... a personal e-mail of former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton recently leaked by WikiLeaks suggested an adviser, Jake Sullivan, once shared with her an article titled “To save our economy, ditch Taiwan” by Paul Kane, a former international security research fellow at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. [Emphasis added]
In the article, Kane suggested that US President Barack Obama could bolster US economic security by ending its military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan, in exchange for a write-off of US$1.14 trillion in US debt held by China.
“I saw [Paul Kane's proposal to sell out Taiwan] and thought it was so clever. Let’s discuss,” said Clinton... [Emphasis added]
The veracity of this is open to question, given Wikileaks' status as a likely Russian front group. It would therefore be helpful if America's supine press asked Secretary Clinton to confirm or deny whether it would have been the policy of her government to stab fellow democracies in the back.
Helpful, yes. But it's pretty difficult to picture this planeload of throne-sniffers ever asking the Haggard Queen any tough questions:
Postscript: Paul Kane's from the JFK School of Government? For real?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty...Offer not applicable if one trillion dollar bribes are on the table." —John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Inaugural Address, probably
UPDATE: The original Wikileaks document. Not much different from the Taipei Times' account, though it does include Paul Kane's article in its entirety.
"A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city's synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies."
"The court sentenced the three [Muslim men responsible for the arson] ... to suspended sentences."
An evil fate awaits Jews in Eurabia, given the anti-Semitism of European natives and the unbridled Judenhass of the continent's new Muslim rapefugees.
Israel awaits. Best get out, while the gettin's good.
UPDATE (Jan 14, 2017): Buildings in Germany which are still illegal to burn down:
Not hard to see which castes belong to the over-class, and which are untouchables.
BLM chanting, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon."
So if I understand FBI Director James Comey correctly, Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent with classified information...but shouldn't be prosecuted for the felony of gross negligence because she wasn't intentionally negligent...
To be perfectly fair, Donald Trump with the nuclear football isn't particularly reassuring, either.
How very sporting of you, old man!
In Abu Kamal, U.S. planes dropped leaflets before the attack [on 300 fuel trucks], warning people [combatants and non-combatants alike]...to leave before the assault began. After waiting for an hour, the U.S. planes struck.
As a result of Obama's traitorous heads up, ISIS saved 184 of 300 fuel trucks that were lined up in rows. That's 184 trucks that can continue to ship oil and generate income for the most virulently evil organization of our time...
No wonder ISIS sends Muslim death squads to attack the West: They think they can attack with impunity because we're being led by a GODDAMN-FUCKING-PUSSY.
And, given the inept prosecution of the war by this cretinous incompetent, one cannot say they're mistaken.
The man's unfit for office.
The tell-all memoirs of this president's subordinates are going to be brutal.
UPDATE (November 17, 2015): A few more observations about Obama's farcical prosecution of the war against ISIS:
UPDATE (November 20, 2015):
“I did sacrifice a goat. I know that’s probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans...” [Emphasis added]
He's got that finger firmly on the pulse of the electorate.
Obama vs. Putin:
An out-of-his-depth desk jockey from Star Fleet parleys with Klingons (while Kirk convalesces in Sick Bay).
— Barack Obama desperately hitting Reset Button
The 1930s called. They want their foreign policy back.
And the winner of the Mohammed cartoon contest was:
Although this was a pretty strong contender, too:
For those who not keeping score:
I don't even know what that means.
But it was so loopy, it had to be a post title...
Postscript: Ten years ago, I'd have dealt with the Temple University ROTC cadet hazing episode in a 6 screen essay. But the serious points I tried to make over the last week are:
Does that mean Brigadier-General Peggy Combs and Major Michelle Bravo will be requiring cadets to attend mandatory "Walk a mile in HIS shoes" marches?
Nah. Doesn't fit with Teh Narrative™
Postscript: This is one of the last of the posts related to the Temple University ROTC hazing incident (and the last featuring Barack Obama).
It would be fair to object, "What does President Obama have to do with this case? He surely didn't give the order for this!"
And that would be true, but somewhat besides the point. Because as commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama's silence implies his consent. The real question is: Will President Obama hold the perpetrators accountable, subjecting them to either punishment, demotion or outright termination?
On that score, I have little confidence that he will. When a man kneels at the altar of political correctness and transforms a clear-cut case of religious terrorism into a mundane act of "workplace violence", then he cannot be trusted to do what's right in a case such as this.
Of course, I could be wrong. But if not, my only regret will be that my posts on the matter were not cruel and biting enough.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory. An anonymous cadet at Temple University's ROTC program speaks:
“Attendance is mandatory and if we miss it we get a negative counseling and a ‘does not support the battalion sharp/EO [Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention / Equal-Opportunity] mission’ on our CDT OER [Cadet Officer Evaluation Report] for getting the branch we want. So I just spent $16 on a pair of high heels that I have to spray paint red later on only to throw them in the trash after about 300 of us embarrass the U.S. Army tomorrow.”
An enticing offer. Plenty of parents will be absolutely thrilled to send their sons to such a wholesome educational environment.
Postscript: I've been a staunch opponent of hazing since at least the age of twelve, and what's most pernicious about the Temple ROTC hazing case is that it was conducted in the service of an ostensibly good cause. Those who expressed doubts in participating in their own ritual self-abasement were informed by their superior officers that they were bad people whose careers would be ruined for their disobedience.
As for the "Walk A Mile In Her Shoes" campaign, the first I ever heard of it was last year, and I confess to having snickered a little at the sight of the male participants. But here's the thing: I would never make fun of men who VOLUNTARILY took part, because I recognize that they're doing no harm and their intentions are basically good (notwithstanding my personal reservations about the optics and effectiveness of their efforts).
However, when such a campaign becomes involuntary - a handy excuse for toxic leaders to humiliate their subordinates - well, that's when its time to draw the satirical knives.
And, in completely unrelated news: Army Morale Low Despite $287 Million “Optimism” Program
Gee, I WONDER how THAT could've happened...
"And, of course, that's the story extremists and terrorists don't want the world to know -- Muslims succeeding and thriving in America. Because when that truth is known, it exposes their propaganda as the lie that it is."
— President Barack Obama
"[W]e in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face."
— Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson
So, if I understand this correctly, America is a wonderful place where Muslims succeed and thrive...while they're being relentlessly oppressed and discriminated against.
The American president made quite an extraordinary claim recently: that the Islamofascist zealot of indeterminate religion and ideology who recently murdered 4 Jews in Paris did so randomly, without targeting them because of their religious affiliation.
After the initial reaction of incredulity subsided, I decided to subject Mr. Obama’s assertion to pitiless, objective mathematical analysis. What exactly are the odds that 4 Jews could be randomly murdered in Paris by a single killer (as Mr. Obama would have us believe)?
The probability that a random murder in Paris will involve ONE Jew as the victim shall be defined as P1, and is determined by the following equation:
P1 = NJ / NT
Where NJ = Number of Jews living in metropolitan Paris
NT = Total number of people living in metropolitan Paris
Given Mr. Obama’s claim that the murders were unrelated, independent events, the probability that 4 Jews were randomly murdered in succession by a single individual is given by the variable Pt:
Pt = P1 * P1 * P1 * P1 = (P1)4
Now, according to the latest statistics, there are 283,000 Jews currently living in metropolitan Paris, out of a total population of 12,292,895. This allows us to solve for Pt:
Pt = (283,000 / 12,292,895)4
Pt = 0.0000002808853275
Pt = 0.000000281 (reduced to 3 significant figures)
The result can be multiplied by 100 to arrive at a percentage:
Pt (%) = 0.0000281%
Thus, there is a 0.0000281% chance that the 4 Jews were randomly killed (and therefore, that the American president is telling the truth).
Or, in starker terms, the likelihood that Mr. Obama is lying through his teeth is 99.9999719%.
The science is settled.
Saying the Paris terrorists randomly picked a Kosher deli is like saying the KKK randomly picked black people to lynch.— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 10, 2015
UPDATE: Much hilarity ensues as clueless (and thoroughly incompetent) State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is unaware that:
.@statedeptspox have you had a chance to discover if the "French authorities" believe the Hyper Casher murders were anti-semitic yet?— TheClassyLife (@AceofSpadesHQ) February 11, 2015
UPDATE #2: Of course, there is also the possibility that President Obama is not an anti-Semitic liar, and he simply spoke without thinking.
Certainly, if he were willing to admit that the Muslim terrorist who murdered the 4 Jewish shoppers targeted them because of their religion (and not randomly), then the mathematical proof that Mr. Obama is an anti-Semitic liar would be rendered invalid.
UPDATE (Feb 11 / 2015): Hmmm
What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.
How would President Obama react?
I suspect he wouldn't say the victims were just "a bunch of folks" who were "randomly" targeted and killed.
"The individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident, were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be!"
America's best and brightest.
An interesting point in that last link: If the attacks in Paris were so random, why are French soldiers standing guard at synagogues and Jewish schools, instead of at random street corners?
Perhaps they just don't understand the nature of the problem as well as King Putt.
Reports are unclear though, as to whether Mr. Obama delivered his little sermon about humility in front of massive ancient Greek columns carved from Styrofoam...
Score a win for the forces of civilization.
Seeking to repair relations between America and a wrathful Kim Jung-un, the Obama administration announced it would swiftly arrest and convict the film-maker responsible: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
“We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the US.” - B. Obama pic.twitter.com/N1aQoVwRId— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 19, 2014
Haven't seen the flick, so I'm in no position to judge whether this analysis of the latest Godzilla movie is incredibly astute or utter hogwash...
It's Interesting That He [Ron Paul] Cites the Italians for Their Perspicacity... because that lets me talk about my favorite Italian word, furbo, meaning full of cunning and slyness.
"Furbo" is very important in Italian culture. Even more than in our own.
Let's say, for example, I say I believe George Bush that Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11.
The fact that I'm saying I believe him exposes me to several risks. What if he's lying? If he's lying to me, he's played me for a fool. I would have shown that my furbo is rather weak.
But what if I instantly claim he's lying, instead? Well, then I can never be accused of having had the wool pulled over my eyes by him. My furbo would be strong.
Now, most cultures, of course, respect skeptics and treat the guileless as amiable fools.
But in many cultures, you can only show so much furbo before you begin looking like a fool from the other direction. Not a fool because of what you believe; but a fool because of the incredibly long list of things you don't.
Italy, however, prizes furbo to the extent that it's pretty hard to be considered a fool based on your conspiracy-theorizing. Italy overvalues furbo, and undervalues skepticism about skepticism itself...
In the 1940s, conservative Swedes set up a universal public system of classical music education in order to "protect" the country's youth from the "corrupting" influences of foreign popular music.
(Which, considering the era, meant that they considered Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw the subversive, long-haired punks of the day. Heh!)
By the '80s, this had changed, and Sweden's musical curriculum had expanded to include rock and pop...and by the 1990s, Swedes were able to take advantage of both their musical education & their music-related social networks to conquer the pop world.
Very ironic result. Fascinating stuff.
Mr. Winkler defended his decision [not to publish an investigative report about Chinese Communist Party corruption], comparing it to the self-censorship by foreign news bureaus trying to preserve their ability to report inside Nazi-era Germany, according to Bloomberg employees familiar with the discussion.
Sinofascism is not a dinner party.
Hungary tests its emergency broadcast systems.
And so's not to alarm anyone, it delivers reports of hail in the Shire, clouds of volcanic ash in Mordor.
"Politely" for now. Perhaps not so politely in the future.
Back when I lived in Taiwan, I knew of a few Canadians who wore poppies around this time of year. Somehow, the Taiwanese never made it an issue.
But then, unlike the Chinese, Taiwanese as a rule aren't ugly bullies.
Taiwan's China Post wrote a pretty good editorial about the trapped Chilean miners a while back, and concluded on this note:
...the Chilean miners' first steps above ground gave us a timely reminder of what can be achieved when there is optimism, ingenuity and an unerring faith in the human spirit.
None of which can be gainsayed, but the editors seem to have missed one key ingredient to the miners' survival:
We know now that pretty much ALL of their decisions were made democratically. This approach wasn't a panacea -- in the coming months, we'll hear more about personal conflicts that occured and even about physical altercations. But at some point, the miners realized that the best way to minimize the MAJOR frictions existing within their little society was to put matters to the vote.
For them, democracy represented not merely an idealistic dream but a practical neccessity for their own survival.
So yes, "optimism, ingenuity and faith in the human spirit" all had their roles to play in the outcome. But ponder for a moment how different the conclusion might have been had a small, self-appointed elite resorted to coercion and violence to lord it over the others, all the while cynically trumpeting their own "benevolence".
Did you think that Beijing would be selective in its rare earth trade embargo, wielding its market position against Japan (alone, among all the countries of the world) as a weapon of last-resort?
American trade officials announced last Friday that they would investigate whether China was violating international trade rules by subsidizing its clean energy industries. The inquiry includes whether China’s steady reductions in rare earth export quotas since 2005, along with steep export taxes on rare earths, are illegal efforts to force multinational companies to produce more of their high-technology goods in China.
Hours later, according to industry officials, Chinese customs officials began singling out and delaying rare earth shipments to the West. [emphasis added]
Earlier this year, Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party signed a free trade agreement with China, all the while insisting that the Benevolent Butchers of Beijing would never abuse their economic power over Taiwan.
That proposition of theirs appears more divorced from reality with each passing day.
UPDATE (Oct 20/2010): Daniel Drezner on China's rare earth embargo against the West --
"[This is] going to encourage some obvious policy responses by the rest of the world. Non-Chinese production of rare earths will explode over the next five years as countries throw subsidy after subsidy at spurring production. Given China's behavior, not even the most ardent free-market advocate will be in a position to argue otherwise." [emphasis added]
The day Liu Xiaobo wins the Nobel Peace Prize, a "European Affairs" program in China instead breaks the earthshaking news that a panda had been born in Spain.
All kidding aside, Occam's Razor suggests to me that China was sincere in its brutish objections to Liu Xiaobo's nomination and win. Thuggish is as thuggish does.
But I'll go further out on a limb and predict that within the next 3 or 5 years Liu will have company, when another Chinese dissident will be awarded the prize. And my reason for believing that is that the Chinese Communist Party REALLY hacked off the Nobel Committee. So much so, that the committee broke with precedent and leaked the name of the winner to the media a few days before the official announcement. (Hard to imagine a bigger F U being issued to the Butchers of Beijing.)
Remember how the Nobel committee spent the last 6 or 7 years repudiating George W. Bush? It was almost a steady stream -- Mohammed ElBaradei...Al Gore...Barack Obama. (If I'm not mistaken, there were also a couple anti-American authors for the Literature Prize tossed in just for good measure.)
Message received. Loud and clear.
But one thing cannot be denied: in response to these rebukes, the American government did most assuredly NOT threaten the government of Norway, nor the livelihood of its people. Great powers get criticized, and they learn to live with it. Goes with the territory.
In contrast, the Communist government of China gave the Nobel committee only two alternatives: humiliating surrender, or honorable defiance.* One or two more Liu Xiaobo's this decade will drive home to the Chinese what stuff Norwegians are made of.
* During a conversation with some Taiwanese youths a few years back, one of them announced in all seriousness to me that "Face didn't matter to Westerners."
(No offence was intended by them. I think the subject came up when I remarked that I wouldn't feel any loss of face if I offered a last-minute dinner party invitation to a coworker, and they declined due to prior commitments.)
It's a view charming in its naivety when held by the young -- but foolish to the extreme if it's held by the Chinese leadership.
UPDATE: An Indian reporter blogs on the Chinese media black-out.
UPDATE #2: Liu's not hard-line enough, protest some exiled Chinese dissidents. Sad.
After Zhongnanhai watches these Panda's are jerks! ads, can a major diplomatic row between Beijing and Cairo be far behind?
(Those living in countries bordering China will probably see a LOT of subtext in these ads.)
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. For example, some argue that one-party autocracies might not always do stuff Thomas Friedman agrees with. But this risk can easily be avoided if the one party is a reasonably enlightened group of people, such as China, and/or Thomas Friedman. Only through this one party system can we impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward into a thousand-year empire of benevolent, iron fisted enlightenment.
Come to think of it, Iowahawk sounds like Sino-Imperialist Bev Chu over on Lew Rockwell's site.
(Only difference being Iowahawk has tongue planted firmly in cheek, while Bev is dead serious.)
One wonders whether the board of Taiwan's Taipei 101 skyscraper will be willing to sell themselves quite so cheaply.
According to the Washington Post, the Chinese were apparently resigned to the American president meeting with the Dalai Lama in October, but in an act of Picardian sensitivity, Obama called the whole thing off.
Money quote from web page 2:
"We've got the classic case of a Western government yet again conceding to Chinese pressure that is imaginary long after that Chinese pressure has ceased to exist," said Robert Barnett, a Tibetan expert at Columbia University. "The Chinese must be falling over themselves with astonishment at what Western diplomats will give them without being asked. I don't know what the poker analogy would be. 'Please, see all my cards and take my money, too?' "
If it's any consolation, Western governments ain't the only ones doin' that . . .
UPDATE (Feb 20, 2010): The Weekly Standard describes the Dalai Lama's visit when it finally went through:
It takes a special talent to aggravate the Chinese government, the White House press corps, and the followers of the Dalai Lama all in one fell swoop. But the Obama administration managed to pull off that trifecta on Thursday with its poor handling of the Dalai Lama's meeting with the president.