Posted by: rotenochsen | November 23, 2009



While in Tokyo, Japan Obama was photographed kowtowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan last weekend, by the middle of the week he was accused of being almost supine when dealing with the new capitalist emperors of China, whom he allowed to stifle his star qualities at every turn.

 From the “town hall” meeting in Shanghai stuffed with carefully schooled patsies of the Communist Youth League to the joint press conference with President Hu Jintao at which no questions were allowed, Mr Obama cut an uncharacteristically wooden, stilted figure. As one American columnist acidly observed, at times it was “hard to tell who was Hu.”

 Reading from pre-prepared 1,200-word statements, the two men spoke as if from their parallel policy universes, unable even to feign agreement on most key issues. On trade, currency, Iran, climate change and human rights Mr Obama failed to win so much as an inch of ground from his hosts.

And yet two hours later the two governments released a “Joint Statement” which is now being hailed as the most significant step forward in US-China relations since Richard Nixon reopened relations 30 years ago.

 The statement – mentioned by neither leader at the press conference – left even the most seasoned China watchers perplexed.

 “It was paradoxical,” said Richard Baum, professor of Chinese politics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The press conference confirmed every low expectation we had for the meeting, but when I saw the statement, I said, ‘Wait a minute, are we talking about the same event?’ It is the most extensive document in 20 years, maybe ever.”

Running to more than 4,000 words, it promised a breadth and depth of co-operation that was unthinkable even two or three years ago. On more than 40 key areas, including military and security ties, global financial governance, climate change and the economy China and America agreed to put their much publicised differences to one side and work together.

 From the general (including China’s significant first ever “welcome” to the US as an Asia-Pacific nation contributing stability to the region) to the particular (a pledge to put “millions” of electric cars on the roads of both countries) the document was described as “incredible”.

 The substance of the Joint Statement has already caused some to reassess the merits of Mr Obama’s strategy in Beijing. Perhaps, by giving China so much “face”, Mr Obama may in time be judged to have saved his own.

 “It was surprising that the White House should roll over to Chinese demands to control the agenda as they did,” said Professor David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy Programme at George Washington University and visiting scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

 “He(Obama) met no Chinese people, no CEOs, not even the US Chamber of Commerce. He didn’t give a speech at a university or even visit a wind farm.

“However the Joint Statement is a most extraordinary document, a blueprint for global partnership that opens a new chapter in the China-US relationship.” It was, he said, “a major accomplishment”.

On this view, Mr Obama’s softly softly approach paid a significant dividend, as he traded media opprobrium at home for the chance to take what a White House official called “an important first step” in a new relationship with China. It is a step that the White House hopes will be viewed positively in “the scope of history”, if not in the New York Times – which memorably said Mr Obama had been “squelched” by his Chinese hosts.

 Doubters of Mr Obama’s low-key strategy point to China’s failure to give ground on a single major issue this week – not even faintly tougher language on Iran, for example – and wonder if China will ever make the compromises required to turn the grand aspirations of the Joint Statement into reality. Where Mr Obama sees statesmanship, his opponents see weakness which the Chinese are ready and waiting to exploit.

But both governments have asked for patience, saying they are determined to focus on positives not negatives.

“I did not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the President on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two and a half day trip to China,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

In essence, said veteran Chinese commentator, Shi Yinhong, professor of International Relations at Renmin University in Beijing, both sides have “agreed to disagree” over their core positions, which is itself an important step forward in the context of US-China relations.

“The joint statement clearly places co-operation as the primary aspect of the US-China relationship, relegating their rivalry and competition to a secondary position. This is a position that would have been impossible perhaps even two years ago,” he said. Source: London Telegraph

 I say the co-operation will be done by the Obama administration and his MINIONS in Congress, and the ChiCOMS will do the dictating to the USA because they hold all the T-bonds!

 While this charade was occurring in China the Senate was violating the Bill of Rights once again, by passing the vote to consider and debate their Health Care travesty called reform 60-39!

The Constitution that was ratified on 12/15.1791 contains section nine(9) that defines the LIMITS of Congress.

This section contains the language that I believe makes the so-called fines on individuals and families that choose not to buy health insurance subject to a fine and possible Jail term.

I am no Constitutional lawyer, but I think the word fine could easily be interpreted as a tax as it applies to the proposed bill.

The language in the Constitution in Section nine(9) is this: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

 Attainder:  The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder!

I also believe the Senate Bill violates the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights that says:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If your hard-earned money is not your property,what is?




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: