U.S. - China relations

[Guest JackMack]

China has waged war on the United States for decades, with the full support of Washington, D.C. and the entire Fortune 500. While China still operates as a nation with a government that promotes and protects a national interest, the United States no longer does. Instead, our government exists to promote the interest of its corporate partners, irrespective of any potential damage to our national interest.

 

The rise of populism in the US is due in part to these persistent imbalances; American citizens are keenly aware that we are being sucked dry; that we are weakened by the day. Alas, whether by design or luck (or some of both) the corporate masters have managed to completely co-opt this populist fervor, pitting the Federal Government and the phantoms of “socialism” as the enemy. As America fades into irrelevance and 3rd-world status, these corporate giants will find over the long term that China will not be the warm and loving partner forever.

[Guest Fedup]

You can thank Goldman Sachs for passing the economic torch to China.

 

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our_firm/investor_relations/financial_reports/annual_reports/2002/client/bank_of_china.html

 

Goldman Sachs has had a long relationship with the Bank of China Group, dating back to the 1970s.

 

Beginning in 2000, Goldman Sachs assisted the company in formulating and implementing its restructuring plans. A critical element of these efforts was the consolidation and listing of its commercial banking operations in Hong Kong, and we acted as the financial advisor for this process.

 

In October 2001, Bank of China (Hong Kong) was successfully formed through the merger of Bank of China's 12 subsidiary banks and one credit card company. This merger was not only Hong Kong's largest bank merger but also one of the most complicated.

 

Goldman Sachs further advised the company on its July 2002 listing on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, which raised $2.7 billion. This highly successful and historic IPO was the first international stock listing by a mainland bank, and paved the way for broader financial change within China.

 

Legally they did nothing wrong.

[Guest NIA]

President Obama's comments on Wednesday in a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, misinformed the public about potential changes in foreign exchange rates and their effects on U.S. citizens. Obama on Wednesday said that he would like to see the Chinese yuan appreciate faster in value. While Hu indicated that China is committed to allowing the free market to better dictate the value of the yuan, Obama said China is implementing their steps to allow the yuan to appreciate "not as fast as we'd like."

 

For years, the U.S. has been criticizing China by calling them "currency manipulators". The fact is, the Federal Reserve is the real currency manipulator because their actions will soon lead to a U.S. Hyperinflationary Great Depression that destroys the lives of all Americans who aren't prepared for life with a worthless U.S. dollar. All China is doing is pegging the yuan to the U.S. dollar so that their product manufacturers and exporters can maintain some level of stability. However, the U.S. is using this as an excuse to explain its rapidly deteriorating export market.

 

Obama was correct when he explained to the world how China would benefit by having a stronger yuan. Obama understands perfectly how a stronger yuan would bring down prices for Chinese citizens and allow them to enjoy a much higher standard of living. In fact, NIA believes China could solve their current inflation crisis simply by allowing the yuan to appreciate alone.

 

China has seen the prices of many food items soar by 25% or more in recent months, which is horrific for a country where many of its citizens spend half of their income on food. While most mainstream economists on CNBC, Bloomberg, and FOX Business are quick to blame China's food inflation crisis on the weather, NIA believes the weather has very little to do with it. It seems like the weather is always the excuse every time food prices rise. Mainstream economists would have you believe that the world has been experiencing never-ending droughts and floods that continue to worsen each year.

 

NIA members know better than that. After all, we have the most educated membership base in the world. The truth is, China's food inflation crisis is coming as a direct result of the Federal Reserve's destructive quantitative easing and money printing policies, and China's willingness to keep the U.S. dollar artificially propped up out of fear that Americans will no longer be able to afford their exports. China is importing all of its food inflation from the U.S. and if President Obama gets his way, China will throw its food inflation right back into the faces of all U.S. citizens.

 

Imagine a food fight in school between American and Chinese kids with the American kids throwing their free National School Lunch Program (NSLP) meals (paid for by Chinese purchases of U.S. treasuries) at the Chinese kids while the Chinese kids sit there ignoring it trying to enjoy their own meals that they spent half of their income to buy. All the while, the American kids are antagonizing the Chinese kids, calling them currency manipulators and blaming their need for free NSLP lunches on China's currency peg (when the peg is actually preventing the American kids from starving). Sooner or later, not only will the Chinese kids throw the NSLP lunch remains back at the Americans, but they might become so disgusted (because they paid for the food being thrown at them) that they actually regurgitate their meals that they worked half of the day to be able to consume, into the American kids' faces.

 

If the Federal Reserve continues down the path it is currently on, not only will China allow the yuan to rise to a free market determined level, which will send China's food inflation crisis back to the U.S., but China is likely to dump their U.S. treasury holdings that they are currently hoarding. China's foreign exchange reserves rose by $199 billion last quarter (its largest quarterly gain in 15 years and 78% higher than analyst estimates of $112 billion) to a record $2.85 trillion for total growth in 2010 of 18.7%. Most likely, about 2/3 of these reserves are in U.S. dollars. Americans have been deceived by the U.S. government and the mainstream media into believing the U.S. economy is recovering, because the U.S. has been enjoying the benefits of inflation without the consequences of rising prices. When the U.S. bond bubble begins to burst and these trillions of dollars being hoarded come home to roost, inflation will become the primary concern of all Americans.

 

NIA finds it completely outrageous how Obama can be so honest with Chinese citizens about their benefits of having a stronger yuan, but then seconds later outright lies to the American public by saying that Americans would gain by having a stronger yuan as well. A stronger yuan by definition would mean a weaker U.S. dollar. It is insane for Obama to proclaim that having a stronger currency is good for China but bad for America. The rules of economics are the same in both countries.

 

As the Chinese see their purchasing power increase by having a stronger yuan, Americans will see their purchasing power decrease by having a weaker dollar. These simple economic principles are easy for any human being to understand, but nobody in the mainstream media is calling Obama out on it. The media completely accepts Obama's statements as the truth, without providing any warning to American citizens that Obama's desired change in foreign exchange rates will shift China's inflation crisis completely to the U.S.

 

On November 12th, NIA's President Gerard Adams warned Americans on FOX Business to beware of massive food inflation in early 2011. We are less than three weeks into the new year and massive food inflation is already here. SuperValu, the third-largest U.S. food retailer with 2,349 stores that operate under such names as Acme, Albertsons, Save-A-Lot, just reported that all of their major vendors have announced their intentions to pass along rising costs throughout the calendar year and the company will be raising prices on all food items by 3% to 14%. NIA's experience tells us that SuperValu is planning to increase prices on most goods by approximately 14%. Trust us, if SuperValu was expecting to increase prices by an average of only around 5%, they would have given an average instead of such a wide range. (By the way, SuperValu's stock crashed 16% on the news and one of NIA's top 10 predictions for 2011 was that U.S. retail stocks will decline after reporting lower profit margins.)

 

The SuperValu situation confirms that double-digit U.S. food price inflation is just about guaranteed to occur in 2011. We also expect to see double-digit price inflation this year in clothing, oil, gasoline, natural gas, and all of the most important things Americans need to live and survive. If the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) somehow manages to report a CPI increase in 2011 of anything less than 5%, and the mainstream media continues to report the BLS's CPI numbers as the truth, any Americans who continue to listen to the mainstream media deserve to lose all of their purchasing power during hyperinflation.

[Guest LAW]

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 1/20/2011

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

1:45 P.M. EST

 

Q Are you over yesterday?

 

MR. GIBBS: What’s that?

 

Q Over yesterday?

 

MR. GIBBS: Over yesterday how?

 

Q Translation errors. (Laughter.)

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t -- I don’t think there were any translation errors. What do you mean? I mean, I think there were -- well, if you guys have questions I’m happy to answer them. (Laughter.) I’m sorry, I don’t -- what are you -- I didn’t -- I don’t --

 

Q Was there a translation error?

 

Q Simultaneous --

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t -- no, no, we had always planned on doing, as we said yesterday, consecutive translation for the answers. It does slow things down; it makes it a little bit more cumbersome.

 

Q Nobody told the President.

 

Q Yes, they didn’t know that.

 

Q Yes, he looked like he wasn’t happy.

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes, he -- well, he did give a fairly long first answer to the consecutive translations.

 

Yes, Mr. Feller.

 

Q Was it a translation problem or he avoided the human rights question?

 

MR. GIBBS: A better question for the Chinese, Goyal. I would say this. I think the answer that he gave, be it to Ben’s question or to Hans asking Ben’s question -- (laughter) -- no, no, I mean, in all seriousness, I think you would all have to strain your recent memory to find a leader from China traveling outside of his country -- or in -- after meeting with the President on a number of occasions on this trip making such a frank admission of the improvement that needed to happen in the area of human rights in the country of China.

 

The process of translation was not the news yesterday. The news was just that, that President Hu realizes that -- and told the world -- that China has to do better.

 

We will certainly -- while we appreciate those words, the United States will watch the actions of --

 

Q But somehow --

 

MR. GIBBS: -- will watch the actions of the Chinese government to make sure that they meet the words that were spoken in the White House yesterday.

 

Q Robert, thanks. First off on foreign policy, any reaction to the news that South Korea had agreed to talk to the North Koreans on military matters?

 

MR. GIBBS: Look, obviously I think that is an important step forward. I think some of that comes as a result of yesterday’s meeting here that for the first time there was an acknowledgment by the Chinese about the North Koreans’ enrichment program. I think following that, the Republic of Korea agreeing to enter talks with the North Koreans -- clearly, conditions were created yesterday that showed the Republic of Korea that China and the United States were aligned in dealing with the aggressions of the North Koreans. So I think it is clearly a positive step.

 

Q If I can just follow up on your comments about President Hu’s remarks on human rights. Those are words, and while it’s a shift, they’re still just words. Is there any indication from President Hu that he will be taking any actions regarding the Falun Gong, regarding Tibet, regarding the jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, look, that’s why you heard me say at the beginning of this that while that admission is an important one, the President will continue to, in meetings with President Hu and our administration, will continue, in meetings with Chinese officials, press the case for tangible action and result on human rights.

 

The President I think was pretty forward-leaning when it came to Liu Xiaobo and the awarding of the Nobel Prize and what happened when China would not release him in order to go get that Nobel Prize.

 

Q First time I’ve heard that name in three days.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President talked directly to President Hu about that. So that’s --

 

Q What did he say?

 

Q Can you tell us what he said to him exactly and what --

 

MR. GIBBS: I was not in the meeting. I can’t quote anything. I know obviously that the topic was brought up.

 

Q Was that at the dinner, Robert?

 

MR. GIBBS: I believe that was -- I’ll double-check. I believe it was in some of the private meetings yesterday.*

 

Q Would you say that those comments made by President Hu about human rights were the biggest breakthrough from the meetings?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think if you want to put -- I would put -- I think we had issues that we discussed in walking you guys through the important aspects of what we hope to get out of this visit -- security, economics and human rights -- I think we saw progress in each of those three areas, right?

 

So in the security realm, again, the Chinese acknowledgment in the statements that -- of the North Korean uranium enrichment program, setting forth a series of conditions that made the Republic of Korea confident enough to go into talks with the North Koreans -- is certain -- I would say one in the security basket.

 

In the economic basket, you had a series of important commercial agreements to the tune of about $45 billion, which directly support several hundred thousand American jobs right here; progress on intellectual property rights. Obviously more has to be done on the economic basket, but, again, the progress on indigenous innovation and intellectual property rights I think were important steps to move us forward.

And lastly, the admission on human rights was obviously another set of issues that you heard the President discuss yesterday -- he had spent a lot of time with the Chinese President discussing over the course of the last couple days.

 

So I think we see some tangible progress on all three of those fronts that’s important. There’s clearly more work that has to be done. We’ve seen a currency because of some actions that the Chinese have taken, as well as inflation rise the -- increase the value of the RMB, but there’s still progress that has to be made on that in order to, as you heard the President say yesterday, rebalance that currency.

 

Q And on those comments, was that a complete surprise to the administration, that he was that candid in public?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think that was -- as I said, I don’t -- I’m not a Chinese historian, but I think if you go back in recent memory, it’s hard to see where a leader of China has said that recently on a trip outside of his country.

 

Q Thanks, Robert. Following up on April’s question -- I think it was a serious question -- that you had the President standing there looking embarrassed and awkward for a moment because nobody had told him that the translation was not going to be simultaneous. Now, something as important as a press conference with the Chinese and American leaders, to have the President standing there looking like a deer in the headlights for a moment there, isn’t that a pretty big faux pas by staff to leave the President hanging out there like that?

 

Q He looked angry, too. He looked angry.

 

Q He looked angry.

 

MR. GIBBS: No. I don’t -- I could -- I don’t necessarily agree with many of the phrases that you used in your question. Again, we can get lost in the -- we can get lost at picking out a series of trees. I think, again, the forest that I would -- I think most people around the world had focused on was the answer. That’s kind of why I thought you guys would ask those questions of the leaders.

 

Q So you don’t think it’s important for the President not to be caught flat-footed out there like that by staff?

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t -- I think the President --

 

Q He wasn’t upset?

 

MR. GIBBS: He wasn’t upset. Again, I think the points that he made and I think the progress that we made -- look, we can spend time worrying about process or we can spend time worrying about results. I think the President spends most of his time worried about results.

 

Q You have lauded President Hu’s admission that there’s work to be done on Chinese human rights. Where’s your reaction to the fact that 1.3 billion Chinese did not hear those comments -- they were blacked out -- nor did they hear anything about Liu Xiaobo?

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I -- which is why one of the conditions to coming here was an opportunity to take questions from you guys.

 

Look, we can’t -- obviously there’s very little that we can structurally do to deal with that, in terms of how they cover this visit. Obviously they’ve got a very different governmental system than we do, and a very different system on how leaders in their country are covered.

 

But when the President was in Shanghai more than a year ago, he talked about needing an open society, having an open Internet so that people in China can read about the news all over the world.

 

The world heard the leader of China make that important admission, and the world will watch to see the steps that they take over the course of the next many months to fulfill -- or I should say to make the improvements that he says need to be made.

 

Q Can I just follow up -- because I know Obama is going -- the President, excuse me, is going to Schenectady tomorrow. What do you hope to get or what does he hope to get --

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, tomorrow as you mentioned, the President will go and visit the birthplace of General Electric, talk about the economy. It’s the -- it’s home to GE’s largest energy division. It will be the future home of their advanced battery manufacturing. This is a company that has brought jobs from overseas back into the United States -- obviously that’s important -- and a company that as a result of some of the work that the President did on commercial diplomacy before and, while in India, saw an expansion of the business that they do all over the world that supports jobs here in America. So I think that’s a bit of the backdrop of the events tomorrow in Schenectady.

 

Q Okay. And you made a distinction between the short-term focus on jobs and then the medium-term focus on getting the fiscal house in order.

 

MR. GIBBS: But I said both the medium and long term, dealing with our fiscal budget situation, but also let’s understand the steps that we have to continue to take in the medium and the long term to prepare our children for competing in an economy against the Chinese and the Indians and a whole host of different countries.

 

Q Does the President still see something of a tension between that short-term focus on jobs and a need to keep government spending --

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say we took some -- we obviously had to take, in the course of two years, some extraordinary steps to ensure that an economic downturn did not become the next Great Depression. And we did that, and some of that stuff obviously -- Hans just mentioned -- is -- a lot of that stuff has run its course through the Recovery Act.

 

So, look, I think that the President wants to and will outline what he thinks is the best course forward to ensuring that we’re dealing with a whole host of problems, including how do we grow our economy, how do we help and work with the private sector to create jobs, and how we get our fiscal house in order all at the same time.

 

Q In 2007, at a labor union forum, the President raised concerns about -- or the candidate at the time raised concerns about Walmart and he said I would not shop at those -- he would not shop there back there. I wondered in light of today’s announcement from the First Lady if that is still true, if he would -- I know he spends a lot of time shopping, but if he were to --

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say --

 

Q -- if he were to buy goods, would he feel comfortable buying goods at Walmart? And more broadly, his views about Walmart have changed in terms of how it treats is workers and unionization --

 

MR. GIBBS: I mean, obviously I think we’re in a -- I think we’re all in a different time with clearly steps that have been taken. I think the First Lady was proud to stand with the country’s largest retailer. They’ve taken some dramatic steps in how they’re dealing with food and how they’re marketing food and packaging and things like that that will make a genuine and big difference for people that shop there. And the First Lady is proud to and happy to stand with any company that will make similar pledges to make a difference on behalf of the American people.

 

Q In terms of their practices, does he condemn them still in terms of how they treat workers, how they pay workers? He was very explicit about this --

 

MR. GIBBS: Again, I --

 

Q -- so has that changed at all -- I mean --

 

MR. GIBBS: I guess the short answer is it’s just -- lots has happened sine 2007.

 

Q Robert, you said earlier that -- with respect to President Hu -- one of the conditions for coming here was an opportunity to take questions from you guys. Are you saying that the White House set a condition for President Hu’s visit that he would have to take questions from American reporters?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I was very clear in the planning of this that we would have a press conference and the press conference would include questions from you guys. We were clear to make sure that that’s what they understood was going to take place if they came.

 

Q And was there any resistance to that?

 

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of. I mean, I obviously did not -- I did not deal directly with them on that, but in the pre-planning for this, this was something that we talked about, and not doing it wasn’t an option.

 

Q If you can remind me since I wasn’t on the President’s trip to China, was there a press conference on that?

 

MR. GIBBS: There was.

 

Q On that trip? Okay -- a joint press conference with President Hu?

 

Q It was statements.

 

MR. GIBBS: Right, they did not take questions, right.

 

Q And so was this in some way a reaction to that or saying you’re on our turf now?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, we weren’t in China.

 

Q But they didn’t take questions in China. I guess what I’m saying is, were you saying, okay, now you’re on our turf, you need to --

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes, we were -- this is the United States of America.

 

Q Robert, global warming -- any reaction to the fact that the U.N. weather -- meteorological agency has determined that last year was tied for the warmest year on record and -- talking about the State of the Union again -- will the fact -- will the President’s suggestion that he’s got other ways to skin the cat other than cap and trade feature in that?

 

MR. GIBBS: I honestly don’t know the answer to the second one. Obviously I think there are continual reminders that we have to transition to a clean energy economy. Without getting into whether or not that’s in the speech, obviously there are a number of different policy ways to do such a thing -- whether it is setting renewable energy standards that create the type of market conditions where you see that transition -- again, there are obviously a number of different ways to do that.

 

Q Does the President consider it a big issue still?

 

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think energy independence and the security of our planet are and will continue to be issues that we’re going to have to deal with. And, again, more and more and more of our oil comes from -- or our energy comes from places that are not here. That puts us at a disadvantage. We’ve clearly taken some steps to change corporate average fuel economy, fuel economy standards, that lessen some of that usage of foreign oil, but I think there’s no doubt that we have a lot more to do.

 

Q Thank you, Robert. Two questions. First is, both President Obama and President Hu mentioned about the historic meeting 30 years ago by Deng Xiaoping and how the White House evaluate this state visit?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, look I think -- as I said earlier, I think we saw some progress on a host of important fronts that we wanted to see progress on -- security, the economy and human rights. But at the same time, again, I think that whether it’s our trip to India and South Korea, Japan, our trip to China last year, China’s trip here -- I think they’re better evaluated over the course of the long term to see have we set ourselves on the path to making real and substantial progress.

 

And so I think we will -- while we’re pleased with the outcome of the visit from yesterday, obviously on each of those baskets that I discussed -- security, the economy and human rights -- there are still -- the two leaders talked about progress that certainly we acknowledge needs to be made and hasn’t been, and we’ll continue to try to be a leader in seeing that happen.

Q And also, on the currency issue -- you mentioned still a lot of work to be done. What’s the next step?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, the next step is with the Chinese in taking -- continuing to take actions at a faster pace to deal with the valuation of their currency. Again, obviously -- and there’s been a decent amount of coverage on this -- there’s actions that you take to change the valuation, and certainly inflation gives you some real impacts too, that that indicate there’s been some changes, but, again, as the President said I think on a couple of occasions yesterday, not quickly enough.

 

Q And also, back on China, but on a whole other issue, on issues of unions, did --

 

MR. GIBBS: The issue of what? I’m sorry.

 

Q Unions, unions -- they have unions in China.

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes. No, no, I just -- sometimes I can’t --

 

Q Lost in translation. (Laughter.)

 

MR. GIBBS: -- believe it or not, sometimes I can’t hear.

 

Q They have unions in China. Did they discuss that issue there? And particularly, the first union in China was Walmart.

 

MR. GIBBS: Let me ask some of our guys whether that’s a topic that came up. I honestly don’t know the answer to that.

 

Q Do you think it’s possible that President Hu’s remarks on human rights are being over-read at all, given the fact that several occasions yesterday he stated that China didn’t share Western definitions of human rights?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I guess I don’t want to translate the translation. But I will say this, as I started out by saying, I think that regardless of what he said yesterday, the true test is not in the words that someone speaks but in the actions that a country takes. And that’s what animated the President to bring up the issue of human rights again and I think that’s -- the actions that that country takes is how we will evaluate the progress that they may or may not make over the course of coming months and weeks.

 

Q So you don’t think there’s any sense in which you could see this as -- this scripted answer, it was obviously a scripted answer -- that he had as a way to alleviate pressure while stating that China would continue on its current --

 

MR. GIBBS: No, because -- well, because, again -- look, I think you could read it -- maybe you can read it several different ways. I think it was an admission that we haven’t heard before. And, again, I think -- I know the way we read it and that is acknowledging that is -- acknowledging that you have improvements to make is part of it, but it’s a very small part compared to what has to be done to make progress, and that’s what we’ll watch.

 

Q Was something like that said privately though?

 

MR. GIBBS: Again, I was not in some of the private meetings.

 

Q I was wondering if the President has been briefed on what appear to be impending global food shortages as a result of aberrant weather in Asia or South America and South Africa.

 

MR. GIBBS: I’m not aware of whether he has been or not, but let me see if that has either come up in an NSC meeting or in any of his economic daily briefings.***

 

 

Thank you, guys.

 

END

2:45 P.M. EST

[Guest Jennifer]

Keep in mind the Japenese Secretary of State was in Washington DC on December 7, 1941 saying the exact samething the very day of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/ap-chen-says-china-no-match-for-us-051811/

 

Seeking to counter U.S. worries about his country’s rapid military growth, a top Chinese general said Wednesday the communist nation’s defense clout lags decades behind the U.S., and that China wants warmer relations.

 

Gen. Chen Bingde, whose position in Beijing is roughly the equivalent of chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, used a 45-minute speech at the National Defense University to play down fears of Chinese intentions.

 

“Although China’s defense and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between you and us remains,” Chen said through an interpreter. He added, “China never intends to challenge the U.S.”

 

Chen made a similar point later at a Pentagon news conference with his American counterpart, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.

 

“I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States,” he said, adding that China’s wealth and military strength pales in comparison with that of the U.S. He said China’s navy is 20 years behind the U.S. Navy.

 

Chen’s remarks were in line with China’s strategy of countering U.S. fear of China as a military threat by emphasizing the limited scope of its military reach and advancing efforts to cooperate in areas like counterterrorism and anti-piracy. Chen said he invited Mullen to make his first visit to China as Joint Chiefs chairman.

[Guest Uncommon Wisdom]

It was supposed to be a floating casino in Macau. At least that is what China said when it purchased a decommissioned aircraft carrier from Ukraine for $20 million in 1998. Today, that rusting hulk is about to become China's first aircraft carrier.

 

This is in addition to a undetermined but huge fleet of nuclear submarines that are secretly patrolling the Pacific and Indian Oceans and all areas in between. Plus, this is just the tip of China's future military ambitions.

 

Many of China's neighbors — including Taiwan, Japan, and India — are ramping up their military spending. That means big profits for some military contractors.

 

[Guest Edgar]

You have to read this...

I found it at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MJ28Dj01.html

 

The United States offers the world a clear prescription for economic prosperity and the protection of human rights - free markets and democracy. Yet, with the US economy withering and the US ability to project power prospectively diminished, US prescriptions appear increasingly less efficacious abroad.

 

China offers the world a very different model for economic development and personal security. Its autocratic government intervenes considerably in economic decisions to promote wide ranging development goals, and it limits personal freedoms to ensure domestic order and stability. "Occupy Wall Street" would almost certainly not be tolerated in China and would likely not be permitted to emerge with Beijing's tight censorship of internal communications. Suppression of such movements supports its strategy for tight economic management, quite in addition to maintaining the Communist Party's grip on political power.

 

China openly flaunts the letter and spirit of international economic rules intended to foster free and open markets, and severely limits intellectual dissent. With its state-directed economy growing at breakneck speed and America struggling, a US failure to maintain a military adequate to meet China in the Pacific will almost assuredly result in other emerging nations embracing, albeit reluctantly or enthusiastically and in varying measure, China's model for economic development and governance.

 

International institutions - like the World Trade Organization [WTO] - are consensual, and interpret and make new rules by consensus. Perforce, those rules will follow the tide of sentiment among more successful nations, and the United States and its Atlantic allies will become more isolated and somewhat marginalized. History teaches power balances do change, and often losers are preoccupied with internal squabbling and chaotic dysfunction, and ultimately surprised.

 

Without a strong economy and military capable of meeting the emerging challenge posed by China in the Pacific, American values and the US economy cannot succeed.

[Guest LAW]

On November 16, 2011, Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, met at the Great Hall of the People with a delegation from the Center for American Progress headed by the organization's president and CEO John Podesta.

Jia congratulated on the success of the 3rd "China-U.S. Dialogue" sponsored by Center for American Progress (CAP), Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs (CPIFA) and China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF). He also appreciated the positive efforts made by the CAP to build up mutual understanding and friendship between China and the U.S..

Jia pointed out that the world today is undergoing profound and complex changes, the global economic situation is still grim, and international and regional hotspot issues and global challenges are emerging. China and the U.S. are the world's largest developing and developed countries respectively. The sound and steady development of China-U.S. relations concerns not only the interests of both peoples and the world at large, but also peace, stability and prosperity of the world. China is ready to work with the United States to implement the consensus reached by the two heads of state, enhance dialogue, strengthen strategic mutual trust, expand mutually beneficial cooperation and properly handle differences and sensitive issues with the United States in order to promote the cooperative partnership.

"The Taiwan issue concerns China's sovereignty and integrity of territory, affects the 1.3 billion Chinese people's national feelings, and is the most important and sensitive issue in China-U.S. relations," Jia said. He urged the United States to properly deal with Taiwan-related issues and attach importance to China's concerns, which is conducive to steady and smooth development of China-U.S. relations.

Podesta said the Center for American Progress is ready to remain committed to conducting exchanges and dialogue with China and contribute to bilateral ties.

CPPCC Vice Chairman Tung Chee-hwa, CPPCC Deputy Secretary General Sun Huaishan and Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai were present at the meeting.

[Guest My Opinion]

Without American consumers, China is nothing. PERIOD.

 

America pulled China out of stone age. America rescued China in WW2 – otherwise China would still be Japanese slaves. Russia would nuke China in 1969 if America didn’t intervene. America let China in WTO and pour money into China. It’s a wise thing to be graceful toward America. Instead they bite the hands that feed them.

[Guest Buddy Roemer for President]

Governor Buddy Roemer issued the following statement in regard to Secretary Clinton’s visit to China:

 

I have been very disappointed in the lack of leadership this Administration has showed in regard to our rival – China. We must strongly consider the recent weakness in China's growth and a string of bizarre events including: the murder of British Businessman Neil Heywood, the attempted defection and then disappearance of Chongqing Police Chief Wang Lijung, the purge of Communist Hardliner Bo Xilai, and reports of an attempted coup in Beijing. And now, the dramatic escape of human rights activist Chen Guangcheng that have publicly revealed the rotten underpinnings of China’s corrupt, communist autocracy. The muffled, embarrassed, and confused reactions of the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration have revealed how deeply tied into this criminal regime our own government and policies have become.

 

The obvious fact is that China is still a nation where, as Mao said, “All power grows from the barrel of a gun.” There is little to no rule of law in this dynasty where the rights guaranteed by their own constitution are rarely enforced and where Party members live like princes and have inconvenient foreigners poisoned.Yet the American government continues to pretend that this state can be trusted to honor its treaties, meet its obligations and behave in a civilized manner. China is unable to act with honor at home, nor has it ever been able to in the international arena. For three decades, this behavior has allowed the Communist regime in Beijing to lie, cheat and steal its way to prosperity at the expense of the American economy and American jobs.

 

China is not a reliable business partner for our firms nor its employees; it’s not a safe haven for our investment capital, nor a responsible ally for our nation. It is time for the United States to stand up for what is right in regards to human dignity and by doing so what is right for our economic future.

 

As the next President of the United States, Governor Roemer's plan would include the following:

• Demand that ALL of China’s dissidents be released immediately.
  
• Demand that human rights and religious freedom for all be respected immediately.
  
• Demand that censorship of all media be removed immediately.
  
• Demand that a clear path to real democracy in China be established and fully independent opposition political parties be legalized, immediately.
  
• Declare China as a currency manipulator, immediately.
  
• Remove China’s permanent most favored nation (normalized) trade status, immediately.
  
• Implement reciprocal tariffs and trade barriers that match China’s “Great Wall of Protectionism”, immediately.
  

The influence of China over our economy is destructive and demeaning. It is time to take action and it starts in the White House.

[Guest LAW]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014 -- (House of Representatives - July 23, 2013)

 

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 printed in House Report 113-170.

 

AMENDMENT NO. 60 OFFERED BY MR. STOCKMAN

 

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 printed in House Report 113-170.

 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

 

The text of the amendment is as follows:

 

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the following:

 

Sec. X. None of the funds appropriated or made available in this Act may be used for United States military exercises which include any participation by the People's Republic of China.

 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stockman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

 

This is an important amendment in that the Chinese have demonstrated time and time again that they're willing to take our tactics and our technology. Coming up in 2014, President Obama has invited the Chinese to participate in a RIMPAC exercise, the world's largest international maritime exercise. Right now, the Chinese plan to use these exercises to increase their knowledge about our tactics.

 

The participation in these military exercises is particularly concerning at this time when China is hacking our computers, stealing our weapons plans, and escalating the pressure in the South Sea of China. China's behavior does not appear to be even on the radar of the administration. I'm really concerned now that they're becoming belligerent in the Pacific area of the rim. They're declaring rights to land. And we're going to, by participating with the Chinese, make it look like we're siding with the Chinese in helping the Chinese allies and against the United States.

 

At this time, I yield to my friend, the cosponsor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good friend from Texas.

 

The Chinese Communist Party is a gangster regime that rules over a billion subjects. It is the world's worst human rights abuser and does not deserve the recognition nor the legitimacy that comes with participating in military exercises with the Armed Forces of the United States.

 

As the greatest threat to world peace and stability, the last thing we should be doing is helping them fine-tune their military and their familiarization with the strengths and weaknesses of America's Armed Forces.

 

The Chinese military is the armed wing of the Communist Party in that country. For decades, China has occupied Tibet, East Turkistan, and threatened the democratic nation of Taiwan with total annihilation. The Communist Party uses force to control its population. Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners who do nothing more than promote yoga and meditation have had their organs ghoulishly ripped from their bodies before they were executed so that those organs could be sold. The moral depravity of the Chinese Communist Party cannot be overstated.

 

China is aggressively using military expansion to back up territorial claims against India, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries. The Chinese military is guilty of even more aggression in cyberspace, as we have just heard from my colleague from Texas. They have stolen dozens of our defense systems. They have vast amounts of intellectual property they've stolen, as well as the business records for many of our companies. The damage has been estimated in the trillions of dollars.

 

Any cooperation with the Chinese military only weakens our own moral credibility and discourages our allies in the face of threats from Communist China. We should be drawing a clear distinction between us and the Chinese military, not helping them train to become even more efficient.

 

I call on my colleagues to vote for Congressman Stockman's terrific amendment, again, making sure that we stand up and are counted when there is a threat to the freedom and stability of the world.

 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.

 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to block funds for our military to participate in any exercise in which China participates as well. The Chinese President confirmed last month in meetings with President Obama his navy's attendance to participate in the rim of the Pacific, known as RIMPAC, in 2014. An invitation to participate had been extended to China during then-Secretary of Defense Panetta's visit to that country in September of 2012.

 

RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise, where 28 countries and more than 40 ships and submarines work together. In 2012, not all participants were our traditional allies. Russia and India, for example, were participants.

 

I believe the amendment is shortsighted and attempts to place an unneeded stumbling block in the path of a relationship that is tenuous. I would suggest that the Secretary would not have extended the invitation if the Department and the United States Navy did not feel that there would be a benefit to be gained by these exercises with Chinese participation. I refuse to believe, as a Member of the United States Congress, that the Department would take such a position.

 

The United States gains maritime knowledge and renewed relationships with other navies of the world and considers participation in this exercise as crucial to their mission. RIMPAC participation has gained an ever-greater meaning with the Defense Department's rebalance to the Asia Pacific, and I do think that this amendment should not be adopted by the House.

 

I reserve the balance of my time.

 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the military works for Congress, not the other way around. So if we direct the military to do something, they do it. If they object, they're not going to object and say, We're not going to do it. We're the body that controls the military, and we're responsible for this Nation's future.

 

It's so obvious what we're doing is giving away our secrets. I can tell you right now that they've stolen the plans to the F-22. They're building more F-22s than we are.

 

They're not part of the negotiation for nuclear weapons right now. We only negotiate with Russia. We have no idea how many weapons they have. We have no idea how many nuclear weapons they have. We are blindsided by what they're doing. They're shooting down satellites, and they could blind us.

 

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would agree with his assertion that we do have civilian command of the Department of Defense and the United States Navy; and, God bless the United States Navy, they follow orders. But also having dealt with the Navy for some number of years as a member of this subcommittee, I would suggest to my colleagues, if the Navy had reservations or had some concerns, we would have had a whiff of that objection and concern wafting from the Potomac to this particular building, and I have not sensed that myself.

 

I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

 

Let me associate myself with Mr. Visclosky's remarks. I think there's some benefit for us to have a joint military exercise. They may learn something about us; we may learn something about them.

 

I can assure you the committee isn't in a state of denial. We know the Chinese are very aggressive, setting out a strategy for a blue navy. I think these joint exercises may be extremely beneficial to us in terms of their naval strategy, and to be part of an overall Pacific rim program gives us a pretty good opportunity to take a look at their capabilities.

 

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stockman).

 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.