Posted on 12/13/2007 9:12:58 PM PST by dit_xi
After seven Democratic presidential candidates debated on Nov. 15, CNN treated us to a debate of eight Republican hopefuls on Nov. 28.
The transcript of the debate numbers 25 pages. Its first major subject is “illegal immigration,” which runs to Page 10, or about a third of the debate.
Illegal immigration?
The word “state” in the political sense (as in “the United States of America”) implies that foreigners cannot come to and live in a “state” as they could on land owned by no one. Otherwise, the “USA” should have been called “NOLA,” “No One’s Lands of America.”
Nineteen foreigners (mostly from Saudi Arabia by origin) came into the United States in 2001 to commit the terrorist attack of 9/11. Millions of such suicidal terrorists could have come into “No One’s Lands of America” if more such foreigners would have been willing to die in the same suicidal way.
In the debate, the New York ex-Mayor Giuliani explained that the 70,000 “children of illegal immigrants” in New York had to be sent to school or they would have added to the crime statistics. Nor could “emergency care in the hospital” be denied to “illegal immigrants” and their children.
Sen. McCain, who hasn’t been exactly known as an exceptionally soft-hearted person, said that “we need to sit down as Americans and recognize that these [“illegal immigrants”] are God’s children as well. [Applause.] And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.”
The solution seems obvious: The border wall, which should have been built in the past 10 or 20 years. But you know how expenses can spiral out of control; for example, the war in Iraq has been extremely costly, and its expenses may continue for many years.
That same McCain declared that the intention to withdraw troops from Iraq is isolationism, and isolationism caused World War II.
The audience was booing. So Saddam Hussein, who was suspected (falsely) of having had “weapons of mass destruction” (such as the mustard gas of World War 1) is the equivalent of Hitler, who conquered France, together with the British Expeditionary Force, in about a month.
McCain explains that the U.S. troops told him: “Let us win.” That is, give us a chance to win the war instead of withdrawing us.
Well, the war was won in 2003, and the event was duly celebrated by George W. Bush. Had Bush or McCain looked up a reference book on sale in any stationery store, they would have learned that the Shia account for 60 percent-65 percent of Iraq’s population and the Sunni for 32 percent-37 percent. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and the Sunni, better educated than the Shia, ruled the country. The U.S. established the Shia dictatorship. The Sunni began a guerrilla war.
What will this victory, to which McCain alludes, mean? No Sunni war against the dictatorship of the Shia who are more anti-Western and anti-American than the Sunni?
Several months ago it was assumed that the U.S. victory in Afghanistan was complete. So it was. Then it was reported that a Bible was found at the home of an Afghani who was to be executed according to the laws of the country. You would not assert, would you, that a person who kept a Bible at his home can continue to live?
Just as in the Democratic debate, China was mentioned in the Republican debate only in connection with toxic toys imported from China. It was said by Rep. Hunter that China makes, by unfair trade, a lot of money, which China needs. Said Hunter: “They are clearly [!] arming.”
I nearly fainted: to recognize that China is “clearly[!] arming”! No other presidential candidate reached aloud such a horrible, cynical, dangerous conclusion!
The word “clearly” is worth comment. The fact is that the dictatorship of China can conceal the development of nano weapons able to annihilate the United States (or the West as a whole), just as the United States concealed the Manhattan Project’s “atom bombs” until two of them were dropped on Japan. But much weaponization of space or oceans cannot be concealed and hence the word “clearly” — China is “clearly arming.”
For example, last year, a former U.S. top naval official said that China’s navy is to consist of 600 battleships, while the U.S. navy is to consist of 150 battleships. Of course, battleships on high seas cannot be concealed.
McCain defined as “isolationists” those “who were for bringing our troops home from Iraq.” But what about those who do not even mention the “China threat”? Surely China is more dangerous than was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with his (mythical) “weapons of mass destruction.”
It is forgotten that China began to test its nuclear weapons in 1964. And today “nuclear weapons” are obsolete as offensive weapons (due to Mutual Assured Destruction), and China is developing post-nuclear (such as nano) super-weapons.
Unwilling to notice the military development of China, McCain and all the other Republican presidential candidates at the Nov. 28 debate, except Rep. Hunter, are not just isolationists, but suicidal fugitives from the geostrategic reality of today’s world.
Well, in the Democratic debate, even that four-word sentence that Hunter uttered was not heard.
Indeed, of all presidential candidates in the CNN debates, Duncan Hunter is the only one who can be taken seriously. To my inquiry “Duncan Hunter on the China threat,” Yahoo! yielded 2,760,000 items, and the second item was: “Duncan Hunter Speaks to Nevada about Chinese Threat.”
Not to understand or not to admit that a dictatorship whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times poses a mortal threat is more irresponsible than it was to fail to understand in 1938 that the dictatorship of Germany was a threat.
It was Hitler himself who cured the free West of that blindness by seizing the “rump” of Czechoslovakia, swallowing Poland and France, fighting Britain furiously, grabbing Russia up to the Volga, and declaring war on the United States.
Fred Thompson did along with many others on both sides of the isle.
Is there an issue with this? I thought you guys eschewed the "protectionist" label when it was applied to DH
I think a billion potential customers now being available for American businesses is not a bad thing at all.
Indeed at one point I thought supporting free enterprise and expanding markets was a Conservative issue.
We can do both, defend against their build up, which should be expected from a growing economic power, and sell them our goods and services.
Indeed that may well be our best defense. Levis and Walkmans went a long way in swaying young minds in the Soviet Union.
>>We can do both, defend against their build up, which should be expected from a growing economic power, and sell them our goods and services.<<
The problem is that we are helping the Chinese strengthen their military via the trade imbalance, which gives them the money to do their own research, including anti-satellite weapons and stealth subs.
I don’t think the US navy has suffered a defeat since the battles around Guadalcanal in WWII, but if the Chinese invade Taiwan and the US Navy joins the battle, you may see them destroy a US carrier task force.
Under the mantra of “free trade,” we have lost key technology jobs, and consequently our students are less likely to major in engineering, math, etc.
I like Fred’s positions on everything else, but all he has said about this is “free trade.” I am not for absolute protectionism, I believe GWB has led us in the extreme opposite direction.
And as to the Soviet Union, the lust for consumer goods didn't bring its collapse
But let's say it did. If we read the news, Russia is incrementally returning to totalitarian rule and empire.
So much for Levi Strauss instilling a Judeo-Christian foundation in institutions and government--it didn't happen...
Remember, we have been at the forefront of capitalism for basically all of the past Century. I refuse to see that as a failure now. Capitalism permeates basically the entire northern hemisphere and most of the Southern as well.
I am not pleased that certain politicians have done things to compromise our military knowledge base to other nations, but that is a political issue and needs to be handled in that venue and as quickly as possible. The trade imbalance is a product of several factors none the least of which is our excessive wages here thanks to unions etc.
Slamming the door on a billion up and coming consumers is folly at best if one values our economic heritage and finical future. There is not enough of us to consume what our companies produce, including that produced by American companies overseas, so it needs to go somewhere. The beauty of it is that helps with defense in it’s own way, Capitalism has been a powerful weapon against the deficiencies of communism.
China is flexing it’s muscle, and yes they are building up, hell they even have a manned space program. But how much of that is exerting power and flexing a new found identity, preening around trying to establish brand China as a superpower and how much of that is actual belligerence.
I have a very funny feeling that the Government of China has no interest in pissing off the golden goose, despite playing tough. That would be akin to me going down and blowing up my bank will all my money in it. Even if they have grander designs, if we can remain strong, it basically stays a none issue. We faced down the Soviet threat for 40+ years, and they have Department Stores now, so who won?
Now if the argument is that we are growing weaker, or could, then that is a separate issue. That is up to us politically, it is not an economic issue per se. It is definitely not cause for slamming the door on a billion customers
As far as Russia,the problem currently is political, not economic. Yes Putin is falling deeper and deeper into trying to play strongman, but once it starts to effect the Russian’s ability to enjoy the capitalism they have built, I think he is going to be forced to back off or see defeat.
I have a few Russian friends. Good folks. They thank Ronald Reagan and the influence of the American lifestyle for their freedom.
The Soviet Union collapsed under it’s own weight because it could no longer economically sustain itself against us. Seeing there was another way, especially among the young, did much to hasten that demise.
I am surprised that you have so little faith in our economic system.
My Ukrainian friends give a very different picture as to how much of a future Russia has. Russia never was and never will be a true free-market economy. The Russian mindset, going back centuries, is to be run by a strong man.
Putin is now consolidating power back into an authoritarian state. One place where they do agree with your Russian friends--Ronald Reagan was a hero.
Concerning China--in case you haven't seen these:
have a good one...
As for Russia, we have differing opinions, but I am very familiar with their history. Strong man leadership in not unique to them among Western nations. We got over it as well.
Which we do not have, thanks to the Bush and Clinton trade policies.
>>Slamming the door on a billion up and coming consumers is folly at best if one values our economic heritage and finical future. There is not enough of us to consume what our companies produce, including that produced by American companies overseas, so it needs to go somewhere.<<
I am not advocating "slamming the door," and I don't think that will ever happen. But my view is that our current trade policies favor China, and the Bush people are either indifferent to US security and the economic well-being of most of our citizens, or they are afraid of China. Yes, let's trade with China, but let's negotiate a policy that helps us as much as them.
>>The beauty of it is that helps with defense in it’s own way, Capitalism has been a powerful weapon against the deficiencies of communism.<<
Capitalism is in principle a good thing. But the current trade situation with China is definitely a double-edged sword, which I believe benefits them more than us.
>>China is flexing it’s muscle, and yes they are building up, hell they even have a manned space program. But how much of that is exerting power and flexing a new found identity, preening around trying to establish brand China as a superpower and how much of that is actual belligerence.<<
You don't take them at their word that they will gobble up Taiwan? Hitler could have promoted a very strong economy by trade with other countries, but he craved power more than money as his ultimate goal.
>>I have a very funny feeling that the Government of China has no interest in pissing off the golden goose, despite playing tough. That would be akin to me going down and blowing up my bank will all my money in it.<<
Kind of a depressing outlook. We are a fat cow to be milked for the time being, with the willing assistance of "our" leaders, until they develop military superiority via nano-weapons and other technology. Meanwhile, U.S. Students Lag Behind Other Nations in Science, Math. What does that have to do with trade policy? Eliminating tech jobs here discourages students from entering math- and science- related fields. The more the DOD depends on non-US software, the more vulnerable we become.
I agree on the Clinton and Bush policies to some extent, that needs to be looked at, but so do many trade deals, from both perspectives. I fear that “the fear” of an rising China may push us too far the other way, into protectionism, which is no answer either.
Perhaps hunter misunderstands China. That is the most likely probability
Thanks for the ping. B4DH.
B4DH
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
>>China has been talking about gobbling up Taiwan for decades, hell I did a report on the threat to Taiwan people in college in 1985. Do I take it seriously, less and less every passing year.<<
I really hope you are right, but in 1985 they didn’t have stealth submarines surfacing in the middle of a US fleet. Nor anti-satellite weapons. Nor plans to beat us to Mars (you can laugh, but try not to be blinded by what the military situation is today). And they will probably get much much stronger.
>>I agree on the Clinton and Bush policies to some extent, that needs to be looked at, but so do many trade deals, from both perspectives. I fear that “the fear” of an rising China may push us too far the other way, into protectionism, which is no answer either.<<
Which brings us back to Fred Thompson. What do you think Fred will do to correct unfair trade with these countries? I believe that Fred could get some support from Hunter people by adopting a trade policy somewhere in the middle, between protectionism and “whatever the multinational corporations want.”
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/09/04/duncan-hunter-interview-with-hugh-hewitt.aspx
“Hugh Hewitt interviews Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter at the Texas Straw Poll before the results came in—Hunter won with 41% of the vote...
Transcription:
snip
One thing that a President does, is enforce trade rules. I am going to enforce trade rules. I am going to stop China from cheating on trade. If we have to use counter veiling duties we are going to do that. But we are going to keep them from enmassing these 100s of billions of dollars, some of which they are using to buy weapon systems.”
excerpt
“Who voted AGAINST opening up the world’s largest market to opportunities for Americans? (hint: His initials are DH)”
And because he was one of a very few, we now have hundreds of billions of dollars flowing to China so they can militarize, so we can have poisoned pet food, so we can have poisoned toothpaste and so we can have lead in young children’s toys. Do you really think that is a good idea? Is there not enough death for you? Do you want more?
I don’t. Hunter was right to vote against most favored nation status regarding China.
They are not buying from us near as much as we are buying from them. They tax our products to nearly no one there can afford our products and will not let us tax their products. Literally hundreds of billions more trade dollars flow to China than flow to the US from China.
“Indeed at one point I thought supporting free enterprise and expanding markets was a Conservative issue.”
Taxed products is what you call free enterprise?
“We can do both, defend against their build up, which should be expected from a growing economic power, and sell them our goods and services.”
We are paying for their build up.
Fred is going to have a real tough time pulling it off with the international bankers. They are making a killing off all those new customers. Not only that, despite what the socialists say, they do want to level the incomes between us and the socialist countries, essentially putting an end to the American dream.
Our business sector had better wise about this pandering to China first and the adoption of the democrat socialist idea of lowering the American middle class standard of living before the whole darn country turns into one giant seething labor union.
I agree, Fred has a dilemma. As a former lobbyist, he probably receives some campaign money from big business. If he goes against their wishes, they just might give their money to his opponents, not only in the primaries, but also in the general election if he survives the primaries (if they thought he was a bigger threat than the Dem nominee). So by saying he would do something about the trade deficit, Fred would gain some votes from folks like us and the “Lou Dobbs” crowd but might lose money, which in some cases is the most important factor.
However, with respect to trade, I have not heard anything that indicates that Fred would be worse than Hillary or the current Republican front runners. I’ll keep my eyes and ears open, and hope for the best.
Not only that..I'm predicting he has the socialist/Communist support as well. He is the Republican John Kerry.
This is the nature of almost all of our candidates on both sides of the isle and the reason why it's hard to tell the difference between them. It's the new business/socialist coalition.
Oh, please. You can’t blame free market for a bad trade deal.
Blame those that created and signed it. That would be slick willy and team “Blue Dress”.
There is a lot of blame to toss around, including 43.
Duncan Hunter would make the BEST president.
He looks a lot like Davy Crockett. I wonder if they are related.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.