This Is Probably A Good Idea And Should Be Done Quickly

On Sunday, One America News reported that the Pentagon is considering installing a THAAD system on the West Coast. This is the anti-missile system designed to shoot down incoming missiles.

The article explains:

This comes days after Pyongyang launched a missile it claims is capable of reaching the United States mainland.

South Korea installed the same system in September to protect the nation against possible missile launches from Pyongyang.

This makes sense as a temporary measure. However, it is not a long-term solution. The thing to remember in dealing with North Korea is that any perceived aggression from America will most likely result in a massive attack on South Korea by North Korea. It would be nice to avoid that. China is not really going to help in this situation–they fear being overrun with North Korean refugees. The only real pressure we can put on China is to threaten to arm Japan with nuclear weapons. That will provide a check on China’s quest for increasing power in Southeast Asia, and the threat of that might be enough to cause China to put pressure on North Korea to stop testing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is being reported that the mountain North Korea has been using for its testing has collapsed.

This is a complicated mess left for the Trump Administration by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. It may take a while to sort it all out. Hopefully, that can be done without waging war.

Going Into Space Before You Totally Understand The Science

The Independent U.K. recently posted an article about the Chinese space station. China launched the Tiangong 1 in 2011 to show their progress in space. Unfortunately their progress was not particularly forward looking.

The article reports:

An out-of-control space laboratory is falling towards the Earth and will crash land soon, experts say.

The Chinese space station is accelerating its fall towards us and will reach the ground in the coming months, Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told the Guardian. It is decaying quickly and he expects “expect it will come down a few months from now – late 2017 or early 2018”, he told the paper.

The Tiangong 1 station was launched in 2011 as one of the great hopes of the Chinese ambitions in space, and as part of a plan to show itself off as a global superpower. The country’s space agency referred to the station as the “Heavenly Palace” and conducted a range of missions, some of which included astronauts.

Evidently Chinese scientists reported last year that they had lost control of the space station. It is predicted that a large portion of the space station will burn up on reentry and that it is likely to land in the sea, but there are no guarantees.

The article reports:

It’s very difficult to predict where it will fall because engineers have lost control of the capsule and it will be thrown around by the wind as it comes down. Even a slight push from the weather could send it from one continent to the next.

Much of the debris will burn up on its way into Earth’s atmosphere. But chunks as big as 100kg will make their way through and fall from the skies, said McDowell.

Just for the record, 100kg is about 220 pounds. I really would not like anything weighing 220 pounds to fall on either me, my house, my car, my children, or anything or anyone else I know or am related to. I hope it is legal to sue countries who put things in space and lose control of them, because I believe that if anyone is injured in any way by this falling debris, they should collect a serious amount of money from the Chinese government. Meanwhile, if you hear any strange noises coming from the sky in the next six months or so, take cover.

Thank You, Representative Jones

The following was released by Congressman Walter Jones yesterday:

JONES APPLAUDS TRUMP FOR BLOCKING CHINA’S PURCHASE OF U.S. COMPANY

Potential Acquisition Posed Threat to National Security

Sep 18, 2017 Issues: Economy and Jobs, Armed Services

GREENVILLE, NC – Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) is thanking President Donald Trump for blocking the sale of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation to, among others, China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited (CVCF).  Lattice Semiconductor is an American company that makes programmable logic chips.  These chips are critical to American military applications, and are also used in industrial settings. CVCF is a Chinese corporation owned by Chinese state-owned entities that manages industrial investments and venture capital.  In blocking the acquisition, President Trump found that the proposed deal posed a national security risk related to “the potential transfer of intellectual property to the foreign acquirer, the Chinese government’s role in supporting this transaction, the importance of semiconductor supply chain integrity to the United States Government, and the use of Lattice products by the United States Government.”

“I would like to thank the president and his administration for standing up for our national security,” said Congressman Jones.  “The American people do not want to see important domestic capabilities, particularly those that are vital to our military, sold into the hands of countries like China.”

After the proposed acquisition was first announced in November, 2016, Congressman Jones and 21 of his House colleagues urged the Obama administration to initiate a formal federal review of the transaction, and to consider blocking it due to the risks it posed to national security.  That review, conducted under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process outlined in section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, culminated in the President Trump’s September 13th announcement blocking the deal.  It is only the fourth time in the past 27 years that a U.S. president has blocked the acquisition of a U.S. firm by a foreign entity.

Congressman Jones is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.  He has been a long-time champion for trade and industrial policies that put American workers, companies, and strategic interests, first.

A copy of the letter Congressman Jones and his House colleagues sent to then Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, can be found below.

For additional information, please contact Allison Tucker in Congressman Walter Jones’ office at (202) 225-3415 or Allison.tucker@mail.house.gov.

Thank you, Congressman, for helping keep America safe.

The Logic Behind This Escapes Me

The BBC is reporting today that South Korea has halted the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles while the government examines the environmental impact of the missiles.

The article reports:

Four recently arrived launchers will not be deployed, an official said. Two already installed will stay in place.

Thaad aims to protect South Korea from the North’s missiles, and has been criticised at home and by China.

…Many South Koreans have objected to Thaad, believing it will become a target and endanger the lives of those who live near its launch sites.

China has also voiced opposition to the system, saying it affects the regional security balance.

Yes, the THAAD system does affect the regional security balance–it allows South Korea the possibility of defending itself against North Korea’s growing nuclear missile program. Yes, there is a danger of the launch sites becoming targets, but this is a defensive missile–not an offensive missile. The only reason to target its launch site is to take out the ability of South Korea to defend itself against nuclear attack.

Has anyone considered the environmental impact of a North Korean launched nuclear missile that South Korea has no defense against? This is just nuts.

The Spin Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

Yesterday The Chicago Tribune posted an article that seems to correct some of the charges made against President Trump about the cost of his travels to Florida. President Trump has visited Mar-a-Lago six times since he took office. I would like to note that he is not paying rent while he is there–he owns the place. As for arguments that the Secret Service is paying rent, I don’t know, but I do know the Secret Service paid rent to Joe Biden when they stayed on his property, so that is not anything new.

At any rate, the article reports:

With President Donald Trump making his seventh presidential trip this weekend to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, government watchdogs and Democrats are once again seeing dollar signs: namely, $3 million.

There are a few problems with the way this figure was reached. It was based on a trip President Obama made in 2013 to Palm Beach:

…Another problem with extrapolating from the October 2016 GAO report is that it included a leg from Washington to Chicago, where Obama gave an economic speech before heading to Palm Beach for a long weekend of golf.

Obama was only in Chicago for a few hours, but costs pile up because each destination triggers the need for the Secret Service to prepare and protect the site and the Defense Department to move the equipment involved.

Another significant cost-driver, GAO noted, is the per-hour cost of military aircraft, such as the president’s plane, Air Force One. So it’s not just a matter of slicing off a few hundred thousand dollars to come up with the $3 million estimate.

“If you take out Chicago, that just means the equipment is going to have to come from other bases,” Lepore said. Sometimes that means more money, sometimes less.

Judicial Watch arrives at its $1 million figure by estimating flight time and typical Secret Service costs, leaving out airlifting equipment such as the presidential limousines. Those costs also aren’t fully included in Judicial Watch’s $96 million total for Obama.

I would like to note that President Trump has been doing business while in Mar-a-Lago. Certainly it is an impressive place to meet with foreign leaders. I also wonder if it has less of a change of electronic surveillance than meetings in the White House. Considering all that we have learned about the surveillance of the Trump team, that might be a valid consideration.

The Law of the Sea Treaty in Action

In June 12, I posted a letter from a group of retired senior military leaders stating their reasons for opposing The Law of the Sea Treaty.  The letter lists in detail their reasons for opposing the treaty. The treaty was not ratified. Recent events illustrate the wisdom of not ratifying the treaty.

Today The Center for Security Policy posted a small article about the actual usefulness of the treaty.

This is the article:

The International Arbitration Tribunal of the Law of the Sea Treaty has just ruled that one of LOST’s member states, Communist China, has violated the rights of another, the Philippines. Beijing was found to have no valid claim to the South China Sea, despite its manufacturing and arming of islands throughout the region.

The Chinese have imperiously rejected the ruling and are now in a position forcibly to resist any effort to enforce it.

As I and other critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty have long argued, its restrictions only apply to law-abiding nations. Were the U.S. to join, it would impose real burdens on us. But it cannot on countries like China that routinely breach their treaty obligations.

The stage is being inexorably set for conflict in the Western Pacific. China is preparing for it. And so must we.

We have been warned. Are we paying attention?

Committing Economic Suicide Over Questionable Science

The Daily Caller posted an article today about the cost of President Obama’s Paris Global Warming Treaty.

The article reports:

The United Nations Paris agreement to stop dangerous global warming could cost $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists.

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,”calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres.

The article goes on to explain:

Despite relatively high levels of taxpayer support, in 2014 solar and wind power accounted for only 0.4 and 4.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Ironically, solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.

It might be common sense to forget about solar and wind until the technology improves and focus on fracking since that is already getting results.

Meanwhile, in its weekly energy summary, wattsupwiththat reports:

One of the most dramatic statements made by the IPCC appeared in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR-4, 2007) which claimed the glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains will disappear by 2035, depriving hundreds of millions of people their primary source of water, the rivers the run off the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau.

Alarmed, the government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests had its glacial expert, Mr. V.K. Raina, Executive Director General of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) prepare a report based on decades of on-the-ground observations. Fear of the possible melting of the glaciers has been expressed for about 100 years resulting in scientific efforts to recognize and examine the fluctuations at the front-snout of glaciers, starting in the early part of the 20th century, although some studies go back 150 years.

Overall, there is a net decrease in mass balance in the 20th century, though some glaciers are increasing in mass balance. This net decrease in mass balance is within the boundaries of prior interglacial warm periods over the last two million years, the period identified as the Pleistocene (major ice age). According to the report, some glaciologists believe that there may have been as many as 21 glacial cycles during this period.

In short, the net decrease in mass balance appears to be part of a natural cycle, not human caused global warming. Of course, the advance and retreat of Himalayan glaciers need to be monitored, but there is no indication that they will vanish by 2035.

There is no reason for so-called climate experts to take control of the world’s economy in the name of protecting us from global warming. The planet goes through cycles. The planet has always gone through cycles. We are now able to measure and track those cycles. If the numbers were not tampered with, we would find out that the world is not coming to an end due to global warming. As usual, follow the money. If you have not followed the escapades of the global warming people from the beginning, I suggest you begin your research at wattsupwiththat. That is one of the most reliable sources of climate information on the internet.

Strange Priorities

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line about the upcoming visit to America by the Pope. President Obama will be welcoming the Pope and has made some interesting choices as to who his guests for the occasion will be. These guests include transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, and a nun who criticizes church policies on abortion and euthanasia. I would consider the current Pope someone who leans to the liberal side of things, but this is definitely not a tactful move on the part of President Obama.

On Friday, The Washington Post commented:

What struck us as we read about this small controversy is the contrast between the administration’s apparent decision to risk a bit of rudeness in the case of the pope and its overwhelming deference to foreign dictators when similar issues arise. When Secretary of State John F. Kerry traveled to Havana to reopen the U.S. Embassy recently, he painstakingly excluded from the guest list any democrat, dissident or member of civil society who might offend the Castro brothers.

And when Chinese President Xi Jinping comes to the White House next week, shortly after the pope leaves town, it’s a safe bet that he won’t have to risk being photographed with anyone of whom he disapproves. Chen Guangcheng, the courageous blind lawyer, for example, lives nearby in exile, but he probably won’t be at the state dinner. Neither will Falun Gong activists, democracy advocates or anyone else who might, well, give offense.

That is truly sad. You would think that basic manners would prevent this sort of behavior. We really need to think about the character of the people we elect to the Presidency. I truly think this is a character issue. A religious leader certain deserves at least as much respect as a ruthless dictator.

Making Another Bad Deal

The U.K. Mail Online is reporting that President Obama has struck a deal with China.

The article reports:

U.S. President Barack Obama today struck a landmark deal with China that would see both countries significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades.

Under the agreement, America pledged to cut between 26 and 28 per cent of the level of its carbon emissions set in 2005 by 2025 as part of the global fight against climate change.

But Chinese President Xi Jinping simply said he would aim to cap his country’s emissions by 2030 – still an unprecedented move by a nation that has been reluctant to box itself in on global warming.

So President Obama is willingly going to cripple the American economy while China continues to pollute and grow its economy. Wow! What a deal!

The article further reports:

The U.S.’s target to reduce its emissions of heat-trapping gases by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025 is a sharp increase from Obama’s earlier vow to cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

However, China, whose emissions are still growing as it builds new coal plants, did not commit to cut emissions by a specific amount.

As the Daily Caller reported in January 2014:

“As coal-fired power plants are set to retire and EPA uses every regulatory trick in the book to make sure no new plants are built, we are going to see increased uncertainty in energy prices, reliability, capacity and reserves,” Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an emailed statement.

This news comes as China approved 100 million metric tons of new coal production capacity in 2013, despite air widespread air pollution concerns in the country. This is part of the Chinese government’s plan to bring 860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015 — more than the entire annual coal output of India.

“By requiring CCS, EPA is placing a de facto ban on the construction of new coal-fueled power plants, handing over leadership of the development of CCS, and an estimated $1 trillion in economic benefits, to countries like China,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Even if America stopped burning coal, the impact on the global environment would be minimal if China continued to build coal plants at its present rate. Note that China has made no promises to actually stop what it is doing. This is a bad deal and hopefully the lame-duck Senate will not approve it.

The Practical Side Of Economic Policy

I hate to admit this, but I think economics is boring. I understand the basics, but after that I get lost. Yet economics and economic policy have a lot to do with how successful all of us are and how successful the country is. Right now America is not in good economic shape, and economic policies have a lot to do with that fact.

Fox News posted an article on Friday by Peter Morici entitled, “Why I can’t be both an economist and a liberal.” Mr. Morici goes into detail about the effects of some of the economic policies coming out of the Obama Administration.

The article cites an example of the consequences of one Administration policy:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as President Obama proposes, would eliminate 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs. Businesses will be forced to raise prices, lose customers and lay off employees. Fast food restaurants will begin to use more machines and we’ll see something similar to automated checkout devices at drug stores and supermarkets.

Past increases in the federal minimum wage did not have large impacts on employment, because those were in line with inflation, and businesses adopted strategies expecting such periodic adjustments. The minimum wage was last reset in 2009 and we knew that raising it one dollar to $8.25 to preserve purchasing power would not cost many jobs.

Jumping it up to $10.10 an hour, however, would fundamentally redefine the tradeoffs businesses face regarding unskilled labor and automation. The workers left standing would have more spending power but overall, increasing unemployment by at least 500,000 would take a bite out of GDP and growth from an already anemic economic recovery.

Meanwhile, the Democrats criticize the Republicans for not being willing to raise the minimum raise. Common sense and cause and effect are not mentioned.

The article also mentions the idea that if America would cut its CO2 emissions to curb global warming, China would follow suit.

The article points out:

Liberals argue that by setting a good example the United States can bring China along.

Nonsense! American diplomats have not been able to get Beijing to respond on its undervalued currency or protectionism generally, abandon the use of force to settle territorial disputes in the China seas, or anything else the Chinese Communist Party sees as impairing economic growth or its quest to wrest leadership from the United States on global economic and security issues.

It’s time for those in leadership in America to begin putting the good of the country above the good of their political party or worse, the desire to stay in power. We have created a political class–something never intended by the founders of this country. It is time to limit terms of Senators and Representatives and return to government by the people. A Congressional term should not be a ticket to lifelong wealth.

I Think Someone Moved The Goalposts

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that as the latest talks with Iran began yesterday Iran pledged to never dismantle any equipment or facilities other countries believe could be used for the manufacture of atomic weapons. I may have missed something, but I thought the sanctions were lifted because Iran said it would discontinue its nuclear program.

On February 14th, the Washington Times reported that Iran was going to receive more than $20 billion in sanctions relief under the agreement reached. What in the world did Iran agree to do in return? Has Iran still agreed to it? It really doesn’t sound as if we got anything in return for lifting the sanctions.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted a story today about the negotiations. He comments:

The latest round of negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program began yesterday. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated what has always been clear: “Dismantling [the] nuclear program is not on the agenda.”

What, then, is? As the Washington Post reports, the West seeks only “to prevent Iran from quickly converting its nuclear program to weapons production or from hiding a parallel program.” (emphasis added) This probably means “a demand that advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium be destroyed or mothballed, and that Iran make changes to a nuclear facility under construction so it cannot produce plutonium.”

Will Iran agree to this limited package? Not likely. As the Washington Post puts it, “Iran has signaled that it would oppose any such curbs.” And a senior U.S. official acknowledged that “we have a very long way to go.”

At some point, the Obama Administration is going to have to realize that the only way Iran will ever give up its nuclear ambitions is if the west imposes crippling sanctions. Even if that were to happen, I doubt that Russia and China would honor those sanctions, so we would be right back where we started. However, the sanctions that were just lifted in the first round of negotiations were what brought Iran to the bargaining table. We need to put them back in place until the negotiations are done.

Negotiating with Iran does not make the world safer–it makes the world more dangerous. The Iranians are simply stalling for time as their nuclear program progresses. It will be necessary at some point before Iran goes nuclear for someone to take out its nuclear facilities. America will probably not do that–Israel will probably do it without asking America. That will result in mass destruction in the Middle East. Iran needs to be stopped before it goes nuclear–that will help preserve peace in the Middle East if peace is at all possible.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Kind Of People Are We Dealing With?

Reuters is now claiming that the story below is not true. It may or may not be, but it is worrisome that the world community’s opinion of Kim Jong Un is such that the story was believed.

Last week a Singapore Newspaper reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un executed his uncle Jang Song Thaek, the No. 2 man in North Korea, by throwing him and his five top aides into a cage with 120 starving dogs. That is barbaric.

Aside from that, the execution is a problem for relations between North Korea and China.

The article reports:

First, China’s own security is at risk. The erratic and ruthless behaviour of Mr Kim Jong Un suggests that China should not underrate the likelihood of a nuclear threat from Pyongyang.

The Internet version of the Global Times carried an article last Monday by Lieutenant-General Wang Hongguang, former deputy commander of Nanjing Greater Military Region, saying that the recent incident showed North Korea had become increasingly provocative and was getting out of (Chinese) control. He urged a complete reassessment of security threats originating from that direction.

Second, China’s political and strategic influence on the Korean peninsula has been drastically reduced. China was widely considered to be able to rein in the unruly Kim regime, thus acting as a force for peace in the region. But it now appears China’s influence over its neighbour is close to zero.

China needs to learn an important lesson from this–when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something All Women Need To Be Aware Of

There have been studies in the past showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. Generally those studies have not been reported in the media or have been played down in the academic community. Recently a study that was done in China has come to light that reinforces the conclusions of previous studies.

The American Thinker posted an article today about a new study from China published last week by Yubei Huang and colleagues.

The American Thinker article reports the results of the study:

The article, a meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions.

This new article is another example of the recent excellent scholarship on abortion in peer-reviewed journals coming out of the People’s Republic. There is no bigger data base than China, where there are an average of 8.2 million pregnancy terminations every year, and 40 abortions for every 100 live births. Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long term effects of induced abortion, as do their US counterparts in governmental, professional and consumer organizations.

This is scary information.

The article describes how studies on the link between abortion and breast cancer have been handled in America:

Huang’s study shows an even stronger increase than the 30% higher risk found in the 1996 meta-analysis by Joel Brind and colleagues on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.

 Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, is not unique in having experienced censorship of his findings for the past two decades, including at the notorious National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop on “Early reproductive events and breast cancer” in 2003.  This important workshop was manipulated by its chairperson NCI epidemiologist Louise Brinton to suppress critical information on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. The main speaker on abortion and breast cancer, Leslie Bernstein, who  had never published on this topic, openly said “I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them (women) that having babies is the way to reduce your risk,” even though it has been an established fact, conceded by abortion proponents that this is true.

The abortion industry has become big business. Until recently it was generally not regulated the way that other medical procedures are regulated. Recently some states have passed laws to ensure that if something goes wrong during an abortion, a woman will be quickly taken to a hospital and helped. That has not always been the case. As these laws have been passed to ensure a woman’s safety during an abortion and afterward, the abortion industry  has fought the laws. Abortion is not about women’s health–it is about making  money for a small group of people involved in the industry. Because of that fact, much of the information women need to make an informed decision about abortion is being withheld from them. The way that the studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer have been handled is an illustration of that fact.

 

After I posted the above article, I received the following note from a friend:

Regarding abortion and breast cancer I know this to be true from my
past job as a programmer in Epidemiology. We had looked at these
trends in the late 1990's but by 2002 we didn't even 'go there'
anymore. Too political of a hot bed to touch even though the
researchers I worked with were aware of it. Thank you China on this
one.
Enhanced by Zemanta

China’s One-Child Policy And “Bare Branches”

The American Thinker posted an article today about the end of China’s one-child policy. The new child policy will allow parents to have two children if one of the parents is an only child.

The article reports:

Although there were a number of exemptions to the one-child policy, Chinese population growth was cut by 200 million as the birthrate dropped from 4.77 children per female in the 1970s to just 1.58 in 2012. But the strategy also resulted in massive female infanticide and now a ticking time bomb from millions of unwedded young men threatens to ignite revolutionary violence.

When parents began killing female babies, the population of male babies increased disproportionally, and the ability of many young men to find wives decreased markedly. The article reports that for the young in China, the ratio is 117 men for every 100 women.

The article further reports:

Unfortunately, China has a bad history when it comes to lack of eligible wives. Two horrendous floods and a subsequent famine devastated northeastern China in the mid-19th century. According to political scientists Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer, female infanticide was so rampant during the famine that about 25% of young men in the region were “bare branches” as the Chinese call it — unlikely to ever bear fruit in the form of children. With no hope of families, the bare branches rebelled and formed into huge bands of young male outlaws known as “nien” that wreaked havoc on the Chinese economy. The Nien Rebellion contributed to civil war and the end of the Qing Dynasty.

Obviously the current rulers of China do not want anything even remotely like this to happen again.

The article concludes:

Relaxing the one-child policy may ultimately assist in rebalancing the Chinese economy towards domestic consumption, since younger people tend to spend a higher share of their income than older people. But benefits from the change in the one-child policy will take decades to have much impact on China’s demographics. During the interim, the millions of “bare branches” are going to grow in number, and also grow in anger.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Never Really Was About The Environment

Global warming is not proven science. There are actually a very few things that are proven science. Almost every time one man declares that something is proven science, another man comes along with a different theory that also works. About the only thing we can actually count on as proven science is gravity. After that it gets a little sketchy.

On Wednesday the Daily Caller posted an article about the current United Nations climate talks.

The article reports:

The G77 and China bloc led 132 poor countries in a walk out during talks about “loss and damage” compensation for the consequences of global warming that countries cannot adapt to, like Typhoon Haiyan. The countries that left claim to have the support of other coalitions of poor nations, including the Least Developed Countries, the Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group.

We need to remember that poor nations are not poor because of global warming. When you look at the profiles of poor nations and rich nations, generally speaking richer nations embrace such things are private property rights, free enterprise, and a tax system that allows individuals to prosper. Many of the poorer countries that are demanding money in this deal are dictatorships where the money will simply line the pockets and improve the lifestyles of the leaders, but will never reach the people of the country.

Blackmailing successful countries in no way helps the average citizens of poorer countries–it only increases the power and wealth of their tyrannical leaders.

The article further reports:

“The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,” (Australian) Prime Minister Tony Abbott told The Washington Post. “Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.”

Making richer countries poorer does not make poorer countries richer–it just empowers people who do not promote freedom.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Problems With Electing Rodney Dangerfield To The American Presidency

In case you are under the age of forty, Rodney Dangerfield was a comedian whose tag line was, “I don’t get no respect!” Unfortunately, we seem to have elected a President who has the same problem.

“One of the things I intend to do as president is to restore America’s standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago even four years ago.” That statement was made by President Obama in his first 2008 presidential debate. The problem with this statement is a lack of understanding of the fact that it would be good to be feared as well as respected. Sometimes respect is rooted in fear.

Today’s Wall Street Journal (no link–subscribers only) included an editorial entitled, “Portrait in Respect.” The editorial related to the problems the Obama Administration has had in trying to bring Edward Snowden back to the United States. Hong Kong said they could not return Mr. Snowden because of a technical glitch in the extradition request. Several news sources reported that Hong Kong was under pressure from China not to return Mr. Snowden. Since then, Mr. Snowden has fled to Russia, where the Russians have said that they will not send him back to America. Meanwhile it is a safe bet that the FSB (the new KGB) is downloading information from the four computers Mr. Snowden is traveling with.

Somehow I don’t think America has achieved the respect that was promised in the 2008 Presidential debate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Cost Of Owing A Ton A Money To China

Out of every dollar the American government spends, roughly 40 cents is borrowed from China. What difference does it make? In some cases a lot of difference.

On Saturday the New York Post reported that Chen Guangcheng and his family must vacate New York University housing by July 15th. Chen Guangcheng and his immediate family arrived in this country in in May of last year (see rightwinggranny.com) after seeking refuge in the American Embassy in China.

The article reports:

The move-out mandate comes as Chen plans a trip to Taiwan later this month, and grapples with worries that members of his family in China are being beaten and denied urgent medical care by authorities.

NYU’s extension of its out-by-June-30 eviction notice comes on heels of an exclusive Post report that the university, which is building a new Shanghai campus, was ousting Chen under pressure from China.

There are two aspects of this story–NYU is under pressure by the Communist Party of China to evict Chen, but there is another part of the story. Does anyone honestly think that if America was not so deeply in debt to China, that China would be exerting this pressure? Our government has been severely weakened by the debt caused by runaway spending. We need to stop overspending and rebuild our image around the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Pays For The United Nations?

I am not a fan of the United Nations to begin with–I think it has lost its way from its original purpose and become a forum for thugs and tyrants rather than a forum to promote freedom. Because of this, I really do not like the amount of money America contributes to this organization. But let’s look at who finances the United Nations.

On Friday, CNS News posted some of the details of the United Nations funding. The article reports:

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative “capacity to pay,” based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries.

The United States has paid 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years. The U.S. pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget.

The article reports:

Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data.

India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three.

The United Nations General Assembly has approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

I really think it is time to remove the United Nations from New York City and to remove America from the United Nations. If we want an international organization to support peace and freedom, we should form one with the democracies of the world and leave the thugs and tyrants out of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The True Cost Of A Broken Immigration And Deportation System

On December 9 of this year, the Boston Globe posted a story detailing some of the problems with our current system for deporting dangerous criminals. The article tells the story of Huang Chen, a Chinese citizen who was here illegally, jailed for choking, punching, and pointing a knife at Qian Wu in 2006. Chen was put in jail in Texas and released after three years because the government of China would not allow him to be deported back to China. After being released, he went after Qian Wu. No one warned her that he had been released. Chen killed Qian Wu early in 2010.

The article reports:

A yearlong Globe investigation found the culture of secrecy can be deadly to Americans and foreigners alike: Immigration officials do not notify most crime victims when they release a criminal such as Chen, and they only notify local law enforcement on a case by case basis. And even though immigration officials have the power to try to hold dangerous people longer, that rarely occurs.

The article explains:

More than 20 governments from Jamaica to China routinely block deportation of their citizens, even dodging calls from US immigration officers seeking to expedite the process, and critics say they suffer few consequences. Some, such as US Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, argue that the United States should stop accepting diplomats from countries who do not repatriate their citizens, but the State Department has shown little interest, preferring to work through diplomatic channels to deport immigrants. Federal officials have refused to issue visas to only one nation, tiny Guyana in South America.

The article lists a few examples of criminals that were released only to commit murders. We need to remember that the first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. It seems to me that as we watch government expand exponentially and the cost of government increase exponentially, we are also watching the government forget its original purpose.Enhanced by Zemanta

Has The Desire For Cheaper Products Caused Americans To Forget Who They Are ?

Investors.com posted a story yesterday about a disturbing note found in a box of Halloween decorations sold at K-Mart.

The article reports:

Last October, Julie Keith, of Portland, Ore., opened up a kitschy box of “Totally Ghoul” Halloween decorations bought at Kmart and between two Styrofoam headstones found something more authentically jarring: an unsigned note in mangled English and Mandarin reading: “Sir: If you occasionally buy this product, please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right Organization. Thousands of people here who are under the persicution of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever. This product produced by Unit 8, Department 2, Mashanjia Labour Camp, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.”

The mysterious writer went on to note that the workers were effectively slaves, paid about $1.61 a month, with many prisoners sentenced to work there to punish them for belonging to Falun Gong, a peaceful meditation sect reviled by Beijing as a threat.

Meanwhile, what is the American media and business community saying about China? New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has stated, “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks, but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.” He added that such a one-party state can “just impose” the policies that are needed. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has stated, “The one thing that actually works, state-run communism a bit — may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.” Please define ‘works.’

The article reminds us:

The main reason for the Obama administration’s lack of interest in human rights in China is because China enables the U.S. to continue its wild deficit spending. They’ve bought our silence on slave labor, in effect.

China now holds $1.16 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds, and is our largest creditor. So long as China enables Obama to spend cash at home, the silent screams will continue from China’s slave labor camps, only occasionally reaching the ears of the West.

The obvious reaction to this story is to say that we should no longer buy things that are made in China, but I am not sure that is the solution. Americans buy goods from China because those goods are less expensive than American made goods. Obviously, the American worker cannot compete with slave labor. As long as we are financing China through our overspending, our government and media will not even report what is going on in China.  I wonder if this story were widely reported if it would impact the buying habits of Americans. It is a concern that some of the American media and some of America’s business leader view the government of China as acceptable. If they truly believe that, are they willing to live there?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Cost Of The 2012 Election

On November 27, the Asian Times posted an article entitled, “Post-US world born in Phnom Penh.” The article reports something not widely reported in the American media:

President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn’t. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.

Instead, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, will form a club and leave out the United States. As 3 billion Asians become prosperous, interest fades in the prospective contribution of 300 million Americans – especially when those Americans decline to take risks on new technologies. America’s great economic strength, namely its capacity to innovate, exists mainly in memory four years after the 2008 economic crisis.

The article includes a number of charts detailing the decline of American economic influence. The first chart explains what is happening:

Asian, European and US exports

It is hard to fathom just what President Obama had in mind when he arrived in Asia bearing a Trans-Pacific Partnership designed to keep China out. What does the United States have to offer Asians?

  • It is borrowing $600 billion a year from the rest of the world to finance a $1.2 trillion government debt, most prominently from Japan (China has been a net seller of Treasury securities during the past year).
  • It is a taker of capital rather than a provider of capital.
  • It is a major import market but rapidly diminishing in relative importance as intra-Asian trade expands far more rapidly than trade with the United States.
  • And America’s strength as an innovator and incubator of entrepreneurs has diminished drastically since the 2008 crisis, no thanks to the Obama administration, which imposed a steep task on start-up businesses in the form of its healthcare program. Washington might want to pivot towards Asia. At Phnom Penh, though, Asian leaders in effect invited Obama to pivot the full 360 degrees and go home.

The arrogance of the Obama Administration is part of the problem. After over-regulating small business, driving up the national debt, and increasing borrowing from China, what did President Obama think he had to offer? The results of President Obama’s Asian trip are proof that America’s influence in the world is waning (as charged by Governor Romney during the Presidential campaign). The question becomes, “Is this important; and if it is, what are we going to do about it?”

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Unnoted Side Effects Of Iran Going Nuclear

There are three sources for this article–the Wall Street Journal on January 16, 2012, a blog entitled Infowars on March 23, 2012, and the June 22, 2012, update of the Hal Lindsey report.

One of the problems with Iran‘s continued progress toward obtaining a nuclear weapon (and a delivery system) is the impact their possession of nuclear weapons will have on the Middle East. The focus has been on Israel because Iran has stated its intention to destroy Israel, but there is more to the story. Some Arab nations in the area are simply not interested in being part of Iran’s caliphate. Saudi Arabia is one of those nations. The logical way to avoid being threatened by Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is to have nuclear weapons of your own. At this point I would like to note that it has been an open secret for a number of years that Israel had nuclear weapons. Please note that none of the Arab nations felt threatened by that fact.

Meanwhile, in January of this year, Iran began secret negotiations with China. The basic agreement that followed guaranteed China free flowing oil until 2035 regardless of any market shortages. In exchange, Saudi Arabia receives Chinese Dong Feng 21 medium-range missiles. Saudi Arabia also paid China $60 billion dollars as part of the package.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The deal, signed Sunday, sets a legal framework that strengthens scientific, technological and economic cooperation between Riyadh and Beijing, according to a joint statement. It seeks to enable cooperation in areas like maintenance and development of nuclear power plants and research reactors, manufacturing and supply of nuclear fuel elements.

The pact with China is the fourth nuclear agreement signed by Saudi Arabia following similar deals with France, Argentina and South Korea. The signing came at the end of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s first trip to Saudi Arabia as part of a six-day tour to the Middle East.

The Gulf state has also been in discussions with the U.S., U.K., Russia and the Czech Republic over better cooperation in nuclear energy.

The article at Infowars reminds us:

In 1973, a deal was struck between Saudi Arabia and the United States in which every barrel of oil purchased from the Saudis would be denominated in U.S. dollars. Under this new arrangement, any country that sought to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia would be required to first exchange their own national currency for U.S. dollars. In exchange for Saudi Arabia’s willingness to denominate their oil sales exclusively in U.S. dollars, the United States offered weapons and protection of their oil fields from neighboring nations, including Israel.

By 1975, all of the OPEC nations had agreed to price their own oil supplies exclusively in U.S. dollars in exchange for weapons and military protection.

This petrodollar system, or more simply known as an “oil for dollars” system, created an immediate artificial demand for U.S. dollars around the globe. And of course, as global oil demand increased, so did the demand for U.S. dollars.

As the demand for U. S. dollars decreases, so does the American economy.

The article at Inforwars points out:

If Saudi Arabia chooses to sell oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, most of the rest of the oil producing countries in the Middle East would surely do the same rather quickly.

And we have already seen countries in other parts of the world start to move away from using the U.S. dollar in global trade.

The global community has not successfully dealt with the Iranian nuclear program, and I seriously doubt that they are going to be able to. Because of that we will see the nations of the Middle East begin to enter into an arms race in order to be able to defend themselves. This really does not auger good things for the future of America or the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Raw Materials Are Part Of National Security

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported that because of new environmental regulations and declining National Defense Stockpile inventories, the United States is importing 43 percent of minerals like lithium and bismuth from China. The article also notes that the U. S. national security industry is 90 to 100 percent dependent on foreign suppliers for those minerals. The United States is also at least 50 percent dependent on foreign imports for 43 minerals. Obviously, this is as much a threat to national security as our dependence on foreign oil.

The article concludes:

“The U.S. government desperately needs a coherent national mineral access strategy,” said Daniel McGroarty, President of the American Resources Policy Network. “We are acutely dependent on foreign supplies of non-fuel minerals and metals that are vital to commercial manufacturing and advanced weapons systems. Our exposure to potential supply disruptions is a profound national security threat.”

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Finally Coming To America

ABC News is reporting that Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident who recently escaped to the American embassy in China, is on a plane headed to the United States with his immediate family. There are concerns for those family members left behind in China, but his immediate family is with him.

The article reports on one of the events that took place during the three weeks it has taken for Chen to get permission to leave the country:

As they waited, Chen continued to speak to the press. He voiced his outrage that his nephew, Chen Kegui, had been arrested and charged with attempted homicide.

Chen says he was acting in self-defense after local authorities attacked his house following Chen’s escape. Chen said he had been in regular contact with US.. officials, and he praised their efforts to help him. But he also expressed frustration that the process was taking so long.

I am glad that Chen and his family are being brought to safety. I hope the relatives left behind will be safe.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Evolving Continues

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article on President Obama’s evolving positions.

This week we saw the President evolve in his position on gay marriage. I am sure that the fact that many of the major contributors to his campaign threatened to withhold their contributions unless he came out in support of gay marriage had nothing to do with the President’s change in position. Well, now the President’s position on coal is evolving. It’s not about the donations–it’s about the results of the Democrat primary in West Virginia. Keith Russell Judd, a convicted felon, serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, won 42.28 percent of the vote — or 49,490 votes — compared with President Obama with 57.72 percent or or 67,562 votes.

West Virginia depends on coal for its economy. Since the advent of supposed man-made global warming and the scare tactics that go with the theory, the Obama Administration has declared war on coal. This week, coal declared war on the Obama Administration. Coal-generated power plants are being targeted by the Obama Administration to be shut down–raising electric rates for everyone because there is as of yet no ‘green’ alternative to coal-fired plants.

The article at the Washington Examiner reports:

The Hill reported that he showed a screenshot of the Obama campaign’s website that noted every other kind of fuel–but coal–in their all-of-the-above program.

By this morning, presto, “clean coal” is where “fuel efficiency” used to be. Clean coal refers to technology used to filter emissions.

West Virginia has maintained stable coal production and has shipped much of its coal to China, where coal-powered electric plants open every week. The people of West Virginia were simply voting according to the best interests of their state. It seems as if the President is now beginning to understand what those interests might be.

Enhanced by Zemanta