China sullies Obama at election time

By Don Hank

Chinese leader Wen Jiaobao went to the EU-China summit a few days ago and told the EU he won’t revalue the renminbi upward, and that they should stop “pressurising” China to do so. He said the problem with the euro is the fluctuation of the dollar. That would put the ball in Obama’s court.

To drive home Wen’s point that China won’t take orders, the Chinese leadership recently blanked out all cyber searches in China pertaining to the Nobel prize, which went to a jailed Chinese dissident. And it wasn’t just mention of the dissident that they blanked out. It was the search term “Nobel.” To make sure people paid attention, they threatened sanctions against Norway for its role in the decision, even though the Norwegian government has no known hand in the decision to award the prize.

So why so many slaps in Western faces all at once? If you read between the lines, there really was one main target face, and that was Barack Obama’s.

You may recall that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Obama had to track down his Chinese counterpart, who was deliberately snubbing him. This, coupled with China’s past warning regarding the adverse effects of Obama’s stimulus spending, and now this Chinese stance toward Brussels and Norway, should tell you something.

The Chinese leadership is not just rejecting the West’s praise for one of its dissidents. Much more significantly than that, it is showing its contempt for the arrogant group that granted the unknown Marxist upstart Barack Obama a Nobel Prize but was at a loss to explain why it had done so. Coincidence or not, this indirect but transparent sullying of Obama comes right around election time when Americans are looking to a dazed Obama (who has lost a significant amount of both popularity and cabinet members) for a sign that he can lead.

As I pointed out here, the Chinese leaders have moved safely beyond Marxism, having (barely) survived the murderous ravages of Marxist true-believer Mao. The fact that Obama is enamored of Maoist schemes is almost certainly not lost on them. Yes, technically, they are communists, and Mao is still celebrated, mostly for the sake of his useful idiot followers, but that’s as far as it goes.

This anti-Mao sentiment in the leadership is no secret. As soon as Mao died, Deng Xioaping’s government reversed Mao’s virulent anti-capitalist stance and propagated the slogan “to get rich is glorious.” It even tolerated films critical of Mao’s leadership. (Probably the most powerful and best-made of these is “To Live,” which you can rent from Blockbuster or buy, for example, from Amazon).

The Chinese leadership knows that a man holding the office of President of the United States has no business honoring their disgraced past leader. On a visceral level, I believe they cannot help but resent Obama for admiring the man who almost destroyed their country, and their actions so far have not dissuaded me of this conviction. To the contrary, the Chinese leaders are showing for Obama the same contempt he showed for the Israeli Prime Minister. Politics is, after all, personal, despite the lofty pronouncements of its practitioners. But on a purely pragmatic level, they must be anxious to have Obama replaced by a president less intent on weakening America’s economy through astronomical borrowing and spending – a president who will strengthen their most important trading partner (what can they sell to a poor country?).

The Chinese contempt of Obama is ignored by the power elite in the West because it is not compatible with their diplomatic philosophy, and they are clearly in denial.

Western elites have taught for many years that government should always speak easy and carry no stick but Chamberlain-like appeasement and dhimmitude.

Hence, the US and the EU have, in recent years, trodden easy with China, careful never to rile her leadership.

Obama, while pretty much sticking to this elitist playbook, has departed from it in his China encounters, flush with a false sense of power throughout the West. For example, in February 2010 he blustered that he would get much tougher with China. After all, he is the most powerful man in the world, right? He was cheered like a conqueror in Europe during his campaign. He commanded the attention of the entire Western ruling class, even winning a Nobel without lifting a finger. Can’t the Chinese also plainly see that Obama was a god?

Just as liberal leftists truly believe in Keynesian economics (what Reagan called “voodoo economics” – namely, the doctrine that government can spend itself out of an economic crisis), they just as devoutly believe that anything can be accomplished at the bargaining table that was once won on the battle field, particularly when one is surrounded by a large alliance when facing down a foe.

Thus the reigning principle in Western statesmanship is “strength in numbers” – i.e., the notion that supranational groups like the UN and the EU combine enough synergism and population volume that no single country can resist their efforts.

What they have forgotten is the overriding principle that, all things being equal, there is more power in patriotism, national pride and admiration for a wise and skillful nationalist leader than in a soulless, cultureless union of dissimilar states held together at the top by power lust and self-interest but dangling loose at the bottom, particularly when the leaders of these allied states have intentionally waged a years-long culture war against their own increasingly resentful people.

There comes a point at which people have been so indoctrinated with anti-patriotic propaganda that they ask themselves: Who cares if my side wins? 

That point is now in Europe and soon in America.

Napoleon demonstrated this principle at Austerlitz when, with 70,000 men, he defeated the 90,000 man strong combined forces of 2 Empires, Russia and Austria – and then turned around and defeated the Prussians just to show who was boss.

It will always be this way. Some nations rule, others lose, and when national pride and the will to triumph meet an alliance of forces dissimilar in culture, tongues, and religions, and a vanishing sense of what they stand for, the multicultural alliance had better tread carefully.

There may be strength in numbers, but, as China is teaching us, there is only weakness in diversity.

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/obama-and-mao-a-short-history-lesson/1870.htm

The violent overthrow of America

Donald Hank By Donald Hank

Three of America’s enemies are positioning themselves to enter the White House, where one will continue the siege initiated by George W. Bush.

Hillary hates us because we didn’t go to Harvard.

The Obama’s hate us for our color — red, white and blue.  Barrack H. (don’t ask what it stands for) wants to be our first red president.

John McCain doesn’t hate us.  He just doesn’t know — or care — that we exist.

We are like the Travelocity gnome about to go over the falls.

Conservatives have always thought the left was planning a bloodless takeover of the US.

Takeover yes, bloodless, hardly.

The left sprouted in the bloodstained soil of France, coming to maturity in Russia and later China and elsewhere. Whenever it took root, millions died.

How will Americans die?

We’re already dying.  We just don’t associate these casualties with the left, partly because we can’t agree on the definition of a person and partly because the Bush administration managed to pull off a leftwing coup without being identified as a leftist.

But what is globalism if not neo-communism?  Old-fashioned Communists robbed rich people and gave to poor people, making nations poor.

Postmodern Communists rob from rich countries and give to poor countries, making the world poor.

Where’s the violence, you say?

There are 2 forms of violence due to leftist activism. The most obvious is abortion, which has produced as many casualties as Hitler and Stalin. The other form is more subtle and requires some explanation.

First we need to realize that when leftist historians report on events like the French, Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions, they excuse the violence, saying the leaders were noble but participants got out of hand. Voila, no such thing as intentional leftist-generated violence. Just collateral damage.

Stefane Courtois and comrades, authors of The Black Book of Communism, the itemized tally sheet of the Left’s casualties (about 100 million by their count), are unrepentant leftists, who think leftist ideology can exist independently of violence. They envision a kinder gentler Marxist utopia in the future.

The mantra that killings in leftist regimes are not attributable to ideology works like a charm.  Psychologically, Americans need to believe everyone is good, even brutal dictators.  Thus, it wasn’t hard to convince us of this absurdity. 

Another reason why casualties of the Left are hidden is that the Left has been successful in convincing us that the tilt of government toward “globalism” is actually part of a conservative agenda, alleging that the Bush administration wants open borders because capitalism needs cheap labor.  But if that’s true, why is it Ted Kennedy and Republicans in name only – the Republican left – who most enthusiastically support Bush’s amnesty campaign? 

But the left (Democrats and RINOs) has also succeeded in convincing the public that the alien invasion causes no violence.

Just like “people who got out of hand” in foreign leftist revolutions, many illegal immigrants have “gotten out of hand,” committing violent crimes and killing people in auto accidents (over 9,000 deaths annually from both causes) or through diseases and drugs.

Though shrugged off by the media, these deaths far exceed the American casualties in Iraq that the media constantly rub under our noses. 

But you will argue that these deaths are incidental and the government certainly does not intend to hurt you. But if you buy into this notion that the takeover of government by open border activists has not deliberately caused injury, then why are dangerous illegal aliens released here after serving time?  Why is an INS prison the site of one of the busiest naturalization offices on the East coast?

And how is it that a border guard can be killed by an alien criminal whom no one can extradite while those border guards who defend us are jailed?

Why do politicians oppose deportation when there’s a resurgence of formerly conquered diseases like leprosy, malaria or TB – including the multi-drug-resistant variety – precisely in areas of heavy illegal alien concentration?

How is it that the bulk of murder warrants in Los Angeles are for illegals, and yet the Los Angeles police department isn’t allowed to ask if a detained suspect is here illegally?

Isn’t it obvious that the government actually wants violent aliens to harm us?

What difference is there between releasing an angry mob to kill people in France, Russia and China and unleashing armies of criminal aliens to kill Americans?

Clearly there is an ideology behind this, based on the premise that Americans have too much — not only too much wealth, but even too much safety!  There is more to this than a desire to help the downtrodden.  There is a clear-cut thirst for revenge against the haves.  I had written that Maoism is, de facto, a movement intended not to help but rather to punish.  And our homegrown Maoism has been doing just that for many years.

I can’t tell you how many thousands of dollars I have lost over the years when companies that were then my clients started sending me affirmative action forms asking my sex and race.  Every time I returned one of these, confessing to being a white American male, I lost the client in question.  Every single time. 

Affirmative action wasn’t devised to help anyone.  It was born to punish.  I am in fact fined thousands of dollars every year for being who I am since I was born, and absurdly, my daughter and Hispanic wife – supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action – pay a heavy price for having a father and husband who is – male!

Likewise, if you are a resident of this country, you are being punished for living here.

Even immigrants don’t escape.

A Hispanic friend of ours used to argue that we can’t just deport illegal aliens.  He was horrified when I said we can and should.  He and his wife recently moved to a suburban community near Washington, DC.  She called recently and complained of violent crime in their neighborhood due to Hispanic gangs.  Though mostly illegal immigrants, when they’re jailed, the gang members are eventually released back into their neighborhood.  These friends have four children, including their anchor baby, and they fear for their safety.

They finally get it.

When will we?

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com