather and even the slogans that would be used by the anti-government crowds. Police and army troops showed up at the sites before any meaningful protests could even begin. The Jasmine Revolution quickly became the Jasmine Fiasco.

Still, even the attempt shows that there is a large and growing population fed up with government repression and corruption. Despite its public face of new wealth and strides forward, the simple fact is that China is rushing into the 21st Century on the backs of its masses. Modernization is everywhere, and if a few hundred thousand Chinese who got in the way of progress have to die, well, that's life. China has millions of truly homeless people, many displaced by those immense government building projects. At the same time, the government has built "show cities" of the future in which nobody lives and probably never will. Potemkin villages on steroids.

And even though the Chinese dictators skillfully monitored the Internet to shut down the potential revolution, that won't be the end of it. It is extremely difficult to entirely shut down news from the West, pro-democracy Internet posts and the transmission of the message of freedom in the ether and the cloud. As fast as China shuts down a dissident voice, two more spring up in its place. So the tech-savvy dictators may be able to fend off an organized protest poorly-disguised on the Internet, but it cannot entirely shut down the information that could lead to a truly spontaneous revolt throughout the evil empire.

As I've quoted before, "no army is as powerful as an idea whose time has come." That idea is freedom, and though the government may continue to have the ability to shut down Internet-organized protests, it can't entirely shut down the ideas transmitted on the Internet that fuel protests. And if those protests take place on a large scale in very visible places, the government may lose control of its ability to fend off a revolution by using Internet plans against themselves.

Still, for the time being, let's be cautious about the true motivation behind the revolts in the Middle East and wary of optimism about the same thing happening in China any time soon.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Good Bye, Voice of America

Hello, Voice of China. In its ongoing mission to weaken the message of freedom throughout the world while encouraging our enemies, the Obama administration is terminating the broadcasts of the Voice of America into China. Needless to say, that same administration is doing nothing to interfere with propaganda broadcasts coming into the United States from China. In fact, Beijing is planning a major increase in its funding of Chinese broadcasts into the U.S.

Voice of America was first founded in 1942, using short-wave radio to get information into Nazi-dominated Europe. It gave hope to the enslaved peoples and passed on information to resistance movements using codes and diversions. After the defeat of the Nazis, the Soviet Union emerged as the greatest world threat to freedom, later joined by Maoist China, and VOA continued to broadcast hope and liberty to the captive nations and oppressed peoples of the two evil empires. In 1953, VOA became an arm of the United States Information Agency.

Although USIA developed an inability to distinguish friend from foe, important friends of VOA such as Ronald Reagan continued to push for unequivocal broadcasts contrasting tyrannical regimes with free nations. Barack Obama is not such a friend. He apparently thinks that broadcasting stories of freedom in the West and repression in China would be biting the hand that lends us money. Like Gerald Ford speaking of Poland before the fall of the Soviet Union, Obama thinks that Tibet is not a captive nation. While touting the "democratic revolution" in Egypt that will likely end up being the Muslim Brotherhood Republic of Egypt, Obama doesn't want a discouraging word being broadcast to our good friend, China.

China objected to VOA broadcasts which encouraged Tibetan freedom, and wanted no more broadcasts being used to encourage the growing pro-democracy movement in Xinjiang Province. Said Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), member of the House Foreign Affair Committee: "This is another alarming sign that America is cowering before China's gangster regime. The Chinese people [not their government] are our greatest allies, and the free flow of information is our greatest weapon." Though I think Rohrbacher was a bit overly-optimistic about the Chinese people, I also think he got it basically right.

Radio Free Asia, VOA's much smaller sister, will continue to broadcast, but has already been told its budget will be cut dramatically. Funny the budget cuts Obama is willing to make, isn't it? This President is unwilling to stifle Chinese propaganda, and even more unwilling to reduce the budget of the Department of Education (aka The Ministry of Childhood Indoctrination), but he has no problem defunding the voice of truth that helped cripple the Nazis and played a major role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Is there a Voice of America for the Middle East? If so, I'm sure it's a goner as well.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mr. Obama--Ask Hu Jintao About This

At a press conference happening about the time of the arrival of the chief oligarch of China, an escapee and survivor of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre called for President Obama to enter a serious discussion with the Chinese President about human rights. Chai Ling is particularly concerned with China's "one child" policy and forced abortions.

Ling arrived in the United States the year after the massacre, and founded an organization called "All Girls Allowed." As far as the Chinese tyrants are concerned, Ling is a bad person on three counts--she is a female, she speaks out on China's mass child-murder policy, and she is Christian. The forced abortion issue has a double-edge, since it also allows the good old-fashioned Chinese custom of aborting female children. That part is unofficial, but if you want a boy, and you're only allowed one child, keep murdering the girls until you get a boy.

She asks Obama rhetorically what she will never be allowed to ask him directly, face to face: "President Obama, just imagine, what would you do if among your two beautiful girls, if none of them would be allowed to live because, and only because, they are girls." The grammar may not be perfect, but the question is both fair and horrifying. She goes on: "As we gather here in Washington, over 35,000 forced and coerced abortions are taking place today in China; every 2.5 seconds a precious baby's life is taken; among every six baby girls, one will never be born simply because she is a girl; 500 women will commit suicide, at five times the world average rate; 3,000 baby girls are abandoned on street corners; and more than 200 children and women are trafficked into slavery."

Her question is both heart-rending, and at the same time addresses the kind of monster that Obama is holding hands with at the White House. It also raises the question of why America's radical feminists are so silent about Islamic repression of women and China's policy of forcing women to undergo abortions. A spokesman for Women's Rights Without Frontiers described the gruesome policy: "When I say forced abortion, I mean women are literally dragged out of their homes and off the streets. They can be jailed in family planning jails (NARAL and Planned Parenthood are salivating at this), forced to abort children that they want and this can happen all the way up to the ninth month of pregnancy. Some of these forced abortions are so violent that the women themselves die along with their full-term babies."

I hope that our child-loving, human rights-advocating, equal rights for all President gives this some thought while asking Hu Jintao to pass the soy sauce.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Another Disappointment For Obama

For the first year in a row, Barack Hussein Obama, savior of America and protector of the world, is not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In a double insult to America, Al Gore is not receiving it either. The dirty furriners with the funny accents are giving the prize to a Chinese professor of literature. How dare they?

Not only has the Nobel Prize Committee failed to recognize Messiah-for-Life Obama, but they have given the prize to a jailbird. Professor Liu Xiaobo had the nerve to write tracts denouncing the benevolent Chinese communist government for its human rights abuses and suggesting nonviolent civil disobedience to the government in Beijing. And he got his just reward. The government put him in prison where he belongs for "inciting subversion of state power." Perhaps Obama will get the prize next year for trying to do the same thing the Chinese government has successfully done this year.

The Beijing powers-that-be have made the perfectly sensible decision not to allow the professor's wife to travel to Oslo to receive the award on his behalf. They haven't imprisoned her--yet--but they would be foolish to allow the wife of such a dangerous person to travel outside the confines of mainland China. Who knows what damage she could do to the forward-looking superpower?

That means for the second time in its long history, those crazy Norwegian Committee members are going to award the prize to, get this, an empty chair. The last time they did something that bizarre was when German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky was given the award in 1936 while he was in a concentration camp for upsetting the good order of the Nazi government. In other words, for the second time they have given the peace prize to someone who has done something momentous but can't attend as opposed to last year's prize which was given to someone who has done nothing but could attend. I just don't understand Scandinavian logic.

China is not taking this whole face-losing event lying down. They have convinced their fellow human rights champions Russia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Iraq and Cuba to boycott the Oslo ceremonies. And more cleverly, they are holding their own ceremony which they have denominated the "Confucius Peace Prize." The proud recipient of that award is the former vice-president of Taiwan who is the former vice-president for his constant insistence that the Brits had it right when they cried "better red than dead," and encouraging reunification with mainland China. Upon receiving the news, the former vice-president replied "Kung Fu Who?"

I encourage all our readers to send a nice sympathy note to Mr. Obama and a nasty note to the Committee informing them that you know they are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to recognizing the ongoing importance of The One.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

School Killings In China

Anyone who follows the MSM will have heard that America is an evil place because our “gun culture” has led to the murder of vast numbers of school kids. By comparison, the rest of the world is a peaceful Garden of Eden where nothing bad ever happens. Of course, this is a lie, but it fits the narrative the MSM wants you to believe. Nothing shows this more than the non-coverage of what has been going on in China in the past couple of months.

For starters, let me remind you that despite the high profile that the media loves to give school shootings, they are incredibly rare. In the last five years in the United States, there have been five shooting sprees in schools that resulted in three or more deaths. A total of 50 people were killed in these five shootings (32 at Virginia Tech and 18 during the other four). This compares to 2.5 million deaths in the US annually. Thus, while each of these is indeed tragic, this is hardly a common occurrence as the media would have you believe.

Moreover, pinning this on our “gun culture” is pure politics. Indeed, all we hear from the MSM for weeks when such a shooting happens is how it could have been prevented if we banned guns. Of course, this is a lie, and they know it. But they are looking to exploit this tragedy and no lack of logic on their part will stop them.

If you want proof that this is not the result of our “gun culture,” look at Europe. In the same five year period just discussed, anti-gun Europe had four mass killings at schools. These resulted in 49 deaths. Almost the identical number as in the United States. Thus, while the media plays up the idea of US “gun culture” being the cause of school killings, the reality is quite different.

(I am not including things like Beslan, where terrorists killed more than 340 people in a school or Afghanistan where there were more than 80 school attacks this month alone to keep girls from being educated.)

Further, consider what has gone on in China, something that is not being reported in the MSM. On May 12th, seven children were hacked to death in a kindergarten in Shaanxi. Eleven others were injured. In April, more than 50 children were injured or killed in a half dozen similar attacks. On March 23, in Fujian province, eight children were killed. These incidents are becoming so common that the Chinese have started putting armed guards in their schools with orders to shoot suspects on sight.

The current thinking in China is that this is a response by people who feel powerless to oppose their system and that these killers choose to strike at the most vulnerable in response. This strikes me as false just as the gun culture argument is false. The reality is that some people are just sick. And the idea that we should remake society, e.g. eliminate guns in the US or more closely monitor dissidents in China, to stop these people is ludicrous.

What we should take away from these events are that (1) we should not politicize tragedies, (2) we should not attribute the acts of the deranged to political groups, political causes, or groups of people, and (3) we should be more watchful of people with mental conditions and we should look to intervene earlier and with greater care.

Finally, we should take away one last fact. Some things cannot be stopped. If a lunatic is intent on hurting people, they will find a way. Thus, we must expect these things to happen. Therefore, we should consider ways to improve our protections in the event something like this does happen. Indeed, it must be pointed out that each of these killings could have been stopped sooner if we had not tried to keep peaceful, innocent people from protecting themselves through the possession of firearms.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

There Will Be No Gays In The Future

Oh boy, look at that title. People are going to go ape sh~t. Add in that this post touches upon abortion and maybe it’s time to head for the old bunker? No. It’s cold down there, and the television reception stinks. Let’s just plow ahead. When we started this blog ten months ago, one of the first articles I posted dealt with the reasons I felt that gays should be very cautious about joining hands with pro-abortion groups. In light of some recent statistical evidence out of China and India, it’s time to revisit that discussion.

At the start, let me say that I’m not talking today about the morality of abortion or homosexuality. So let’s leave those issues for other days. What I am talking about here is the intersection between political decisions today and the world of tomorrow. All I want to do is ask the question of whether or not there will be gays in the future.

Gendercide: The Parental War On Girls

In nature, there are around 105 males born for every 100 females. These numbers have been constant all over the world for many decades. Indeed, these numbers are so constant that scientists are now sure that this is nature’s way to ensure a 1 to 1 ratio at the time of puberty because males are more likely to die than females before reaching puberty.

But China and India are turning nature on its head. In China and India, there is a distinct preference for males. This has led to what has been called “Gendercide” in both countries. Girls in China and India are often considered too expensive to keep. They require a dowry to marry off and they are perceived as “leaving” the family to marry, whereas sons stick around to take care of the parents as they age. Thus, for a long time now, baby girls have often been murdered at birth or left to die (not coincidentally, this resulted in an abnormally high suicide rate among young mothers).

Until recently, however, the effects of this were not very pronounced on the population numbers. Indeed, as late as the 1980s, the sex numbers were only slightly skewed above the 105 to 100 ratio. But in the past decade or so, the effects have become shockingly obvious as the numbers have spiked. In China, the ratio of males to females in the younger generations now averages 124 to 100! In some provinces, this number is as high as 130.

To give you a sense of the magnitude of this problem, the China ratio will translate into 40 million surplus males (or missing females) of marrying age in 2020. That is equal to the total number of expected males of marrying age in Germany, France and Britain combined in 2020. That is also the same number of marrying age males expected to live in the United States in 2020. That’s really bad news for China, as single males mean crime and upheaval. And it could be even worse for China’s neighbors, as war is a great way to thin the male population and bride-napping is becoming big business in some parts of the world.

And before you blame China’s one child policy, that does not appear to be the problem. Indeed, India has a similar ratio, but no similar policy. South Korea hit 117 to 100. The Philippines hit 109. Even somewhat western countries like Serbia (108), Macedonia (108), Armenia (117), Azerbaijan (117), and Georgia (111) have reached unnatural levels. And lest you think this couldn’t happen here, there is evidence of similar ratios starting to appear in Asian-American communities.

So what has caused this sudden surge? Ultrasound equipment. The introduction of ultrasound has coincided with the spike in sex-selection based abortions. Indeed, this is borne out even within these countries, where abortions are much more prevalent where ultrasound machines are introduced. India has tried to combat this by making it illegal to abort a child to choose the sex of the child. But women have gotten around this by getting ultrasounds from one doctor and then having another abort the girls.

What all of this tells us is that people find early term abortion much more palatable than infanticide. We can conclude this because the preference for males has not changed in these countries, yet the number of abortions spiked with the introduction of ultrasound gear. That means that parents are much more willing to abort a fetus than they are to kill a child after it is born. Moreover, the massive numbers indicate that a shockingly large number of parents are willing to make this decision, perhaps as many as a third.

Gendercide Round II: The Coming Parental War On Gays

So what does this have to do with gays? Everything.

First, I accept the idea that homosexuality is genetic. I don’t accept this because gays claim to feel born that way. Indeed, our own justifications mean nothing when it comes to explaining human nature, because humans are inherently self-delusion and are extremely good at justifying their own behavior to themselves. What convinces me is the ever-more-proven fact that most of our impulses, especially when it comes to sex, are genetic in nature.

In fact, over the past few years, scientists have discovered that despite our culture’s obsession with skinniness, men and women do not prefer skinny partners. They prefer partners who have the “appropriate” proportion between hips and waist -- no matter what the size of the body. These results transcend culture, race and age, and, apparently, we don’t even consciously realize that we are using this as a search criteria. Similarly, a link has been found between race preferences and body fat percentage when people engage in interracial dating. Other recent studies have shown that all humans, again regardless of culture, find near-symmetry beautiful in humans (but not perfect symmetry, which we find disturbing). They have even found now that the biggest indicator of what will attract mates is smell, which may clue us in regarding the “genetic distance” and health of a potential partner. Interesting.

What all of this tells me is that our sexual impulses are hardwired by our genetic code, and that we are not even consciously aware of why we act the way we do. Thus, I have no reason to think that homosexuality isn’t anything more than a genetic variation.

Now here’s the catch. If this is true, then we will soon find the “gay gene.” If the gene can be repaired, then I have little doubt that parents will have it fixed before the child is born. Why? Because as genetics takes greater leaps into remaking the human being, we are already seeing parents opt for a variety of preferences. If it becomes common to remake children to be stronger or smarter or change their eye color, it will certainly become common to remove genetic defects that lead to diseases or other negative hereditary conditions -- like baldness or stuttering, for example. Under such circumstances, it is simply inconceivable that parents would leave in place a gay gene that gives the child impulses that run counter to what 97% of the general population possess.

In other words, even leaving morality out of this, it is inconceivable that parents would leave in place genes in their children that limit their chances of finding a happy mate to less than 3% of the population (a percentage that will shrink continually as other parents make similar choices).

More importantly, even if no fix is ever found for the gay gene, just being able to locate it will be enough to start the cascade of abortions that will eliminate homosexuality. Indeed, if parents think nothing of eliminating baby girls because they want to control the sex of the child, there is no reason to think that they would be any more troubled in eliminating children with the gay gene, especially if devices like ultrasound allow for the clearly more palatable choice of early term abortion.

Thus, it is likely that parents will start to eliminate homosexuality from our species through these practices, and I suspect that there will be no significant amount of homosexuality within a few generations.

Can this be stopped? Probably not. If you make abortion a right, then you can’t really say “except where we don’t like your reasoning.” Indeed, as I noted in my first article on this, Sweden has now ruled that if abortion is to be a right, then the state cannot prohibit sex selection as a motive. And even if you did prohibit abortion based on the presence of the gay gene, how do you keep parents from doctor shopping as they do in India?

Should this be stopped? I guess that’s up to you. But if you’re gay, then you might want to reconsider who your political friends are. Maybe helping to make abortion a right is not a great idea. In fact, as China and India are demonstrating now, maybe letting people select the “options” their kids will have is not a great idea for anyone?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Meeting That Changed The World

When Obama was elected, one of the side-effects was supposed to be a return of American prestige. We were told the free world would rally behind Obama and we would enter a new age of international cooperation. Our enemies would stop their evil ways and our friends would join us in creating a brave new world. But our enemies saw Obama’s strategy of leadership through weakness as just plain weakness. And now it looks like our friends are abandoning us as well. . . for China.

Over the past year, we’ve seen a lot of hints about the erosion of American prestige among our friends. When the Honduras issue arose, “our friends” in South America didn’t turn to us to solve the crisis, they looked to Brazil. Our friends in South Africa have ignored our efforts to solve the man-made disaster (an appropriate use of the term) in Zimbabwe, and have actively embraced the creature that destroyed the country. Moreover, much of Africa now looks to China for leadership.

Turkey, long considered the most important Muslim country by America, turned away from us as well. They have become increasingly anti-American and anti-Israeli, and are actively looking for new friends in Iran, Syria and throughout the Middle East.

Europe spoke about a new era of cooperation with the United States and then promptly turned their back on us. Rather than embrace Obama’s new regime, they have increasingly looked to the influence of Putin’s Russia on the issue of energy and to China on the issue of economics.

India too seems to have laughed off American leadership. During the cold war, India was relatively neutral, with a slight bias toward the communists. When the cold war ended, India turned its attention to America and worked hard to become our friends. The high point of that relationship came near the end of the Bush administration, when Bush condoned India’s violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Under Obama, that relationship has all but collapsed into mockery.

Brazil, India, and South Africa are considered the most important democracies in the third world. They are the up and comers, the ones that many internationalists think will dominate the future. I don’t buy that, but it would be foolish to deny their significance.

And when Obama ran for office, he specifically mentioned these countries, among others, as candidates for what he saw as a “league of democracies,” a group of like-minded countries that could work together to make the world a better and more free place. Thus, it is quite a blow that these countries have turned away from American leadership. It is even more of a blow that they have chosen instead to look to totalitarian China for leadership.

There was a little-reported event at the Copenhagen summit that highlights exactly how much this relationship has changed. Get this. . .

When Obama arrived at Copenhagen, he tried to hold a meeting of 20 nations. But to his surprise, the Chinese sent vice foreign minister He Yafei instead of Premier Wen. This was an intentional snub.

In response, Obama demanded a private meeting with Wen and got it. But when he arranged a follow up meeting, they sent an even lower ranking envoy.

An upset Obama demanded another meeting with Wen, but was told that he was at the airport. At the same time, Obama tried to arrange a meeting with India, Brazil and South Africa. But. . . He was told that Indian Premier Manmohan Singh had already left Copenhagen. South African President Jacob Zuma at first agreed to the meeting, but then cancelled when he “learned” that India would not be there. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva refused to attend as well on the basis that India would not be there.

Eventually, the Chinese agreed to meet with Obama. Obama was told this would be a one-on-one meeting with Premier Wen. So imagine Obama’s surprise when he walked into the meeting and found a meeting already on-going. In attendance were China’s Wen, India’s Singh, South Africa’s Zuma, and Brazil’s Lula. There was no chair set out for Obama.

As White House aides scrambled to find Obama a chair, Obama apparently stated: “I’m going to sit by my friend Lula.” He then attended the rest of the meeting and “achieved” his non-agreement agreement, which he trumpeted as the agreement that saved the conference. . . a claim which official Chinese newspapers called “grandstanding” and which environmental groups call fraud.

There has been much debate outside of the MSM about what this event means. Team Obama has tried to downplay this as mere confusion and by claiming Obama didn’t crash the meeting because he was invited by the Chinese. But that’s all about saving face.

In reality, this is an ominous signal that these three “great democracies” no longer see American leadership as relevant. They now look to China for leadership. There simply is no other interpretation for these leaders lying to Obama about being in Copenhagen and then meeting secretly with China.

By the same token, the one thing most observers have missed is that the Chinese invite had to be intentional. So far, everyone who has discussed these events has attributed China’s inviting Obama either to confusion or to Obama crashing the meeting. But they’ve all missed the point. The reality, I’m afraid, is a bit more obvious -- China wanted Obama to arrive at this meeting and see them leading Obama’s “friends” by the nose. This was a set up to demonstrate China’s new influence to Obama in the most personal of ways.

While this is no doubt embarrassing to Obama, this should be of greater concern to all Americans. If we have lost our leadership role among the world’s democracies, then it’s going to be an ugly century. The Chinese way is mercantilism, not free trade; oppression, not freedom or human rights; and neocolonialism and client-states, not a world of colleagues.

This could get ugly.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

China Is A Free Nation (Well, Sort Of)

Doug Bandow at The American Spectator had an interesting take on China last week. Lest anyone think he's a China-propagandist, he starts his article with "Repeat after me: the People's Republic of China is an authoritarian country. Political leaders are not elected. Religious persecution is real. China is not free." But there's a point where China at least appears to be much more open than America. And that's in travel restrictions.

He goes on: "Yet to visit the PRC is to visit a nation that feels free. It's remarkably easy to get a visa. The consular office in Washington, D.C. is always crowded: pay an extra $30 and get same-day service. It's a lotharder for Chinese to get a visa from the U.S. government. Blacklisting presumably occurs, but most bettingmust be perfunctory. Given the time difference, the Washington consulate is handing out visas while the Beijing Foreign Ministry is sleeping. The PRC appears to have decided to err on the side of collecting U.S. dollars."

He goes on to describe his own experience in traveling to China. He cites the lack of an overtly forbidding security presence at Beijing airport. He allows that most Chinese and foreigners are quickly moved through the "nothing to declare" customs line. He actually carried copies of two foreign policy policy books which were somewhat critical of China, and yet was passed right through, and says that it at least appears that nobody is checked for much of anything that wouldn't be openly "subversive."

Once inside the country, travel is rarely restricted. Having arrived with his visa intact, Bandow was allowed to travel to tourist spots which are remarkably free of old communist ways. Western franchise chains such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken are ubiquitous. The stores are filled with merchandise of all kinds, at reasonable prices, and in capitalist-like abundance. Bandow goes on to say: "This is no longer an impoverished regimented society in which everything is limited. In Shenyang I went to dinner with other conferees at a traditional Chinese restaurant where all the waiters and waitresses were wearing Santa caps and (secular) Christmas decorations covered the walls. It could have been any of dozens of U.S. establishments."

Everyone appears to be going on their way unimpeded. Cell phones appear to be attached to nearly every Chinese ear. Automobiles are catching up with bicycles as a major method of getting around. He was able, without difficulty getting onto the internet and English-language sites (although he says that every time he tried a Google search, it came up in German, so he switched to the AOL search engine instead). We all know that the Chinese restrictions on information are some of the tightest in the world, but most information was readily available. Unlike his experience in North Korea, where he felt he was being watched at all times, even in his sleep, Bandow felt free to do or say pretty much anything he wanted, and to find willing Chinese participants in his conversations.

The communists are still very much around, but seem helpless to stop this growth of the free exchange of ideas propelled by the Chinese love of acquiring goodies on the market. That will probably continue to be true, unless China/American relations deteriorate suddenly or the government senses that America has changed its tune and elected a leader of equal importance to their own.

I have never traveled to China (my entire experience with the far east was a couple of trips to Seoul to negotiate the official bribes necessary for a client of mine to open a Malibu Grand Prix racing park franchise). But I do know that Bandow is no blind liberal, and several of my friends have traveled to China and come back with similar stories. The average Chinese citizen (as opposed to the high-echelon autocrats) seems to want very much to compete with America rather than crush an enemy. In the cities and outside of the military, the Chinese both admire and mimic American ways.

Bandow concludes by saying "But some day, whether it comes in two, three, or four decades, the two countries are likely to meet as global equals. That will force the U.S. to operate very differently, especially in Asia. It behooves Washington to prepare for what is coming, and to begin thinking about how it should respond to that day." I see that as a very reasonable way of viewing things.

As the old guard dies out (and I mean old--they all seem to last into their eighties), and newer blood comes in which has grown up with the ever-increasing freedom of choices, America will probably end up treating China the same way it now treats former enemies such as Japan and Germany. And unless something terrible and unforeseen happens, this will have been accomplished without any further shooting wars between the two nations or their surrogates. I won't see it, but maybe my children and their children will.

Now, about Russia . . . .
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Comes Home From China--Learned Nothing

President Obama has returned from his Asian junket, having learned nothing, accomplishing nothing, and lowering American prestige throughout the world. Beside the insane bow/handshake with the Japanese emperor, Obama spent most of the trip looking like an uninvited guest at the Chinese family dinner. He gave a semi-lecture on free speech and condemning censorship to a government hand-picked audience which was seen by practically nobody in China because, well, they censored it.

After the orchestrated meeting with the Young Communist League, he had a half-hour news conference with China's President Hu Jintao. Obama came off as the leader of a second-rate nation being granted an audience by the president of a real country. No western news media were allowed to ask any questions or in any way participate in the "news" conference. At least it didn't have to be censored. The whole thing was a put-up job. And the naive president from the minor country in North America looked like a whipped dog. No president in American history has ever looked so weak and so foolish in the presence of a foreign leader, let alone a repressive regime such as China's.

Every president since Nixon who has visited China has been treated as a powerful leader of a potential ally or potential enemy. But either way, the president was a fearsome presence. And they always came back with something positive for the American people, from an agreement to have further discussions to actual treaties. What did Obama bring back? Nothing. And in the process he made the United States look like the toothless tiger that Mao described half a century ago.

Obama had set out goals that he wished to at least start accomplishing before making the trip to China. Let's see how he did. He wanted to encourage Chinese/American trade relations, and instead got lectured about American protectionism. And he had an opportunity to strike back. Any previous president would have hit Hu Jintao between the eyes over Chinese currency manipulation and its own protectionism. Instead, Obama stood like an errant child with no debating skills and no preparation for defending his nation's position.

He went to ask for China's assistance in pressuring Iran to halt its nuclear production program. The Chinese just laughed. He went to see if he could make some progress in getting China to clean up its act and assist in the campaign against global warming. The normally inscrutable Chinese leaders laughed even louder. And as to manipulation of currency, when he did finally address it as an afterthought (he must have found his script), the Chinese made another half-hearted promise to look into its purposeful devaluation of its currency.

His trade mission went just as well. The U.S. had just been recently criticized at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum by such notable capitalist nations as China, Russia, and Mexico for protectionism. Rather than defend America during the Chinese visit, Obama lamely suggested that America might possibly join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a nearly unknown trade pact. And yet, Obama proudly proclaims that he is the first "Pacific President."

The only good thing that came out of the wasted visit was that the American press coverage was remarkably unfavorable. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post finally climbed out of the tank and offered serious criticism of the president's visit. As Barbara Demick of the L.A. Times said: "Not only is the U.S. president coming away without definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels."

I wish to acknowledge the fact-gathering done by Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard. I had been jumping from news to blogs to political commentary on Obama's failed visit, but Barnes put the facts together in an easily understood format.

Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, Leslie Hook reports on the China that Obama chose not to look at. Religious freedom is being suppressed every day, as it was during Obama's visit practically under his nose in Beijing. "Yet had Barack Obama wanted to understand something of the real China, his time would have been better spent here than at the various state dinners, Forbidden City photo-ops, and carefully managed town-hall events that consumed the balance of his trip this week."

Ms. Hook carefully tracks an actual event going on in the capital concurrent with Obama's visit. "On Sunday, more than 500 members of Shouwang church gathered at the cinema for a service. Shouwang, founded in 1993 by pastor Jin Tianming, is one of the city's largest unregistered churches and counts around 800 regular members. But until last weekend, they had never once been able to meet in such large numbers in an indoor space in Beijing." So why the generosity allowing them to meet just at this time? It got them off the streets and not visibly being arrested for defying government prohibitions against traditional or non-government approved religious practice.

The story of the Chinese church suppression is very much like the oppression of early Christians. The vast majority of the members are not political. They are urban intellectuals and seekers of a divine purpose in life who feel their conscience requires that they continue to worship in their own way. But even though the churches preach nothing against the government, their very existence is considered subversive because they believe there may be a higher authority than the government and worship conducted solely under government rules is a violation of their right to believe in God in their own way. Rome, Beijing, not much difference.

Since Obama's strongest religious stand is avoiding letting anyone know what he actually believes, it probably should come as no surprise that the religious freedom movement in China interests him not at all. Citing a specific example of governmental tyranny such as the attack on the free churches would deviate completely from Obama's "human rights" pablum. It would require him to demand a specific protection for a particular violation of a particular human right. And that would have offended his hosts.

So even if Obama learned nothing, we learned a great deal. He is scared spitless of communist dictators, he is incapable of defending anything America does, he is as deferential as a serf of old toward eastern potentates, and religious freedom is a non-starter. Next trip may be to Antarctica to apologize to the penguins for global warming. And the penguins will out-debate him. And the best show of all will be when he bows to the emperor penguins.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economist Reads Commentarama

Ok, that’s a bit facetious. . . they probably just skim. Still, in the past couple weeks, The Economist has finally discovered what Commentarama readers already knew about China and Honduras. Good for them. Interestingly, as a result of their realizations, they’ve turned on Obama on both issues.

The Economist, for those who don’t know, is a center-left European magazine that was once center-right. But its center-right days are long behind it and its economics focus is shaky at best. Still, it’s one of the best sources of world news in a media world that runs from foreign news like vampires run from sunlight. . . or Democrats run from voters.

So what did The Economist finally discover? Let’s take a look at their recent article on China, and then we’ll discuss their shock that things are not as they thought in Honduras. Oh my!

China: Not An Economic Giant? Military Threat?

As Commentarama readers will recall, last August we debunked the idea that China was about to replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power. We noted that their economy is actually quite small compared to ours, and that they aren’t even the second largest. We’ve also mentioned that China’s holding of United States debts does not give China any real power over America (except to the extent that we want them to loan us more money). Now it appears, The Economist has caught on:

There is now talk of a G2 of China and America, implying that their global weights are nearly equal. In fact, as our special report argues, this is a misperception, and a dangerous one.

China’s economy is still less than a third the size of America’s at market exchange rates. Its GDP per head is one-fourteenth that of America. The innovation gap between the two countries remains huge. America’s defense budget is still six times China’s. As for the [$800 billion in] Treasury bills, dumping them is not an option for China: a tumbling dollar would hurt its own economy.

But that’s not all The Economist has discovered. They’ve also discovered that China is becoming a military and geopolitical threat:

China has engaged in a rapid military build-up that could challenge America as the defender of Asian peace (and Taiwan’s sovereignty). Unannounced, China is building its first aircraft carrier, yet its generals often refuse even to talk to their American peers.

Underlying the strategic competition is China’s economic rise. Its companies are “colonizing” swathes of Africa and Latin America, cozying up to regimes Westerners shun.

Sound familiar? Perhaps you recall reading about China’s military build up and the problems this could cause for the United States in the region, as well as China’s troubling creation of “bamboo republics” throughout the world in our September article describing why China is becoming a danger to us today. Welcome aboard Economist.

Interestingly, having now discovered both of these issues, The Economist is becoming critical of Obama’s China policy. They particularly argue that Obama has pushed China too hard economically (out of mistaken fear of a co-equal China), but has failed to push China hard enough regarding human rights, which The Economist sees as something the United States must do to turn China into a more responsible international power. I see that as a misreading of the Chinese mindset -- which struggles against an inferiority complex that makes outside advice more than just unwelcome. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see an enthusiastic endorser of Obama become so openly critical of Obama’s brilliant foreign policy.

Honduras: This Was No Boating Accident

The Economist also is now critical of Obama’s Honduras solution. Indeed, after initially declaring the negotiated agreement between Zelaya and Honduras to be a victory for Obama over the evil coup, The Economist has suddenly discovered that the agreement doesn’t do what they thought it did. What do you mean he doesn’t automatically get reinstated? Left to Congress? Obama going to recognize the elections regardless? Who could have known this? No one. . . except, apparently, Commentarama readers.

Time Magazine also has discovered that they’ve been had. Check this out:

When the U.S. last week finally brokered a deal between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the man who replaced him following the June 28 coup, de facto President Roberto Micheletti, observers wondered how the Obama Administration had won Micheletti's agreement. That's because the pact allowed for Zelaya to be restored to office before Honduras' Nov. 29 presidential election — a prospect Micheletti had fiercely opposed. But as the dust settles, the more common question this week is, What was Zelaya thinking when he signed this accord?

The Oct. 30 agreement, in fact, leaves it to the Honduran congress to decide whether the leftist Zelaya should be restored before the presidential vote (in which he's not a candidate). But Zelaya, still holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa since sneaking back into the country from exile in September, appears to have grossly miscalculated the odds of the legislature voting in his favor, and that leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the accord. On Friday, Zelaya told Radio Globo that the accord was "dead," adding that there was "no sense in deceiving Hondurans."

Ok, so the Hondurans broke the agreement and we need to crush them to maintain Obama’s honor, right? Strangely, no. Get this. . . Time notes that it should have been “apparent to Zelaya” that the Congress would not back him. Funny, it wasn’t apparent to anyone else at the time, except for Commentarama readers. Sounds like they’re ready to abandon Zelaya, just like Obama has abandoned him.

Indeed, while Zelaya is now arguing that his restoration should be a precondition for international recognition of the result of the November 29 election, that is being described as “naive.” According to chief U.S. negotiator Thomas Shannon, the United States will recognize the election results even if Congress declines to restore Zelaya. Really? Those are the sounds of abandonment you're hearing, right there. No one could have seen this coming!

Equally interesting, Time points out just how naive Team Obama was in this matter. Apparently, they actually thought the Honduran Congress (the one that voted 5-1 against Zelaya on two occasions, the one that listened to Zelaya threaten invasion or insurrection, the one that watched the world crap on their constitution) would actually have a change of heart! Said Time:

U.S. officials say they hoped that four months after the coup, the congress would be less of an anti-Zelaya hothouse and therefore more amenable to letting him finish the last three months of his term as the democratically elected President.

Wow, that is naive. Or is it? Was this really just wishful thinking or did Team Obama just wash their hands of Zelaya? You and I know the answer because we've already discussed this. Now, apparently, Time is figuring this out too. Indeed, taking a surprisingly critical stance against Obama, Time now suggests a certain cynicism on the part of Team Obama in this whole affair:

The Obama Administration is technically correct when it argues that last week's pact allows it to recognize the Nov. 29 election even without Zelaya's restoration — a result that would let Obama wipe his hands of the Honduras mess while getting U.S. conservatives off his back. But. . . it could certainly have negative implications for Obama's credibility in the region if he is perceived to have brokered a deal that allowed a military coup to succeed. Then again, the U.S. President could always shift the blame by pointing out that it was Zelaya that signed the deal.

Can’t you just feel the love. . . fading?


** Update: The Honduran Congress has now decided not to schedule a vote to reinstate Zelaya. Zelaya is blaming Obama and Asst. Sec. Shannon. Said Zelaya supporter Elvia Valle, "The United States is no longer interested in punishing a coup-installed government. [This] has left a bitter taste in our mouths."


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Drops A Bomb

President Barack Obama is congratulated by his fellow UN peacemakers for ending the nuclear arms race, bringing love and brotherhood to the world, and starting the final dismantling of the weapons which previously threatened to destroy the planet. Presiding over the UN Security Council, Obama single-handedly brought about non-proliferation and the destruction of all existing nuclear devices. And you thought he wasn't the Messiah!

Don't take my word for it. Here's what the AP had to say about it: "With Obama presiding, the Security Council endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with undiminished security for all." See? I told you. The Los Angeles Times jumped in with: "The vote gave Obama an early, first step toward his ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons after weeks and months of negotiations."

The resident news agency in the White House, ABC World News, said Obama returned to the United Nations today and spoke of his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that aims toward that goal." "Imagine," as John Lennon said. CBS and NBC hopped on the bandwagon to point out that even Russia and China signed onto the resolution that slashes the arsenals of nations that have them, and stopping the spread to those who don't. NBC added: "The President is carving out a sweeping new foreign policy vision." Well, NBC, it's not really new, it's just the first time a President presided over the Security Council and pushed such a ridiculous and dangerous idea in the belief that any dictator was actually going to abide by it. Russia and China signed on, and we all know how trustworthy they are.

Hark! I think I just heard a discouraging word! The Washington Post was a bit more forthright writing about the reactions of some of the other permanent members of the Security Council. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the whole exercise is a charade, and a forceful reminder to the president that for all his grand ideas and plans, a difficult and dangerous world stands in the way." If the president really wanted to do anything practical toward reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, why did Obama personally see to it that the words specifically referring to North Korea and Iran were removed from the final draft of the resolution? You're not going to get very far in arms reduction and non-proliferation by being afraid of offending rogue states.

Bloomberg News says: "The text doesn't cite Iran [or North Korea] by name, an omission reflecting the difficulty [Obama] will have in achieving a similar consensus on pressuring Iran [and North Korea] to avoid creating or using nuclear weapons." But that doesn't stop the deaf, dumb and blind New York Times from gushing that Obama "moved Thursday to tighten the noose around Iran, North Korea and other nations that have exploited gaping loopholes in the patchwork of global nuclear regulations." By purposefully removing the names of the two rogue nations from the resolution? Liberal wisdom is truly strange. And Obama said nary a word about "tightening up regulations," let alone any kind of serious enforcement. I guess his good intentions will have to do.

Once again, Sarkozy laid it out rather well: "How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them (Iran and North Korea). We live in the real world. And the real world expects us to make decisions and enforce them." For all our carping about France, Sarkozy not only makes a good point, but has good reason to say it. America at least has major armed forces. France has only token forces--and the bomb (and effective ways to deliver it). Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by inaction and cowardice while expecting France to give hers up offends even a Francophobe like me.

The tone-deaf and outrageously arrogant Obama had attempted to prove how important he was when he said: "I called this summit to make sure that we have a clear path to non-proliferation and the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide." What a twit! He didn't call any "summit." It was the regular opening day session of the Security Council. And all he had done was take the chair, after removing Iran [and North Korea] from the agenda so that it would be an airy-fairy meaningless resolution instead of a real attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Meanwhile, Russia has been a stumbling block in the way of imposing meaningful sanctions against Iran. After the Security Council resolution was passed, neither Putin nor UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov indicated any change in Russia's opposition to sanctions against Iran (it is well-known that those two are the real policy-makers, while Prime Minister Medvedev is just a happy-face nonentity in Russian affairs). So if you thought that this was the "secret trade-off" Obama would get for dumping our nuclear defense shield in Eastern Europe, you were sadly mistaken, and foolishly optimistic (much like Obama).

The US-drafted resolution called for "further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament to achieve a world without nuclear weapons and urged all countries that have not signed the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty to do so." Of course, the resolution failed to include mandatory provisions that would have rquired nuclear weapons states to take concrete disarmament steps.

China is one of the signers of the grand resolution. So I guess everything's OK with them, right? Well here's what Chinese President Hu Jintao said after the resolution passed: "We will continue to keep our nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security, and make efforts to advance the international disarmament process." And perhaps Obama never heard what Barry Goldwater had to say about China before it went nuclear: "The idea of a billion Chinese armed only with their bare fists scares the hell out of me." Which basically explains the problem with the whole disarmament resolution. Assuming that all the nations actually did comply, and nukes disappeared from the face of the earth, America now becomes a beautiful country, loaded with industry and natural resources, just ripe for the People's Army to march on in. No nuclear wasteland to have to deal with, just pristine new territory for the People's Republic to take over by good old-fashioned invasion.

Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom expressed his dismay at the removal of Iran and North Korea from the specifics of the resolution. "If the President intended for this to be meaningful action, why remove the two nations at which it was originally aimed and eliminate the immediate possibility that this resolution will be a work of serious diplomacy instead of a great exposition on a world we will probably never see." Gee, we were asking ourselves the same question way back when Obama's mouthpiece at the UN, Susan Rice, announced that the rogue states were being removed from the wording of the original resolution.

The Great Peacemaker said "the United States refrained from naming countries in the resolution to avoid disagreements with Russia and China." It's a really bad day when England and France both take stronger stands on rogue nations than the United States. And his statement was not entirely true anyway. The resolution, as originally written before Obama got hold of it, did not "refrain from mentioning." Obama purposely and dangerously removed both named terrorist states from the final resolution that he presented to the Security Council.

By the way, Mr. Obama, you love the idea of getting every nation which hasn't signed on to the non-proliferation treaty to do so now. Well then, what about the fact that North Korea did, and then simply announced that it was withdrawing in 2003 when its nuclear development had come to fruition while it was supposedly not doing anything of the kind? Should the United States start dismantling its nuclear weapons on faith? Only to find out that the rogue states were "just kidding?" It doesn't happen, and it's the reason that the original resolution specifically targeted both Iran and North Korea.

And finally, there's the newly-revitalized Russia. Even after the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the spinoff of former satellite states as Russia tried to come back from the brink of total physical and emotional exhaustion, Mr. Putin's nuclear arsenal remains nearly as formidable as ever. The chart to the left shows the growth and diminution of the American-Russian nuclear weapons caches from the beginning of the cold war to today. It's not a comforting picture.

So let's get down to the real nitty-gritty. What exactly did Obama intend to get out of his grandiose plan and successful unanimous resolution? As the Washington Post puts it: "Obama departed New York on Thursday afternoon for the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh with reassurances of his global popularity. His address to the General Assembly on Wednesday was greeted with frequent applause; even long-time antagonists of the United States, includding Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, had kind words for him." In other words, he got just what he wanted. Absolutely nothing concrete, but now his worshippers have spread from little backwards America out to the entire world.

Addendum: After this article was written, more news came to the public attention regarding the nuclear nonproliferation efforts of the Security Council. They obviously don't work. Late afternoon (west coast time), Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarcozy called a special press conference during the G-20 conference to announce (surprise, surprise) that Iran is much farther along in its nuclear enrichment program than previously thought. The tipoff was an entire previously unknown and very sophisticated nuclear lab. Brown said that the U.N. Security Council needed to take immediate and meaningful action against Iran. Sarkozy also added that Iranian assets should be frozen in all banks throughout the world. Obama said "Looky, that isn't really good news."

Reacting to their comments on the discovery and proposed action, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said "Obama will regret it." Do you get it yet, Mr. President? Your weakness and vacillation and dangerous acceptance of the word of dictators is greeted with nothing but contempt. Brown and Sarkozy propose immediate and serious action against Iran, and who does Ahmadenijad threaten? You. Wake up before it's too late. He knows the other two leaders won't cave in to threats, but he also knows you will do anything to avoid a confrontation that might make you unpopular in the Muslim world.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why China Is A Danger To Us. . .

I wrote an article some time ago in which I pointed out that the obsession with China surpassing us economically was all a bunch of paranoid garbage. . . and it is. But that doesn’t mean that we should not be worried about China. Here’s what should concern you. . .

China: The Military Threat

About ten years ago, China came to an interesting realization. It knew it could not compete with the United States military as a world power. But what if it didn’t have to? After much rethinking, China concluded that it didn’t need to compete with the United States militarily as a world power, it only needed a strong enough military to outclass whatever the United States could bring to the region in the event of conflict. In other words, it didn’t need to prepare to fight the United States around the world, it only needed to be strong enough to intimidate the United States into staying out of whatever regional conflicts it chose to start, e.g. Taiwan.

Putting that plan into motion, China began modernizing its military with EU and Russian weapons. In 2002, when I first started paying attention to this issue, China began buying old Russian Kilo-class submarines. Those subs are equipped with long-range, anti-ship missile systems. The Chinese also bought destroyers, anti-aircraft missiles and fighter-bombers from the Russian at the same time. They also began building large numbers of missiles that could reach other countries within the region, and they began doing war games that involved simulating attacks on Taiwan.

According to experts at the National War College, those submarines would “very significantly enhance the Chinese navy's ability to influence events in the East China Sea. First, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area.”

Now Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged this threat. Said Gates on Wednesday:

“When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the US symmetrically -- fighter to fighter or ship to ship -- and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options. Investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific -- in particular our forward air bases and carrier strike groups.”

Short of starting an arms race in the region, combating this threat will be extremely difficult, especially with an administration that pays no attention to world affairs. Perhaps discouraging further arms sales and allowing Taiwan to buy more modern American military hardware would be a good start? Of course, that could cause China to stop buying the bonds Obama needs to sell so that he can keep up his deficit spending.

China: The Foreign Policy Threat

At the same time, China has undertaken a much more aggressive approach to foreign policy throughout the rest of the world. Meet the “Bamboo Republic”:

Do you remember the banana republic? “Banana republic” was the term for countries that were essentially ruled by fruit companies. British or American companies would head to places like South America and set up banana and rubber plantations. They would then use their considerable wealth and power to shape/control the local governments to ensure that their investment was protected. The banana republics came to end as result of various means, most often revolution.

Now they are back, and China is the biggest purveyor. At a time when most governments in the world are content to step back and let NGOs -- non-governmental organizations -- address the problems of the Third World, China has stepped into the vacuum. Using hard currency, they have bought up massive amounts of resources in these countries, everything from oil, to minerals, to huge tracks of land. They also bought up the companies that were doing the extracting and they have created companies to manage the land. In this way, they are securing the oil, the copper, the iron ore, and the wheat that they need.

The question that remains unanswered is how this will affect the governments in those countries. Will this predispose them toward a favorable view of China? Will they feel held hostage to China’s demands? Will they become Bamboo Republics? And is this good for these countries, or have they simply traded white colonial masters for Chinese colonial masters? Moreover, how will this affect countries like the United States, as, for example, copper mine after copper mine comes under the influence of the Chinese government?

Like it or not, resources are limited and it’s time to consider the wisdom of letting a government like China monopolize the things upon which modern economies depend.

China And The Coming Oil Shortage Threat

Similar to the Bamboo Republic threat comes a threat of massive disruption to our oil supply. Everyone knows that oil is a commodity, and, thus, it doesn’t matter where you get it, right? Well, no.

In fact, there are different types of oil. Indeed, one of the reasons that Iran is seeking nuclear power even though it is “sitting” on a ton of oil, is that its oil is “sour crude”, meaning it contains a great many impurities -- particularly sulfur. Those impurities need to be removed before the oil can be processed. This makes the oil expensive to use and not well suited to being turned into gasoline (it tends to be used for heating oil or diesel).

A second, more important fact is that oil is not dumped into a market where it can be picked up by anyone like bread from a bin at a grocery store. Oil comes from certain countries and is often designated for specific countries. Indeed, the United States gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. But coming in a strong fourth, and providing around 1/6th of the oil supplied to the United States, is Venezuela.

And this rubs Hugo Chavez wrong. Thus, he has stated several times that if he could find other buyers, he would stop selling oil to the United States entirely -- thereby cutting off 1/6 of the oil supply to the United States. The reason he hasn’t been able to find too many buyers is that Venezuela also sits on sour crude, which not everyone can refine. Last week, China signed a deal with Venezuela to start developing oil fields in Venezuela.

This remains speculation at this point, but it will not likely take long after China develops the infrastructure needed to process and transport oil from Venezuela to China, before Chavez starts selling all of his oil to China instead of the United States. Where will the United States suddenly find enough oil to replace 1/6 of its requirement?

Conclusion

The Chinese are not fools, nor are they content with being second class. They have made it clear that they view the world now as bi-polar, with the United States on one end and China on the other, and everyone else nothing more than pawns. We need to make sure that we are not dependent on China in any way, and that China does not find a way to hold us over a barrel. We also need to think about balancing China’s power within its own region by fully supporting our friends, before they stop being our friends and instead fall under the influence of a new Chinese Empire.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don’t Learn Chinese Just Yet

You’ve heard the headlines. China will become the world’s biggest economy any minute. America will slowly slip away. We don’t manufacture anything. We’ve become second rate. Put a chopstick in us, we’re done. But is this true? No, it’s not. . .

Not a week goes by without some hand-wringing journalist telling us that any minute the Chinese economy will surpass the American economy. Last month, we learned that China’s auto market will be larger than the American market this year. This month, Fortune magazine released its annual list of the world’s top 500 global companies, and, surprise, “the number of US companies . . . fell to its lowest level ever.” Even the top slot went to a non-American company for the first time in over a decade. At the same time, “more Chinese firms appeared [on the list] than ever before”!!

That sounds bad, right? It’s misleading.

China’s economy is big, sure. But ours is bigger. . . much bigger. The World Bank estimates China’s GDP at $7.8 trillion (2008). By comparison, the United States economy is $14.3 trillion dollars. Thus, China’s economy is only half the size of the American economy. (The European Union, if you want to count them, had a combined GDP of $16.5 trillion).

Alarmists originally estimated that China would overtake the United States in 2011. But now they’ve moved their estimate back to 2035. But of course, that assumes that China will continue to experience its current astronomical growth rate, which didn’t happen with any of the other countries that were going to unseat America. And there are reasons why strong growth can’t go on forever. China’s growth, like Japan’s and Korea’s before it, has been fueled by cheap labor (based on the bringing of peasants from the countryside into the manufacturing sector). But as economies grow, their labor gets more expensive and the economy becomes less competitive. Korea ended Japan’s run because it was cheaper. China ended Korea’s run. India is knocking on China’s door. Others wait as well.

So what about the Chinese market topping ours in car sales? Is this true? Sort of, but it’s not that clear. So far in 2009, Chinese consumers are buying cars at an annualized rate of around 10 million units. By comparison, Americans are buying only 9 million. But prior to the current recession, Americans bought around 16 million per year. If the American market returns to that level, the Chinese market will be only 60% of the size of the American market.

What about that Fortune list? Well, for starters, it wasn’t a Chinese company at the top -- it was Royal Dutch Shell. The Chinese only had one company in the top 10 (the state owned China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, which supplies 80% of China’s fuel) and only managed to get 37 companies on the list in total. That puts China below Japan (68), France (40) and Germany (39). The United States had 140.

And what about that claim that the United States doesn’t manufacture anything anymore? About 13% of the American economy, or around $1.8 trillion dollars, is directly related to manufacturing -- that’s about the size of Britain’s economy or France’s. Moreover, this number increases to 19% (or $2.7 trillion) when you consider indirectly related effort. That’s about the size of Germany’s economy, and would make our manufacturing sector alone the 6th largest economy in the world.

Further, we are the third largest exporter in the world, behind only Germany and China (in that order). That’s right, Germany exports more than China.

So what does this mean? It means that reports of our demise as the world’s premier economic power are greatly exaggerated. So don’t bother learning Chinese just yet.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...