Taiwan Sovereignty?

The CATO Institute examines the pitfalls of a Taiwanese government declaring itself a sovereign independent nation separate from mainland China.


Taiwan will be either the hitch to American/Chinese relations or the sell-out compromise to American/Chinese relations. Taiwan officially is a vestige of the Nationalist Chinese government that fled the China mainland in defeat to the Communist forces of Mao Tse Tung. For many years Taiwan was recognized as the official China by the world. In the 1970’s reality finally caught up to Taiwan and the Communist government on the mainland became the officially recognized government of the Chinese people.


Ever since, Taiwan has struggled with its identity and yet firmly remained an independent and separate government from Red China. Red China does not recognize that independence and yet has tolerated the status quo.


Complete Taiwanese independence is an extreme thorny issue with the Communist Chinese. China has slowly extended sovereignty over European managed territories like Macao and Hong Kong. Taiwan is next on their list.


Taiwan might be the bargaining chip to deal with North Korea. Imagine if China offers a military option to help unite North and South Korea in exchange for Communist Chinese occupation of Taiwan.


That might be an offer to hard to resist for a Democrat or a Republican Administration.

Scouts Barred For Beliefs

The Sea Scouts have been barred by Berkley because of the organizations values based rules that homosexuals and atheists cannot be in leadership. The Sea Scouts are associated with the Boy Scouts of America. This is blantant discrimination against faith based (Christianity in particularly) organizations. If the Scouts would allow the gender deviant or the godless to be leaders of young boys it would be okay with Berkley.

The Sea Scouts had used the marina freely as a non-profit organization for over fifty years. However now days Berkley is in that realm which wrong is right and godless values are vilified by the Left.

Thank God the Pacific Legal Foundation is taking up the case. The PLF will be appealing to the Supreme Court.

This is yet more justification to light a fire under the Senate (Republican controlled via majority) to confirm more President Bush Appointees. The "Nuclear Option" needs to be used if necessary. Also let us pray that one more liberal Supreme Court Justice retires for Bush to shape a Conservative Supreme Court for some time to come.

Armageddon Looms Large

I have to admit that I do not buy into much of prophetic doomsayer Hal Lindsey writes about. In my opinion he tends to take current events and draws conclusions that are a prophetic stretch. Nonetheless, thanks to an InJesus Group known as Prophecy Update, I found an excellent article on the historic progression of the results of "Appeasement." Yes, it is by Hal Lindsey.
Armageddon Looms Large
By Hal Lindsey
July 11, 2006

The War To End All Wars concluded with the 1919 signing of the Treaty of Versailles. One of its provisions called for the establishment of a "League of Nations" to ensure that the First World War really WOULD be ‘the war to end all wars’.

The League was set up by the victorious Allied powers under the terms of a document known as The Covenant. It outlined the Leagues mission: To promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security

The League was the brainchild of US president Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. But the United States was never a member. The Senate refused to ratify membership; correctly concluding that membership would subordinate U-S sovereignty to the League.

In 1931, Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria and established a puppet republic called Manchukuo. When the League of Nations objected, Tokyo resigned its membership. The League of Nations blustered and fumed and sent many letters of protest, which Japan ignored until the organization tired of sending them.

Four years later, Benito Mussolini, noting the League’s ineffective response to Japanese aggression, invaded Ethiopia. The League condemned Italy, sent many letters of protest, and threatened sanctions.

In 1936, Mussolini’s forces occupied Addis Ababa and Ethiopia became part of Italy. Adolph Hitler watched this response carefully and took notes. This encouraged him to test the Leagues resolve in 1936.

Hitler marched his storm troopers into the Rhineland to claim the Ruhr as German territory, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. The French protested but did nothing. The League of Nations explained this action away as an understandable redress of excessive measures imposed on Germany after World War One. It did nothing.

Hitlers stature grew with the German people. Even the German military officers were amazed that the League of Nations did nothing. Some industrial leaders who, for economic reasons backed Hitler because they thought they could control him, were dumbfounded.

Some were even disappointed that the Western nations did nothing. On March 11, 1938, Hitler annexed Austria into the Third Reich. When the Austrian Chancellor forced to resign by Hitler refused to name a Nazi as his successor, Hitler marched his troops into Vienna and took over without a shot being fired. Again, the League of Nations took no effective action against this clear violation of the 1919 treaty of Saint Germain. It was an act of aggression that was not met with force.

Emboldened by his success at facing down the entire free world, Hitler persuaded British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to surrender a part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. He spoke of the need for German Lebensraum. This was a coined Nazi word for living space for the German people. Representing the League of Nations, Chamberlain surrendered to this demand without even consulting the Czechoslovakian President. Now Hitlers stature grew to mythical proportions. This enabled him to crush Czechoslovakia with a new kind of war known as blitzkrieg or lightning war. The Allies were unable to respond. There was no stopping Hitler after this.

On behalf of the League of Nations, Chamberlain issued guarantees of protection to Poland. Hitler, now confident that the League was a toothless tiger, invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. World War Two had begun. Hitlers audacity and boldness quieted every voice of reason in Germany.

And the enormous tragedy of it all is that it could probably have been prevented if the League of Nations had boldly stood against Hitler and backed him down at the beginning. World War Two concluded with the replacement of the League of Nations by the United Nations. The new organizations purpose was to prevent, through international cooperation, another war to end all wars.

The historical parallels between the 1930s and the 1990s are unmistakable. Throughout the 1990s, what President George W Bush aptly dubbed the Axis of Evil, took turns testing U-N resolve and noting the reaction of the global community. First, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and survived the U-N-led war to push his troops back across the Iraqi border.

His Axis counterparts watched as he defied the U-Ns repeated resolutions with impunity. By the way, when Saddams Iraq finally fell twelve years later, it was at the hands of a United States-led coalition AND it was over the vociferous objections of the United Nations that Saddam had so blatantly defied. After observing the U-Ns response to Iraqi aggression, Kim Jong-il pushed the envelope still further with the first North Korean nuclear standoff in 1994.

That resulted in the international community bribing Pyongyang not to develop nuclear weapons. President Clinton gave him all sorts of goodies to get him to back off his nuke program. Like any good extortionist, Kim Jong-il took the bribe but ignored the terms.

He got away with it for eight years while the U-N blustered and threatened him with letters of diplomatic protest. He learned that he could get all kinds of rewards by rattling his missiles and then allowing the West to bribe him to stop.

Meanwhile, even more dangerous aggressors were taking note. Irans mad mullahs took careful notice of the United Nations response. Iran, the third member of the Axis of Evil, began testing the U-N in 1998 when its own nuclear program was uncovered. It has managed to hold the international community at bay by creating the diplomatic equivalent of a Mexican standoff, thanks to its fostering of Islamofacism and the threat of escalating the war.

Now, Iran is only a few months, if that, from nuclear capability. And once again, we have North Korean missile tests, carried out in open defiance of the United Nations. To add insult and intensify the provocation; the tests coincided with both our 4th of July and the launch of the space shuttle Discovery.

The Taepodong test was deemed a failure by the U-S because the missile exploded only 40 seconds after launch and at an undetermined altitude. But its worth noting that a powerful nuclear weapon detonated 180 miles above the United States could generate an ElectroMagneticPulse that experts say would instantly plunge half the country into the technological 1890’s.

North Korea is now preparing several more missiles for test launch. The United Nations is in a tither. Diplomatic letters of protest are flying like confetti. Military and intelligence analysts warn darkly of all the important lessons learned by Pyongyang, even though the test itself was considered a failure.

Maybe it wasnt Pyongyang that the July 4th missile tests were intended to educate. If the Axis of Evil analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran. Its now their turn to move. Even casual observation should teach us that only the aggressors learn from history. The appeasers NEVER learn.

But the stakes today are far more dangerous than ever before. Armageddon looms large before us.

Olmert’s Realignment

The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem reports that Olmert is still dedicated to what he is now calling "realignment." Sharon used "Disengagement" to signify a unilateral policy of withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza and to cut the cords of Israeli financial support to a people who hate the existence of Israel.

Olmert inherited the Prime Minister position and began calling Sharon’s "Disengagement" a "Convergence" plan. I am still not entirely certain the image that was to portray. Possibly the thought of Jews converging on a homeland to the exclusion hateful Palestinians.

Now I read that Olmert is committed to "Realignment." Again I am left to guessing the meaning. I am convinced "Realignment" means Sharon’s dream of unilaterally withdrawing connective support toward the PA. The Palestinian lives in a realm of hate, so why support and prop a sovereign nation of Jew haters.

The problem I have with all this is the relinquishing of land to provide a land for the sovereignty of Jew haters – Palestinian-Arab Mohammedans. It makes more sense to me to expel these Arabs into neighboring Arab lands and force those Jew hating nations to deal with the plight they created in the first place.

Guy Benyovits offers a Ynetnews.com opinion:

The disengagement, my friends, was a glorious tactical success – and a glowing strategic failure. This, by the way, is exactly what generations of Israeli prime ministers thought about Ariel Sharon – great at tactical planning, terrible at long-range strategy.

Olmert is incapable of thinking beyond the strategy set down by his former mentor. Disengagement-Convergence-Realignment is a good tactical plan for Israeli security. Israel needs a strong leader to rework the strategy that does not give up land and yet still disengages from a people that are consumed by hate. Olmert is not that man.

Olmert Stands by ‘Realignment’
Denies prisoner swap for Shalit
10 Jul 2006

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert informed the foreign press Monday that despite recent events he had not given up his vision of withdrawing civilians and IDF troops from Judea and Samaria. "Violence is a threat to any peace process," Olmert said, in his first public comment on ‘realignment’ since the eruption of the Gilad Shalit kidnapping crisis two weeks ago. "I haven’t changed my basic commitment to the realignment plan," the prime minister said, adding that he was "absolutely determined to ultimately separate from the Palestinians."

"If terrorist organizations force a violence confrontation, I am afraid both Israelis and Palestinians will bear the consequences," Olmert said. "But they can’t stop the inevitable historic process. It is the only solution, the only way that Palestinians can realize their dream of a Palestinian state."

The prime minister went on to reiterate that Israel would not release any Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit and ruled out any negotiations with the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshal.

Olmert went on to question the EU’s criticism of Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip, saying the EU should focus instead on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. "When was the last time that the European Union condemned this shooting and suggested effective measures to stop it?" the PM asked.

A letter from the front

I have to be honest, I do not know if what I am about to post is legit or not. Pedestrian Infidel has not provided corroborating links to the source.

Even as I typed that first sentence it dawned on me that I now live in the information age. So I Googled “Lt. Tom Cotton” and found a source immediately.

So here is the deal: Lt. Cotton is a lieutenant in the United States Army. Lt. Cotton is unhappy with the New York Times (as he should be).

Here is the reason Lt. Cotton’s perspective has piqued my interest: every once in awhile I receive comments from those that purport to be in the military and complain about my conservative slant on politics. I know that those few are the minority if they are even in the military (liberals lie). I read a comment some time ago from someone claiming to be in the Navy and about to be deployed on a ship to Iraq. He claimed he and his buddies think the War in Iraq is a s**t hole of a war and America should not be there. When I told him my son was in Navy on a Carrier and that his fellow sailors did not agree, I never receive another response. So this post is for the deluded few who do not realize that the American military personnel are fighting for your freedom, liberty and security at to be maintained at home. AND they are happy to do so; however they are unhappy with hearing the kind of propaganda that the New York Times is reporting.

I am going to post in entirety from Pedestrian Infidel.
This US Army lieutenant, Lt. Cotton of Texas, USA, on duty in the combat zone, writes this scathing letter about the Traitor Times (AKA the New York Times).

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government’s highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato’s guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months’ salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion — or next time I feel it — I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

Condi For President?

I would vote for a Condi Rice ticket; however I am not sure other Republicans would. Rice is more of an Academic than a politician; this may harm her stamina in a political campaign as they are operated in the 21st Century. The last true Academic to reside in the White House was Woodrow Wilson.

I think Rice would be great as a Vice Presidential candidate with just about any Republican Presidential candidate. Rice is intelligent and articulate and able to hold her own in a verbal exchange with the Left. Rice will have the aura (for better or for worse) of the Bush Administration which should enhance her Conservative credentials. On the other hand, Rice has the appearance of a Republican moderate from her public speeches. This could slice into the Democratic Party few who do not view themselves as the slanted Lefties as Reid, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy.

I think Rice would be an imposing campaigner as the number two person on a Presidential campaign. If that campaign was victorious in 2008 and the next Administration she would be involved with did not drop the ball politically, Rice would then be a shoe-in for President in 2012 or 2016.

Hat tip to CondiBlog.

Krauthammer on Post 9/11 Success of Bush Administration

Charles Krauthammer expresses some excellent points on the War on Terror within our Homeland:

The big mystery here is in two months we’re going to be at the fifth anniversary of 9/11. There’s not a person I know who would have expected we go one year let alone half a decade without a second attack. And because of our patriotic press, we now have some idea of how it was done. Tracing the money, tracing — listening on in their phone calls and also having the bad guys, the big, the leaders of the bad guys in secret prisons getting interrogated, under difficult conditions, shall we say. With all of that has been exposed in our press, it explains to a large extent why we have not had a second attack.

It’s not an armistice, and it’s not an accident, it’s good work on our part, however our sources and our methods are now in jeopardy as a result of that. [Thanks Real Clear Politics


NO ACCIDENT! There is the nail on the head, it is no accident that the United States of America has not seen a successful terrorist operation since September 11, 2001. That is an awesome track record that you will not see in the MSM. It is not a gracious nod you will see from the Democratic Party. Instead, the MSM and the Democratic have vilified and demonized President Bush when they should be thanking him that their sons and daughters can still go shopping in the mall without fear of a psycho-Islamofascist terrorist committing homicide via suicide or other means. Incidently, a scenario that Israel has had to live with ever since the Jews have found a homeland in 1948.


The irony is the MSM. The MSM has attempted to disrupt Bush successes with attempts to expose Bush Administration actions to prevent terrorism at home. In so doing the MSM has validated President Bush’s success rather than expose. The only exposition is the Leftist shot in the foot, I guess the Leftist will claim they learned that from Vice-President Cheney.