<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Taiwan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/taiwan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:47:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The China Illusion</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/kenneth-r-timmerman/the-china-illusion/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-china-illusion</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/kenneth-r-timmerman/the-china-illusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kenneth R. Timmerman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=119054</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama White House sees Taiwan's free enterprise as an affront.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cin.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-119056" title="cin" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cin.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="309" /></a></p>
<p>The Obama administration has been toying with a proposition so dangerous it dare not utter it directly.</p>
<p>The NY Times oped pages headline writers helped generate the proper spin for this pernicious ploy: “To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan.” The story by Paul V. Kane, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war and former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, spelled out with wide-eyed enthusiasm a fantasy that would have disastrous consequences for America if it were ever enacted.</p>
<p>Mr. Kane urged President Obama to make a Faustian bargain with China’s leaders.</p>
<p>“He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/to-save-our-economy-ditch-taiwan.html">Kane wrote.</a></p>
<p>In support of his “grand bargain,” Kane argued that “Today, the America has little strategic interest in Taiwan,” an argument the “China-is-not-a-threat” lobby has been making unsuccessfully for years.</p>
<p>Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is in China this week, ostensibly to win China’s support for the latest round of Iran sanctions, an embargo on Iranian oil sales and a ban on Iran’s Central Bank.</p>
<p>Given the lack of public outcry over Mr. Kane’s trial balloon, will Geithner make the debt-for-Taiwan pitch while he is there?</p>
<p>The Chinese appear to be playing along. In a story filed from Beijing on Tuesday about Geithner’s upcoming visit, the Associated Press touted China’s hostility toward more Iran sanctions.</p>
<p>“China has no reason to go along with this,” the AP quoted an Iran analyst at Peking University as saying. “China does not want to be seen as helping the U.S. when China’s own interest is concerned.”</p>
<p>So in other words, if the U.S. wants to get China’s cooperation on the oil cut-off and Central Bank sanctions, we are going to have to offer something really, <em>really</em> important. How about Taiwan? These days an island of free enterprise just across the Strait from China is seen more as an affront than an asset by the Obama White House.</p>
<p>And let’s not forget that in signing the new Iran sanctions into law on December 31, <a href="../2012/01/06/irans-bluff/">President Obama said</a> he disagreed with the sanctions and had no intention of applying them.</p>
<p>So the table is set for a betrayal of Taiwan.</p>
<p>This President needs no lessons in cynicism from anyone. He recently announced a permanent deployment of U.S. Marines to Australia to defend against a growing China threat, so he can argue that he is no softie when it comes to Chinese expansionism. But defend Taiwan? Why? After all, as Kane says in his NY Times gambit, “our relationship with Taiwan, as revised in 1979, is a vestige of the cold war,” and “fear of a Red China menacing Asia is anachronistic.”</p>
<p>The Republican National Committee is taking the debt-for-Taiwan gambit so seriously that they will vote on a resolution at their annual winter meeting in New Orleans on Friday that would enshrine U.S. military support for Taiwan as a guiding foreign policy doctrine for the party’s presidential candidate this year.</p>
<p>What happens to Taiwan is “potentially the biggest foreign policy challenge that a new president will face, so we want our candidates to know our position and help them formulate their own,” Indiana RNC member James Bopp <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/10/geithner-on-uphill-quest-for-chinas-backing-on-ira/">told the Washington Times.</a></p>
<p>The draft RNC resolution includes support for continued arms sales to Taiwan, and an acknowledgement of Taiwan’s strategic relationship with the United States. Several of the resolution sponsors are seeking to get the presidential candidates to talk about Taiwan during the campaign. They have included a provision requiring the RNC to send the resolution to all the GOP presidential hopefuls, something the Washington Times says is “a first” for the GOP and has never been done by Democrats.</p>
<p>Some of us have been warning about Communist China’s intentions since the early 1990s and before. A series of investigative magazine articles I wrote for the America Spectator about the sell-off of U.S. military technology to China became part of the “China-gate” scandal of the Clinton years. (Those stories are <a href="http://kentimmerman.com/soa.htm">now available</a> in a low-price Kindle edition).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/kenneth-r-timmerman/the-china-illusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The China Dream</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-china-dream</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange rate policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global downturn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Bader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[March]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang Jiechi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen Jaibao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public disagreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taipei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan Strait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[track]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade deficit with china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yuan currency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Beijing’s rise can no longer be ignored.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54633" title="china" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="314" /></a></p>
<p>The 3<sup>rd</sup> session of the 11th National People’s Congress (NPC) ended on March 14. The annual meeting of the faux legislative branch of the People’s Republic of China dictatorship met for less than two weeks, having only opened on March 5. At the closing press conference, Premier Wen Jaibao <a href="http://china.globaltimes.cn/day-photo/2010-03/512795.html">stated</a>, “Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China&#8217;s so-called &#8216;triumphalism&#8217;. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside.” He was referring to the increased public disagreements between China and the United States over a number of issues since the end of last year.</p>
<p>An issue Wen was particularly adamant about was one of long standing, the claim by officials, business leaders and economists in both America and Europe that the PRC has gained a trade advantage by setting a low exchange rate for its Yuan currency by government fiat. Despite the global downturn from the financial crisis and recession, China is expected to have a current account surplus of $450 billion this year. The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2009 in goods was $226.8 billion, and America has sent to the PRC over $1.7 trillion in deficits since 1999. China’s total international currency reserve from its surpluses is approaching $3 trillion.</p>
<p>Premier Wen denounced “finger pointing” in the currency manipulation controversy “A country&#8217;s exchange rate policy and its exchange rates should depend on its national economy and economic situation,&#8221; he said. G<em>lobal Times</em>, a publication of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, ran a<a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511320.html"> commentary</a> attacking the Western media. The paper argued,</p>
<blockquote><p>“’It would be good for China,’ is a typical tone adopted to draw Chinese or international readers. But in reality, currency policy is so critical to China&#8217;s economy that a cautious approach must be taken. Any sharp appreciation will give rise to a series of negative chain reactions in employment, trade and many aspects of life.”</p></blockquote>
<p>It is clear how China sees its situation. But when other countries react to Chinese policy, Beijing officials denounce them for adopting “protectionism” as if only China has a right to defend its economic interests and pursue job creation and growth.</p>
<p>The heightened sense of confrontation between Beijing and Washington does not, however, stem from trade problems which have been a sore point for a decade. A number of other issues of a direct, strategic nature have become more prominent since December.</p>
<p>The Chinese list of problems is much shorter than the U.S. list. Beijing has protested the sale of $6.4 billion in military equipment to Taiwan and the meeting between President Barak Obama and the Dalai Lama. These events focused attention on Beijing’s threats against democratic Taiwan and its human rights abuses in Tibet.</p>
<p>Beijing has reacted most strongly to the arms sale even though the U.S. pulled its punch on the deal. The Taiwan package is defensive in nature, consisting mainly of utility helicopters, air defense missiles, and mine clearing ships. The U.S. did not fulfill Taipei’s request for more F-16 fighter-bombers which the island needs to contest air superiority over the Taiwan  Strait or attack a Chinese invasion fleet.</p>
<p>On the eve of the NPC, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeffrey Bader were sent to Beijing to smooth relations. Their mission failed. In reporting on the visit, state-owned <em>China Daily</em> ran the banner <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010npc/2010-03/07/content_9549745.htm">headline</a> “U.S. urged to respect China&#8217;s core interests.”</p>
<p>That the United States sent envoys to make amends only confirmed Beijing’s wisdom in taking an assertive stance, confident that the Obama administration was looking for ways to appease Beijing. On March 7, three days after the American envoys left; Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/wjbz/2467/t662388.htm">stated</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>“The responsibility for the difficulties in China-U.S relations does not lie with China…. The United States should properly handle the relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return China-US relationship to the track of stable development.”</p></blockquote>
<p>China has not acknowledged its own confrontational actions since December. Beijing has backed Tehran’s rejection of President Obama’s “open hand.” Even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that Iran is now a “nuclear state” has not lessened Chinese support. Minister Yang repeated China&#8217;s line at the NPC, “We don&#8217;t think diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.” Negotiations have been held since 2003 without stopping the advance of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. Beijing understands the process very well, and is happy with the results. A stronger, anti-American Iran is a strategic asset to China.</p>
<p>In her January 29 Paris speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have.” <em>Global Times</em> <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">replied</a> in a Feb 10 editorial, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy….. Some voices have recently surfaced in the Western media asking for isolating China on the issue. These voices are extremely shallow and ludicrous.”</p>
<p>Another game changer was the December UN climate conference in Copenhagen. President Obama experienced Chinese intransigence personally. A year-long effort to cooperate with Beijing turned into a nasty confrontation with the fate of the world economy in the balance. Leading the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), Beijing demanded crippling restrictions on the U.S. economy while proclaiming its own freedom to do as it pleases in pursuit of growth. President Obama rejected the demand, and has since taken a harder line on matters of trade and competition. The conflict over climate policy (which has never been about the weather) will continue, as another UN conference is scheduled in Bonn next month.</p>
<p>If the Steinberg-Bader mission signaled that some factions in the Obama administration wants to return to the earlier engagement policy. Beijing will see this as a U.S. retreat due to a lack of will, and will press its own agenda harder.</p>
<p>A March 4 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-03/509829.html">commentary</a> in <em>Global Times</em>, written by Rong Xiaoqing, a Chinese journalist based in New York City, was entitled<strong> “</strong>American softness bodes poorly in competitive era.” Rong wrote of spoiled Americans “who whine about so much that they will find it difficult to cope with a world where nations like China, India and Brazil are becoming rivals.”</p>
<p>A current best seller in China is the book <em>The China Dream</em>, by People’s Liberation Army Colonel Liu Mingfu, a professor at the National Defense University. He <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301">urges</a> China to replace the America as the preeminent global power by building the world&#8217;s largest economy and using its wealth to expand military capabilities. &#8220;If China&#8217;s goal for military strength is not to pass the United States and Russia, then China is locking itself into being a third-rate military power,&#8221; he writes. A March 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511703.html">editorial</a> in <em>Global Times</em> tells “the world to be prepared for China&#8217;s first aircraft carrier…. China has the legitimate right to build up its naval force.” The editorial goes on to talk of aircraft carriers in the plural and “other advanced weapons.”</p>
<p>From its aggressive trade policy to its military buildup, and from its bloc politics at the UN to its support of rogue regimes around the world, Beijing’s rise is generating confrontations with American interests than can no longer be ignored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obamacare: The Bankrupting of America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obamacare-the-bankrupting-of-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacare-the-bankrupting-of-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obamacare-the-bankrupting-of-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Swindle]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bowling for columbine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist propagandist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative friends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global quest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gutter balls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oscar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Switzerland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[t r reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T.R. Reid Even]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=53553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even when the Left is most passionately arguing its ideas it cannot help but sabotage itself.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/healing-of-america.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-53558" title="healing of america" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/healing-of-america.jpg" alt="" width="387" height="600" /></a></p>
<p>A review of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594202346?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=fronmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1594202346"><em>The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care</em></a><em><img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=fronmaga-20&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=1594202346" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></em> by T.R. Reid</p>
<p>Even when I considered the Left my political home I knew how effectively the movement could sabotage itself in its presentations of its ideas.</p>
<p>When I was in high school and saw Michael Moore&#8217;s anti-gun pseudo-docmentary &#8220;Bowling for Columbine&#8221; I walked out of the theatre with the exact opposite point of view that the notorious neo-communist propagandist had hoped to instill. I became pro-gun rights. Why? Because Moore was stupid enough to admit this fact: Canada has about the same level of gun ownership (per capita) as the United States but a fraction of the gun violence. Ergo sum: the staunch gun control of European countries was not the reason why they had fewer gun deaths. Government stepping in and trying to take away guns &#8212; in flagrant violation of the second amendment &#8212; would not reduce gun deaths. Moore&#8217;s unruly Oscar-winner fired shots all over the place, including through his foot. (Thus as a college leftist I could confuse my conservative friends by taking a second amendment position often to <em>their</em> right.)</p>
<p>In this regard, Journalist T.R. Reid&#8217;s popular paean for socialized medicine <em>The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, </em>might as well be called &#8220;Bowling for Obamacare.&#8221; Each of Reid&#8217;s 13 chapters are ultimately gutter balls, totally failing to demonstrate that a system of socialized medicine could actually work.</p>
<p>I read <em>The Healing of America</em> because one of my progressive friends insisted that I must. Throughout the last eight months of debating health care Reid&#8217;s book was his Bible. My friend sang of how great other countries systems were compared to our expensive, unjust, immoral abomination. So I decided to give Reid a shot to make his case.</p>
<p>Reid&#8217;s method is not to argue for any specific health care plan. Instead he goes globe-trotting, visiting France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Taiwan, India, and Switzerland. Reid explains the differences in each of these systems, talks about his personal experiences, and sings the praises of how superior most of these systems are when compared to the American system that fails to cover everyone.</p>
<p>But in chapter after chapter there&#8217;s a continual confession: these systems are running deficits. Reid talks about how in France they have to &#8220;reform&#8221; the system every few years to try and keep it afloat. But how long can foreign governments keep shuffling the debts around before the system finally collapses?</p>
<p>And how is it that other countries can manage to pay their doctors so much less than the United States does? Well, a system of socialized education in other countries ensures that doctors do not have the kind of six-figure student loan debt they do here in America. Socialized medicine requires socialized higher education. Such is the socialism snowball. The government absorbing one sector of society requires another and then another.</p>
<p>Reid also wants to claim that these other health care systems result in a healthier population. So he cites statistics like infant mortality rates to try and prove his point. <a title="But it's quite clear" href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/06/29/michelle-and-barack-obamas-lies-about-healthcare/" target="_blank">But it&#8217;s quite clear</a> that infant mortality is an inaccurate measure of the health of a country. Further, Reid does not bother to admit how other country&#8217;s markedly different cultures, diets and lifestyles affect the overall health of the nation. He cannot effectively link the means a country uses to pay for health care with things like life expectancy. There are just too many variables involved in the collective health of a nation.</p>
<p>Reid also shows his political ignorance. He does not bother to actually explain <em>why</em> our country has the system it does. Why is it that our country embraces a system where in most cases the <em>individual</em> is responsible for providing his own healthcare? One need only read our founding documents &#8212; the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Our country is based on the principle that the <em>individual</em> is responsible for himself. The sole purpose of the state is to ensure freedom for the individual. Other countries do not have this heritage of liberty. So of course nowhere does Reid even bother to ask, &#8220;Gee, are European-style health care systems constitutional? When our country was founded we were designed to do this?&#8221; Such questions have no relevance whatsoever to him.</p>
<p>All of these points I&#8217;ve raised are pretty obvious:</p>
<div>A) <strong>Socialized medical systems at home and abroad are going bankrup</strong>t. Why? Because they are based on fraudulent economics that do not understand human nature.</div>
<div>B) <strong>These systems require drastically higher taxes than we have now</strong>. This is something that is virtually never talked about honestly.</div>
<div>C) <strong>Nationalized medical systems in other countries are reliant on taxpayer-funded higher education to train the doctors</strong>. Socialism begets socialism.</div>
<div>D) <strong>These systems are not cheaper.</strong> Government mandating a price for a good or service does not lower the actual cost set by the market.</div>
<div>E) <strong>There is no evidence that these systems actually </strong><em><strong>result</strong></em><strong> in healthier populations</strong>. Correlation does not equal causation.</div>
<div>
<p>F) <strong>Such systems are directly at odds with the principles upon which our country was founded.</strong> The government was never intended to provide health insurance for every citizen.</p>
<p>So why can&#8217;t Reid see it? Why can&#8217;t my friend who insisted I read his Bible acknowledge this stuff? Why is it that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama cannot grasp these points when they have supposedly been waist-deep in these issues for years?</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p>It&#8217;s the same reason why Moore cannot even perceive that his own film refutes the gun control cause. The overwhelming psychological need to pursue &#8220;social justice&#8221; steamrolls over all contradictory facts. In confronting advocates of socialized medicine conservatives are not dealing with rational actors fairly pursuing the truth. They&#8217;re in a contest with True Believers whose minds were made up long ago. Understand this single point and all of a sudden the last year&#8217;s worth of health care &#8220;dialogue&#8221; suddenly make sense.</p>
<p>As conservatives near the endgame on the political fight over Obamacare that&#8217;s what needs to be kept in mind.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obamacare-the-bankrupting-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Cold War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-cold-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ambassador Jon Huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese vice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic island]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DoD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[February]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign ministry spokesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[formal protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John T. Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jon huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offensive weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qdr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quadrennial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renegade province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions against iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Robert Gate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Chinese leaders believe they can stand up to America anywhere, anytime. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51769" title="us-china-yin-yang" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="476" /></a></p>
<p>The People’s Republic of China has denounced the meeting of Tibet’s Dalai Lama with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb.18. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t659091.htm">said</a> the meetings:</p>
<blockquote><p>“have severely violated the basic norms governing international relations….The Chinese Government and people stand steadfast in their resolve to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any attempt from any person to interfere in China&#8217;s internal affairs under the Dalai issue is doomed to failure.”</p></blockquote>
<p>For Beijing the issue is not just about the oppression in Tibet, but the Dalai Lama’s larger message that it is the responsibility of the outside world to bring Communist China into the mainstream of global democracy,</p>
<p>Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman for what were called “solemn representations.” This was the second time in recent weeks that the ambassador has been summoned. The previous time was after the Obama administration announced on January 29 that it would fulfill the commitment made by the Bush administration to sell $6.4 billion worth of defensive arms to Taiwan. Beijing has massed offensive weapons opposite the democratic island. The PRC considers Taiwan to be a renegade province despite its de facto independence for over sixty years.</p>
<p>The U.S. did not summon the Chinese ambassador in Washington for a formal protest after Beijing blocked an American initiative to strengthen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. As <em>Global Times</em>, an official publication of the ruling Communist Party, stated<em> </em>in a Feb 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">editoria</a>l, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy.”</p>
<p>U.S.-PRC relations have soured steadily since the confrontation between the two powers at the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting, President Obama came face to face with Chinese intransigence and saw his year long attempt to cooperate with China come to nothing.</p>
<p>While the White House and State Department were rethinking engagement with China, the Defense Department was finishing its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint for how the U.S. military will meet threats to national security. The February 8 issue of the weekly <em>Defense News</em> had a disturbing sidebar by John T. Bennett to its lead <a href="http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4489193&amp;c=FEA&amp;s=CVS">story</a> about the QDR. Bennett reported,</p>
<blockquote><p>As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review moved from a December draft to the February final version, Pentagon officials deleted several passages and softened others about China’s military buildup.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Gone is one passage, present in the Dec. 3 draft, declaring that “prudence requires” the United States prepare for “disruptive competition and conflict” with China.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Altered are passages about Russian arms sales to Beijing and China’s 2007 destruction of a low-orbit satellite.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Why the changes? One Pentagon official said department and Obama administration officials worried that harsh words might upset Chinese officials at a time when the United States and China are so economically intertwined.</p></blockquote>
<p>Trade policy is not, however, in the DoD’s province. It is more likely that the QDR reflects Secretary Robert Gate’s often articulated view that future wars will be like the current small, irregular combat in Afghanistan rather than large-scale conventional warfare against a rival nation-state.</p>
<p>In his joint <a href="http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1416">announcement</a> of the QDR and the 2011 budget on Feb. 2, Gates summarized his vision as, “Rebalanc[ing] our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies.” The “hedge” is not of sufficient concern to justify continuing programs like the F-22 air superiority fighter, or a capability to mount large-scale Marine amphibious assaults, or an expanded national missile defense system. Shipbuilding plans will also see the Navy continue to shrink, with an emphasis on smaller warships.</p>
<p>The QDR states, “successfully balancing requires that the Department make hard choices on the level of resources required as well as accepting and managing risk in a way that favors success in today’s wars.” Obviously, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan are the current top priorities, but Gates has also emphasized his desire to “institutionalize” DoD planning, meaning his vision of avoiding confrontations with a rising “peer competitor” like China or even a major regional power like Iran.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2029JAN10%201600.pdf">QDR</a> did not completely ignore China, though the country was mentioned only a handful of times in 105 pages. Its most complete statement is on page 60.</p>
<blockquote><p>China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional and global interests, which could enable it to play a more substantial and constructive role in international affairs. The United   States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role. The United   States welcomes the positive benefits that can accrue from greater cooperation. However, lack of transparency and the nature of China’s military development and decision-making processes raise legitimate questions about its future conduct and intentions within Asia and beyond. Our relationship with China must therefore be multidimensional and undergirded by a process of enhancing confidence and reducing mistrust in a manner that reinforces mutual interests.</p></blockquote>
<p>A bit tougher review of China’s military buildup is on p. 31, before the ludicrous statement about welcoming the “constructive role” of a “strong, prosperous and successful China.”</p>
<blockquote><p>As part of its long-term, comprehensive military modernization, China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and counter-space systems. China has shared only limited information about the pace, scope, and ultimate aims of its military modernization programs, raising a number of legitimate questions regarding its long term intentions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The notion that American military leaders and defense analysts don’t know what Beijing is trying to do and need to find out more before determining if there is a danger is disingenuous. Every advanced weapon is being designed to attack and defeat U.S. forces. In Chinese documents, the new anti-ship ballistic missile being developed is shown in artwork as attacking U.S. aircraft carriers.</p>
<p>None of the issues currently roiling U.S.-PRC relations are new. What has changed over the last decade is the wealth and industrial power Chinese leaders now have at their command. Economic growth is being turned into diplomatic influence and military strength. President Hu Jintao built his career as a hard-liner and has centered his leadership position on a close alliance with the People’s Liberation Army. Looking at the turmoil in America, Chinese leaders believe that the balance of power is shifting and they can now stand up to America on issues across the board. Such a change, whether real or imagined, makes for a much more dangerous world whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Meets Dalai Lama, and China Is Quick to Protest</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obama-meets-dalai-lama-and-china-is-quick-to-protest/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-meets-dalai-lama-and-china-is-quick-to-protest</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obama-meets-dalai-lama-and-china-is-quick-to-protest/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Swindle]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[14th dalai lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese officials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[formal complaint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hackles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hillary rodham clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jon huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linguistic identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[need]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[November]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republic of china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spiritual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state dep]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenzin gyatso]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thursday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibetan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tibetan independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tibetan spiritual leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibetans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[washington president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON — President Obama met with the Dalai Lama on Thursday, welcoming the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader to the White House for a low-profile meeting that nonetheless raised the hackles of China. The two men spoke about democracy, human rights and the need to preserve Tibet’s religious identity and culture — all issues that, predictably, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON — <a title="More articles about Barack Obama." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per">President Obama</a> met with the <a title="More articles about Dalai Lama." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/_dalai_lama/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Dalai Lama</a> on Thursday, welcoming the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader to the White House for a low-profile meeting that nonetheless raised the hackles of <a title="More news and information about China." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo">China</a>.</p>
<p>The two men spoke about democracy, human rights and the need to preserve Tibet’s religious identity and culture — all issues that, predictably, irritated Beijing.</p>
<p>In <a title="The statement" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/18/his-holiness-xiv-dalai-lama-white-house">a written statement</a>, the White House said Mr. Obama had expressed support for the preservation of Tibet’s “unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity and the protection of human rights for Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China.”</p>
<p>The meeting, which the White House put off last year so as not to interfere with Mr. Obama’s trip to Beijing in November, is the latest evidence of <a title="Times article" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/world/asia/01china.html">the more muscular posture</a> that the Obama administration has been adopting with China, after a year in which China has taken a firm stance in its relations with the United States on a number of issues.</p>
<p>Last month, the administration <a title="Times article" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30arms.html">announced a $6 billion arms sales package to Taiwan</a>, infuriating Chinese officials.</p>
<p>The meeting on Thursday between Mr. Obama and Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, did not please Chinese officials, either.</p>
<p>China, which regards the Dalai Lama as an advocate of Tibetan independence, said that it was “strongly dissatisfied” and that it expected the United States to try to make amends.</p>
<p>On Friday, China accused Mr. Obama of “seriously damaging” ties between the two countries, the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Ma Zhaoxu, wrote in a statement posted on the ministry’s Web site.</p>
<p>China also summoned the American ambassador, <a title="More articles about Jon M. Huntsman Jr." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/jon_m_huntsman_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Jon Huntsman</a>, to lodge a formal complaint about the meeting at the White House, the statement online  said.</p>
<p>While the White House took pains to avoid the appearance that this was a meeting between heads of state — it took place in the White House Map Room, not in the Oval Office — the Dalai Lama also met with Secretary of State <a title="More articles about Hillary Rodham Clinton." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Hillary Rodham Clinton</a> at the State Department.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19prexy.html?hpw=&amp;pagewanted=print" target="_blank">via <em>New York Times</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-swindle/obama-meets-dalai-lama-and-china-is-quick-to-protest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 957/1035 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 09:40:07 by W3 Total Cache -->