Air Force Blue

AY06_1223_Norman

2009-05-25T17:17:00.001-06:00

Au/ACSC/1223AY06

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF
COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

CHINA’S STRATEGIC
AMBITIONS

And U.S. Strategy

Daniel J. Norman, Major,
USAFR

A
Research Report Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of
the Graduation Requirements

Instructor:
Dr. Edwina S. Campbell

Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama

April 2006

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the
author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US
government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air
Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property
of the United States government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page
DISCLAIMER……………………………………………………………………………...	ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………...	iii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..	1
FINANCIAL MATTERS…………………………………………………………………...	4
THE MILITARY’S SUPPORTING ROLE………………………………………………...	15
THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLIANCES……………………………………………………	16
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..	20
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………	22
ENDNOTES………………………………………………………………………………...	24
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..	27

INTRODUCTION

The F/A-22 plods along with its proponents espousing its capabilities
and necessity for national defense. Yet, few military systems have
been so overtaken by events as has the F/A-22, that is to say the
F-22, which actually started out as the F-22 before turning into the
F/A-22. The direction of America’s military mirrors this
confusion. Since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon and defense
contractors have patiently waited for China to build a sufficient
military so they could engage in a good old fashioned arms race just
like the good old days of the Soviet threat. Back then, the Pentagon
enjoyed the limelight and considered itself the keeper of peace for
the free world.

However, China is not willing to play by the traditional rules, where
we build weapon systems and they build weapon systems and defense
spending dominates budget debates. Thomas Barnett writes about a
comical want ad hung in the walls of the Pentagon after the end of
the Cold War in The Pentagon’s New Map, “ENEMY
WANTED: Mature North American Superpower seeks hostile partner for
arms-racing, Third World conflicts, and general antagonism. Must be
sufficiently menacing to convince Congress of military financial
requirements. Nuclear capability is preferred; however, non-nuclear
candidates will be considered. Send note with pictures of fleet and
air squadrons.”^¹

China’s intentions are to compete with America, but not on
American terms. The Cold War taught the world not to engage in an
arms race with the United States, and the 1991 Gulf War showed the
world not to engage in head to head military warfare with the United
States. So China will be content to keep a low profile, build its
economy and forge alliances while making a moderate investment in its
military. When the time is right, they will make their move, but it
will not be with traditional military weaponry, it will be with
finance and alliances to dictate the world order to their liking. A
perfect strike for China is the end of American hegemony without a
shot fired or America even knowing that the U.S. is no longer the
hyperpower it once was.

The Berlin Wall’s tumbling began the formal ending of what the
world knew had ended 45 years earlier, but dreaded admitting. The
historic window of Patton racing across southern France in a
quantifiable war (land gained, casualties, numbers of weapon
systems), fought with tangible weapons, with clear strategic
objectives sealed shut. Mechanized warfare as previously understood
expired gasping Operation DESERT STORM in its last breath. The
Vietnam War offered a glimpse of the future where a mechanized
military did not guarantee victory.

The true beginning of the end occurred at the end of World War II and
the bombing of Hiroshima. The genie escaped and danced on the
world’s fears for decades in an arms race between the United
States and Soviet Union. These fears prevented the Red Army from
charging through the Fulda Gap in Blitzkreig style because neither
side believed the other would admit defeat without escalating to
nuclear devices. While Clausewitz warns, “War is an act of
force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that
force.”^²
Others argue, “philosophical principles tell us that, whenever
something reaches an ultimate point, it will turn in the opposite
direction. The invention of nuclear weapons, this ‘ultra-lethal
weapon’ which can wipe out all mankind, has plunged mankind
into an existential trap of its own making.”^³
Clearly an alternative to the World War II style of total war needed
to be developed if war ever had a chance to survive.

The United States’ experience with unconventional warfare goes
back to the founding of the country. Despite this fact, since WWII,
the U.S. has mostly disregarded warfare outside of the
conventional/nuclear arena. During the Cold War, one of the most
fascinating wars ever fought ended in defeat handed to one of the
superpowers by an enemy that possessed a small fraction of the
industrial base. Even today Vietnam references haunt the Iraq War.
Although the Soviet Union suffered its own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it
is not as compelling in hindsight because it contributed to the fall
of the Soviet Union and occurred at the twilight of its power. The
Soviet Union could no longer afford its operations in Afghanistan.

In contrast, the Vietnam War occurred at the height of America’s
power and the U.S. had the economic wherewithal to continue
operations. America simply chose not to pursue the war any further.
Although a host of material has been written about the war’s
whys and hows, but the most important fact was that a Third World
nation with limited infrastructure, technology and economic power,
with assistance from other major powers (People’s Republic of
China and the Soviet Union) was able to drive out the most powerful
country in the world. The major conclusion is superior military
capability is not required to win a war if other pressures can be
leveraged against the enemy. This fact was not lost on the
Afghanistan mujahadeen forces fighting the Soviet Union nor many
other military scholars that has philosophized about how to defeat
the United States. The battlefields of the Afghan reinforced a
warfare technique mostly ignored by the United States (except during
the Vietnam War) in the course of the Cold War missile counts, but
used by those clearly overmatched—terrorism.

The Soviet Union’s death left the world in a unipolar
unequilibrium. While the U.S. searched for a partner at the arms
race ball and spied China, China realized that dancing toe-to-toe was
no way for an eagle and dragon to dance. China would engage in an
arms race only if it benefited China. Otherwise, China would engage
in an alternative form of warfare where the dragon could lead and
make the eagle dance to its tune. Identifying America’s
weaknesses and creating a long-term strategy to exploit them are the
keys to China’s strategy. Thinking further into the future
than their adversary is a key to the Chinese strategy.

FINANCIAL MATTERS

Ultimately, most developed countries’ center of gravity is
their economy. Without a healthy economy a country cannot produce an
advanced conventional military. Without a viable military or
economy, diplomatic effectiveness degrades. Part of the U.S.
strategy has been to create a military that no other nation could
possibly compete with on an equal level. Since a traditional arms
race with the U.S. could be too costly, China set its sights on
attacking the U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts and using its
growing economy make modest increases in its military budget to
increase the pressure on the U.S. to spend more on military programs.

An arms race with the U.S. would serve China’s purposes only
insofar as the Cold War’s arms race served the U.S. The U.S.
and Soviet Union never crossed the line of warfare for fear of the
catastrophic results, so the Cold War was ultimately won not by the
player with the most toys, but by the one who did not go broke first.
The U.S. spent the Soviet Union to death. The average growth in
Soviet national income from 1951-1955 was 11.2 percent (annual
percentage per Five Year plan). The national income growth steadily
decreased to 3.5 percent during 1981-1985:^⁴

The continuing decline in the rate of growth confronts the
bureaucratic leaders of the Soviet Union with an agonizing choice.
When the rate of growth is at or above 4-4.5 per cent they are able
to increase simultaneously investments (industrialization and
modernization), military spending (in the pursuit and maintenance of
‘military parity’ with imperialism), and the standard of
living of the masses, although at a modest rate. If this rate drops
to 3 per cent or below, the simultaneous pursuit of these three
objectives, the goal of the bureaucracy since the death of Stalin,
becomes impossible. The slowdown in economic growth is accompanied
by an even clearer slowdown in consumer spending.^⁵

President Reagan drove the final nail in the coffin with increased
military spending in the 1980s. He reestablished the B-1 program,
initiated the MX missile program and conceived the ultimate defense
weapons program in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), popularly
known in the press as the “Star Wars” initiative. The
Soviet Union protested SDI mostly because it presented the Soviet
Union with an insurmountable task to achieve. To invigorate the
Soviet economy, Gorbachev introduced Perestroika, a form of limited
capitalism. But the damage had been done, and the Soviet system
collapsed upon the weight of its struggling finances.

The lesson learned here is that in age of war since Hiroshima, fiscal
capabilities are more important than missile capabilities. Sun Tzu
indicated that direct battle was not the only option to wage war:

Achieving victory in every battle is not absolute perfection:
neutralizing an adversary’s forces without battle is absolute
perfection.

So, the best military strategy is to crush their plans, following
this is to crush their diplomatic relations, and following this is to
crush their forces; worst of all is to besiege their city
fortifications.^⁶

The U.S. has a successful history in this regard as show in the
previous Cold War example. The U.S. never engaged in direct conflict
with the Soviet Union, but broke the Soviet Union’s resistance
without fighting.

However, with China, America’s strategy has morphed from
engagement under President Clinton into “congagement,”^⁷
a combination of containment and engagement. “There is a
fundamental lack of consensus on what strategy can best achieve our
purposes. Routinely every four years, and additionally whenever
there is a crisis, our debate on China policy begins anew.”^⁸
The U.S. seems to have difficulty creating a long-term strategy on
how to react to the rise of China since the end of the Cold War. If
the debate on China follows remains indecisive, it could be possible
that the U.S. will not approach the subject until China has not
necessarily attained its goals, but positioned itself in such a way
that America has limited options for recourse.

China developed a strategy to create a multi-polar world and against
American hegemony that leads with building economic dependence to
leverage against America and aid in building alliances throughout the
world. It is making a modest investment in its military as an
alliance tool and to provide the Pentagon concerns about China’s
military capability. “China [aspires] to be a major
international power that cannot be intimidated by [any] other power
or consortium of powers. It seeks to maximize its own ‘comprehensive
national power’ while maintaining a peaceful external
environment. By ‘comprehensive national power,’ China’s
strategists mean economic power, political/diplomatic power,
propaganda or ‘informational power’ and military power.
Beijing’s strategists believe that given strong power in these
areas, China will have the ‘power to compel’ (qiang zhi
li) other nations to do its bidding.”^⁹

Part of Washington’s predicament is that it does not know if
China is a friend or foe, a strategic ally, strategic competitor, or
outright enemy, or a combination of these. Without a reference for
the relationship it is difficult to determine a coherent policy.
China prides itself on its secrecy. This secrecy fosters confusion
and mistrust in Washington. Beijing enjoys freedom of movement
because of this confusion in Washington called congagement.

Although China is not a traditional military competitor, that does
not mean it is not a threat. In testimony before the House Armed
Services Committee in 2000, Dr. Larry Wortzel, of the Heritage
Foundation, explained, that China desires, “a world that is
based on multipolarity. They oppose military blocs, they oppose
power politics and they oppose agendaism…’agendaism’
is code work [sic] for the United States.” Agendaism is what
the Chinese consider the American agenda being pushed by the U.S.
from American hegemony. Dr Wortzel also explained that China’s
economy was to play a major part in this effort of ending American
hegemony and creating a multipolar world.^¹⁰

In the same hearing, Dr. Michael Pillsbury, of National Defense
University, stated that China is going to make every effort not to
draw the attention of the U.S. and bide its time and patiently wait
for American power to diminish. “If I had to nominate for you
the most important priority that the Chinese have for their long-term
strategic intentions, it is not to provoke a reaction to China’s
economic growth or the growth in Chinese power...Over the next 20 or
30 years, Chinese strategy toward the United States can afford to be
somewhat passive because we are—we Americans are already
declining and we are going to amount to only one of five powers in 20
or 25 years without China doing anything about it.”^¹¹

China intends to use its growing economy as the cornerstone to its
grand strategy: “Continued strong economic performance,
combined with rising nationalism and confidence, could lead China to
translate its economic gains into fielding an increasingly capable
military. It could use its economic weight, backed by military
power, to attempt to dictate the terms of foreign security and
economic interactions with its trading partners.”^¹²

China plans on using policy (economic and otherwise) to end American
hegemony. While Clausewitz states, “War is merely continuation
of policy by other means,”^¹³
It could be argued that Sun Tzu would have rebutted that policy is
war by other means because Clausewitz argues, “war is thus an
act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.”^¹⁴
So if a country can compel, or force, an enemy to do its will
without bloodshed, is it war or is it policy? This again pushes the
question scholars have been trying to answer for centuries, what is
the definition of war?

What then defines attacks that are not linked to military operations
but are acts of war? According to two People’s Liberation Army
Colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui:

‘Non-military war operations,’ extends our understanding
of exactly what constitutes a state of war to each and every field of
human endeavor, far beyond what can be embraced by the term ‘military
operations.’ This type of extension is the natural result of
the fact that human beings will use every conceivable means to
achieve their goals. While Americans are in the lead in every field
of military theory, they were not able to take the lead in proposing
this new concept of war.^¹⁵

In America’s defense, the U.S. is not void of thinking outside
of traditional military operations. For example, the freezing of
assets in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) highlights a form of
non-military operations. However, depending on how one defines
non-military warfare operations the boundaries of non-military
warfare operations wavers. For example, an economic embargo could be
an economic use of power according to one nation, along the lines of
Clausewitzian thinking, or it could be an act of war if you widen the
definition of warfare in a Sun Tzuian way of war as previously
defined.

Outside of terrorism, Washington has a narrower definition of warfare
operations than China. Long before September 11, 2001, George Soros,
a financial speculator, engaged in what some Chinese say was
financial terrorism, destroying economies around the world. This
statement initially seems bordering on the ridiculous, however,
American self-satisfaction blinds the U.S. on occasion to the plight
of the world. “The typical characteristics of terrorism
including being transnational, concealed, without rules, and
tremendously destructive, have given us reason to call it financial
terrorism.”^¹⁶
In fact according to some Chinese, George Soros ranks as high as
Osama bin Laden as a terrorist.^¹⁷

For a long time both military people and politicians have become
accustomed to employing a certain mode of thinking, that is, the
major factor posing a threat to national security is the military
power of an enemy state or potential enemy state. However, the wars
and major incidents which have occurred during the last ten years of
the 20^th century have provided to us in a calm and
composed fashion proof that the opposite is true: military threats
are already often no longer the major factors affecting national
security. Even though they are the same ancient territorial
disputes, nationality conflicts, religious clashes, and the
delineation of spheres of power in human history, and are still
several major agents of people waging war from opposite directions,
these traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined
with grabbing resources, contending for markets, controlling capital,
trade sanctions, and other economic factors, to the extent that they
are even becoming secondary to these factors. They comprise a new
pattern which threatens the political, economic and military security
of a nation or nations. This pattern possibly does not have the
slightest military hue viewed from the outside, and thus they have
been called by certain observers “secondary wars” or
“analogous wars.” However, the destruction which they do
in the areas attacked are absolutely not secondary to pure military
wars. In this area, we only need mention the names of lunatics such
as George Soros, bin Laden, Escobar, [Chizuo] Matsumoto, and Kevin
Mitnick.^¹⁸

China appears to be following this course of action. Its growing
industrial economy compels China to grab resources, contend for
markets and control capital and trade sanctions. Specifically, China
has accumulated over $750 billion in federal reserves, about
two-thirds of which is in American government and corporate debt.^¹⁹
The mounting reserves continue to raise eyebrows since, “China’s
holdings of dollar reserves are already far greater than makes sense
for China.”^²⁰
This reserve China enjoys leads to a complex relationship between
China and America.

Professor of Economics Paul Krugman, noted in the New York Times
on September 5, 2003, how much power the Chinese yuan has over the
U.S. economy, specifically in the price of goods and employment. An
undervalued yuan creates artificially low prices on Chinese products
which in turn takes market share from U.S. goods in the American
economy. To compensate, American companies “outsource”
production to China and other countries where labor is cheap.
Outsourcing leads to unemployment in the U.S. as the manufacturing
jobs go overseas. Krugman contends that President George Bush asked
the Chinese for economic help during the recession of the early
2000’s. Krugman specifically states Bush requested help from
Beijing by revaluing the yuan, “which some business groups
claim is a major problem for American companies.”^²¹
In 2003 Bush sent Secretary of Treasury John Snow to Beijing
seeking an increase in yuan value, but was denied.^²²

China could deny Snow’s request because the United States
bargained from a position of weakness. It already required China’s
help in dealing with the six party talks concerning North Korea’s
nuclear program, among other Asian matters. “Diplomats
acknowledge that China holds most of the cards in negotiations over
North Korea's nuclear arsenal, the democratization of Myanmar,
realignment of the former communist Central Asian states and even -
indirectly - prospects for reconciliation between India and
Pakistan.”^²³

Outside of Asia, “the United States now needs China’s
help on issues such as counterterrorism, non proliferation, the
reconstruction of Iraq, and the maintenance of stability in the
Middle East. More and more, Washington has also started to seek
China’s cooperation in fields such as trade and finance,
despite increased friction over currency exchange rates, intellectual
property rights, and the textile trade.”^²⁴

Also, Chinese central banks were one of the main purchasers of
Treasury bills to finance the America’s trade deficit.^²⁵
“Nobody is quite sure what would happen if the Chinese
suddenly switched to, say, euros—a two-point jump in mortgage
rates?—but it’s not an experiment anyone wants to try.”^²⁶

A small yuan revaluation finally came two years later in 2005;
however, Beijing, not Washington, still had the biggest influence on
the world economy. Three facts support this claim. First, China
continues to finance the American “consumer and its government
by buying Treasury bonds,”^²⁷
which keeps bond yields low.

Secondly, China minimized the effects on the world economy from oil
prices doubling in a year’s time. Inflation remained low and
global growth continued because instead of an interruption of supply
of oil, Chinese demand drove the price up. With the oil China
produces cheaper goods which offset the price of oil.^²⁸
Additionally, “the threat that firms in developed countries
might shift offshore also helps to keep a lid on wages and hence
inflation.”^²⁹

Finally, “while prices of most goods are falling, housing
prices are soaring in many countries.”^³⁰
Cheaper goods from China allowed central banks in the U.S. to meet
low inflation goals without raising interest rates. Lower interest
rates encouraged borrowing, therefore capital flowed into mortgages,
instead of traditional inflation measured in the consumer price
index. And again, the American bond yields were low because of
Chinese demand, which in turn holds down the yuan.^³¹

The United States has to consider what would happen if consumption of
Chinese products grew outside of the American market. Free from the
dependence on the American market, China would not need to fund the
U.S. debt. China has a potential market within its own borders.
“Chinese national saving rate is high relative to
international experience…on average 37 percent between 1978
and 1995, compared to an international average of almost 21
percent…China’s national savings rate was 10 percentage
points higher than what would be expected.”^³²

Potential markets also exist outside China. Former Princeton
professor and current Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board Ben
Bernanke coined the term “global savings glut,” to
explain America’s deficit. Countries such as Germany, Japan,
and oil producing countries are saving rather than spending.^³³
So the flow of money goes from the U.S. to these countries national
and personal savings. If they started to spend on Chinese goods
instead of savings, China’s economy could continue to expand
without so much dependence on the American market. Also, if the
world in general moved away from savings (buying U.S. securities)
interest rates would increase and a cascading effect of negative
consequences for the American economy would ensue. If Bernanke is
incorrect about the global savings glut, then U.S. fiscal policy must
be scrutinized for causing the imbalance.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis confirmed China’s emphasis on
economic strength. It saw many of the economies in the region
damaged. Malaysia’s ringgit suffered during the crisis due to
currency trading, specifically George Soros’ hedge fund Quantum
Fund, according to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. “Hedge
funds such as Soros’s Quantum Fund now can mobilize billions of
dollars to bet against currencies, often by selling a currency
forward in the hope that they can buy it back later at a cheaper
rate.”^³⁴

Qiao and Wang vilify Soros in their 1999 wrote a book on the future
of warfare, Unrestricted Warfare, Qiao and Wang comparing him
to the likes of Osama bin Laden:

During the 1990's, and concurrent with the series of military actions
launched by nonprofessional warriors and non-state organizations, we
began to get an inkling of a non-military type of war which is
prosecuted by yet another type of non-professional warrior. This
person is not a hacker in the general sense of the term, and also is
not a member of a quasi-military organization. Perhaps he or she is a
systems analyst or a software engineer, or a financier with a large
amount of mobile capital or a stock speculator. He or she might even
perhaps be a media

mogul who controls a wide variety of media, a famous columnist or the
host of a TV program. His or her philosophy of life is different
from that of certain blind and inhuman terrorists. Frequently, he or
she has a firmly held philosophy of life and his or her faith is by
no means inferior to Osama bin Laden's in terms of its fanaticism.
Moreover, he or she does not lack the motivation or courage to enter
a fight as necessary. Judging by this kind of standard, who can say
that George Soros is not a financial terrorist?^³⁵

Qiao and Wang apply Soros’s techniques, combined with other
non-military warfare operations (in this case cyber attacks), to
create a scenario where an enemy is defeated without any military
action;

Supposing a war broke out between two developed nations already
possessing full information technology, and relying upon traditional
methods of operation, the attacking side would generally employ the
modes of great depth, wide front, high strength, and
three-dimensionality to launch a campaign assault against the enemy.
Their method does not go beyond satellite reconnaissance, electronic
countermeasures, large-scale air attacks plus precision attacks,
ground outflanking, amphibious landings, air drops behind enemy
lines…the result is not that the enemy nation proclaims defeat
but rather one returns with one’s own spears and feathers.
However, by using the combination method a completely different
scenario and game can occur: if the attacking side secretly musters
large amounts of capital without the enemy nation being aware of this
at all and launches a sneak attack against its financial markets then
after causing a financial crisis buries a computer virus and hacker
detachment in the opponent’s computer system in advance, while
at the same time carrying out a network attack against the enemy so
that the civilian electricity network, and mass media network are
completely paralyzed, this will cause the enemy nation to fall into
social panic street riots, and a political crisis. There is finally
the forceful bearing down by the army and military means are utilized
in gradual stages until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable
peace treaty. This admittedly does not attain to the domain spoken
of by Sun Zi, wherein “the other army is subdued without
fighting.” However, it can be considered to be “subduing
the other army through clever options.” It is very clear who
was superior and who was inferior when comparing these two methods of
operation.

This is, however, only a thought. However, it is certainly a
feasible thought.^³⁶

In 1999 this was only a thought, in 2006 it is in practice, while
some consider Unrestricted Warfare propaganda, it appears with
the increase in federal reserves the Chinese are following its
blueprint. Qiao and Wang’s vision of the future would not be
so alarming except for in 2004 China put non-military warfare into
policy. China’s 2004 National Defense Policy states, “The
forms of war are undergoing changes from mechanized to
informationalization. Informationalization has become the key factor
in enhancing the warfighting capability of the armed forces.
Confrontation between systems has become the principle feature of
confrontation on the battlefield. Asymmetrical, non-contiguous and
non-linear operations have become important patterns of operations.”^³⁷

The idea of China launching a financial attack or using financial
coercion against the United States would not create a precedent.
President Eisenhower used financial coercion on Britain, during the
Suez Canal crisis in 1956. And then during the Asian financial
crisis of 1997-1998, the U.S. was accused of financial attacks again.

On October 29, 1956, Israel backed by England and France in a secret
agreement attacked Egypt.^³⁸
The U.S. administration was furious and led to United States giving,
“the British Treasury a virtual ultimatum: as Londoners recall
it, [the U.S.] posed the simple choice of an immediate cease-fire or
war on the pound, with not a dollar to be had for oil suppliers…[the
U.S,] now would block their path to dollars from the International
Monetary Fund, put off their hopes of credit from our [U.S.]
Export-Import Bank, and make no effort to align our central bankers
behind sterling. If they persisted, they would face a forced
devaluation, followed by petrol rationing. [U.S.] threats were
underlined by the week’s run on the pound.”^³⁹
The British acquiesced and called for a cease fire.^⁴⁰

The United States is still an economic powerhouse and the biggest
economy and has a big influence on world finances. Qiao and Wang
noted America’s ability to manipulate finances during the
1997-1998 Asian financial crisis.

The United States immediately opposed a Japanese proposal to set up
an Asian monetary fund. Instead, the United States advocated the
implementation of a rescue plan, with strings attached...The
implication was that Asian countries should be forced to accept the
economic liberalization policy promoted by the United States…A
demand such as this is armed robbery. It gives the developed
countries, with the United States as their leader, the opportunity to
gain unrestricted access to another country's markets, or to get in
and clear out some space there. It is little different from a
disguised form of economic occupation.^⁴¹

More important than whether the U.S. planned this “economic
invasion,” but that the perception the U.S. did. Two messages
from this 1999 passage could be: 1) The Chinese need to build an
economy that can compete with America on these terms. 2) Do not
trust American financial aid offers.

THE MILITARY’S SUPPORTING ROLE

China’s military “buildup” plays a supporting role
in economic and diplomatic strategy. First of all, the so called
military buildup is not as much of a buildup as it would appear.
With a growing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) an increase in military
spending will follow because more funds are available. China’s
2004 military spending was between 2.3 and 2.8%, of GDP, according to
a 2005 RAND study.^⁴²
U.S. military spending is at 3.9%of GDP. In 2004 China spent
between $69 billion and $78 billion for China versus $430 billion for
the United States in 2001 dollars.^⁴³

The debate over Chinese military spending misses the point for the
most part. The first reaction to a Chinese military build up is to
counter with a larger build up. The U.S. strategy is to have a
military without peer. How much spending with this require? If the
Chinese intend to get the U.S. to overspend on the military this
plays well into China’s intentions. If China can push the
Pentagon into a perceived arms race, it would exacerbate the current
account deficit Washington is contending with. It is odd to think
that in the long run China would finance this military spending and
then reap the rewards when the notes came due. The U.S. deficit
could reach as high as 13% of GDP by 2010.^⁴⁴
The military budget must also compete with other items in the budget
such as GWOT, Social Security and other programs.

While some military and economic analysts see a peaceful reunion of
China and Taiwan, other military analysts contend that a U.S.
military build up is necessary to defend Taiwan in case of a Chinese
invasion. While much is written about how the war would start and
what courses of action would need to take place to start the war, the
outcome will most likely not involve traditional military weaponry.
Qiao and Wang address this in their book and concluded that nuclear
weapons ended the era of traditional warfare. “Philosophical
principles tell us that, whenever something reaches an ultimate
point, it will turn in the opposite direction.”^⁴⁵

If the U.S. enters an arms race with China it could find itself on
the short end of a Cold War much like the Soviet Union did.
Unwilling to use its military power to destroy the U.S. and the
world, the weight of the Soviet military, among other reasons,
eventually crushed the Soviet economy and ultimately the Soviet Union
itself.

China can use its economy to build its military and aid its
diplomatic efforts. Russia is strapped for cash and has military
weaponry to sell. China is buying. “China constitutes the
largest single importer of post-Soviet Russian arms and military
equipment, with purchases ranging between 30% and 50% of Russia's
entire annual deliveries.”^⁴⁶
Traditional allies of the U.S., such as the European Union and
Israel, have considered selling arms to China until the U.S. put
sufficient diplomatic pressure on them to thwart the contracts.^⁴⁷

THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLIANCES

One of China’s responses to what they consider American
hegemony is to build alliances excluding the United States. “China
seeks to place itself at the center of a web of strategic
partnerships in Asia and around the world designed to weaken United
States alliances and American leadership.”^⁴⁸
There are two specific organizations China has become
involved in to thwart U.S. hegemony. The first is the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), more specifically, ASEAN+3 since
China was not an original member, but one of the “+3.”

ASEAN started in 1967 as a political, economic and
cultural organization of five Southeast Asian countries
(Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei) and
added four other nations from 1984 to 1999 (Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar,
Cambodia).^⁴⁹
China joined the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1994 for dialogue and
consultation and then increased its presence as an ASEAN+3 member in
1997 for coordination and cooperation.^⁵⁰

In 2005, ASEAN, “signed an accord with China
that will create an open market of 2 billion people by 2010 to
compete with Europe and the United States. The pact aims to drop
most tariffs over the next five years in a move that some analysts
have said is a sign Beijing may be moving to undercut America’s
vast economic influence over the region”^⁵¹
To apply more pressure on the U.S., ASEAN is negotiating with Japan
(the world’s second largest economy) on how to cut tariffs.^⁵²

By building alliances China hopes to create a
multi-polar world. “Beijing’s preference for a
‘[multi]-polar world’ is another way of saying that China
seeks to create a world that is able to reject the particular type of
value-based leadership exercised by the Unites States. Beijing seeks
to shape a world in which the U.S. position is much weaker and U.S.
policy is changed to take into account the other poles of
power…Beijing seeks to shape a world in which America’s
position is much weaker than it is today and where U.S. leadership is
weakened to accommodate the desires of other competing poles of
power, specifically the desires and interests of China.”^⁵³

Another important organization for China is the Shanghai
Cooperative Organization (SCO). Chartered shortly before 9/11 in
June 2001, the organization’s purpose is to, “strengthen
confidence-building and disarmament,” between China, Russia and
four Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan.^⁵⁴
Shortly after 9/11, America descended upon Central Asia for aid in
the execution of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan.^⁵⁵

All four of the Central Asia states provided
varying assistance to the U.S.^⁵⁶
China’s distaste for American hegemony most likely makes
America’s relationship with Central Asia concerning for China.
Russia is not too fond of a growing U.S. presence in Central Asia,
either. “One initiative that core members China and Russia
agree on, experts say, is to squeeze US influence – which
peaked after 9/11.”^⁵⁷
China and Russia are now leveraging the SCO relationship to put
pressure on American presence. “The SCO
wants to rid the region of the American
military presence altogether. [In July 2005] it called for a deadline
by which the America-led coalition in Afghanistan should remove its
airforce bases in Kirgizstan and Uzbekistan.”^⁵⁸

China is currently trying to negotiate a pipeline to
transport Caspian Sea oil through Kazahkstan.^⁵⁹
However, the U.S. would rather the oil flow west toward the
Mediterranean Sea to feed world markets.^⁶⁰

With its growing industrial economy, China’s
thirst for oil continues to soar, and Kazahkstan is not the only
region of the world China is exploring for supply. Latin America is
an area that has recently received Beijing’s attention. In
November 2004, Chinese president Hu Jintao, “announced $20
billion in new investments for oil and gas exploration and other
projects [in Brazil]…During his visit to Latin America and the
Caribbean last January [2004], signed various trade and oil-supply
agreements with Venezuela…trade between China and Latin
America has quintupled since 1999, reaching almost $40 billion by the
end of last year [2004]…Latin America has continued to benefit
greatly from China’s economic growth, in terms of both
investment and trade. [In 2004], China invested $1.4 billion in the
region; it is now the main impetus for export growth for many Latin
American states.”^⁶¹

Other relationships China has fostered that create
problems for the U.S. include Sudan and Iran. “China is in a
lucrative partnership that delivers billions of dollars in
investment, oil revenue and weapons—as well as diplomatic
protection—to a government accused by the United States of
genocide in Darfur…and is listed by Washington as a state
supporter of terrorism.^⁶²
The U.S. would like to leverage the UN against Sudan but China uses
its veto power at the UN to protect Sudan. With Iran, China gets oil
and natural gas and Iran gets protection at the UN while building its
nuclear program.^⁶³

China is trying to stay out of America’s
military sights as Dr. Pillsbury testified in 2000. “Bu chu
tou,” or “don’t stick your head up,” was Deng
Xiaoping’s reply when communist leaders prodded him to crow as
the largest communist country after the Soviet Union collapsed.
China wishes to build its economic and military capabilities without
drawing attention. A conflict over Taiwan would blow China’s
cover because Deng used another term to describe China’s
strategy, “tao guang yang hui,” which roughly translates
to “bide our time and build up our capabilities.”^⁶⁴

Pillsbury described Chinese intentions by
paraphrasing a young Chinese scholar. “He said, our big
dangerous period is not the present time. China will face its true
dangerous decade from 2020 to 2030…By 2020 the Americans are
going to catch on with the idea that China is surpassing America’s
economy. We will be bigger than the Americans in our world economic
power and other measures of power as well…We need to keep the
Americans, you might say, happy and not perceiving a challenge and
especially not a threat from China.”^⁶⁵
Dr. Wortzel adds that the Chinese military is not capable of a
confrontation with the U.S.^⁶⁶

A war with the U.S. would set China back on several
fronts:

The outcome of any war between the United States and
China would be devastating for Chinese interests. As General Zhu
Chenghu recently observed, China has ‘no capability to fight a
conventional war against the United States.’ Indeed, China
would face near inevitable defeat, with the military political and
economic costs far outweighing any costs incurred by the United
States. [Besides a significant military defeat] China would lose
access to Western technologies for many years after the war. It
would also lose its peaceful international environment and risk its
‘peaceful rise’ as its economy shifted to long-term
war-footing and its budget contended with a protracted U.S.-Chinese
arms race, undermining domestic infrastructure development and
long-term civilian and defense technology development. Finally, the
political costs would be prohibitive. A military loss to the United
States could well destroy the nationalist credentials of the Chinese
Communist Party and cause its collapse.^⁶⁷

In his book, The World is Flat: A Brief History
of the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Friedman makes another
argument against a Sino-U.S. war over Taiwan. He lists his Dell
notebook computer’s fourteen major components and accessories.
These components and accessories are supplied by factories and
companies that are in or are headquartered in fourteen different
coutry. Eight of the companies are Taiwanese owned Chinese
factories. Extrapolating this example, Friedman argues that the
world cannot afford for a war involving China and Taiwan.^⁶⁸

Taiwan will not declare independence any time soon. The status quo,
although convoluted, works best for all involved. America cannot
afford to go to war so it will pressure Taiwan to retain its current
status of autonomous yet not independent. China is trying to appease
America for the moment so it does not with for a military
confrontation, but on the same hand refuses to grant Taiwan’s
independence. All these forces box Taiwan into its current status.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, China’s strategic goal is to
limit hegemony. In other words, China wishes to create an
environment to counterbalance American unipolarity. China intends to
leverage its economic growth against the U.S. and also foster
alliances built on its economic power that also counter American
hegemony. China’s military build up does not significantly
challenge the United States.

China has taken specific economic steps to achieve
these goals. It built an economy that the United States and the rest
of the world depend on. It has also accumulated sizeable savings as
previously stated in terms of debt and foreign exchange, mostly U.S.,
as leverage.

From its economic position, China has built
relationships around the world to counter American hegemony. Asia
receives a significant amount of Beijing’s attention. But
Latin America and other parts of the world are objects of Beijing’s
attention also. These relationships are fostered to build a
multi-polar world to offset American hegemony.

Finally, China’s military build up plays a
supporting role in this endeavor. As China’s economy grows, it
can afford to put more capital into its military. Military
investment by China puts pressure on Washington to increase its
military budget while Washington searches for areas to cut its
federal budget as it stands. To pay for its federal budget, America
turns to foreign purchasers of U.S. debt. Ironically China is one of
the major buyers.

China’s efforts will produce dividends.
American dependence on Chinese capital will continue to grow if U.S.
debt is not addressed and brought back down to a point where
financial choices in Beijing cannot significantly affect the American
economy. Also, the stronger the Chinese economy becomes the greater
the influence its diplomatic voice will carry.

APPENDIX

The one question I received more than any
other while writing this paper was, “What should America’s
response be? What can America do to stop this, or should it?”
If I had a good answer I would offer that up right now. However, I
do not.

The United Kingdom was the last empire to
face a slow steady decline. It made a distinct choice at the
commencement of World War I not to back Germany, but to throw its hat
in with France hoping it could thwart Germany’s rise.

The best position during war is that of
supplier or financier of the war. While other countries were
spending their fortune fighting the war, the U.S. supplied capital
for the war efforts. World War II replayed this same scenario to
some extent. The United States produced arms and built a strong
economic base from its industrial capabilities developed in the first
half of the twentieth century.

In The World is Flat, the U. S.
economy is no longer based on industry. Today, the world wants three
things, cheap labor to produce cheaper goods, information, and
innovation. Cheap labor cannot be found in the U.S., information can
be outsourced, leaving the U.S. with innovation. America must focus
on its educational capabilities to build its market share in the
innovation market.

The only other issue the United States
could possibly exploit with China is world opinion. As stated
earlier, China is willing to foster relationships with countries that
are not revered in the world community such as Sudan and Iran. When
facts like these are brought up, Americans themselves are usually the
first to air dirty laundry about who and what relationships the U.S.
has entertained making efforts to exploit this issue difficult.

The next question is how much does world
opinion even matter? For all the trade the U.S. enjoys with China,
it is hard to envision what it would take for the Americas to curb
their appetite for cheap Chinese goods. Cutting the Chinese market
out would create a decrease in supply and therefore an increase in
consumer prices leading to inflation.

If it is a foregone conclusion that China
will create a more evenly balanced multi-polar world with itself as
one of the major players, what would China consider victory. This is
nearly impossible to say because China is a closed society that tries
to control what information is revealed about its true intentions if
China itself knows what they would consider victory. Denying the
enemy knowledge of your true intentions is key. Without knowing
which way China plans on going (military buildup or economic
dominance), the U.S. cannot build a coherent defense.

What do I think victory would be for China?
If China can destabilize the U.S. dollar to the point that oil is
traded in yuan instead of greenbacks or euros, I think China would be
satisfied with its efforts. What can the U.S. do about it? I’m
not sure what exactly the United States could do, but I am sure the
measures that would need to be taken would be too difficult for any
politician to take and still get re-elected.

1
Thomas P. M. Barnett. The Pentagon’s New Map (New
York, N.Y.: Putnam, 2004), 108.

Von Clausewitz, Carl. “Clausewitz.” In
Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age
. Edited by Peter Paret, with the collaboration of Gordon A. Craig
and Felix Gilbert. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986:
77.

Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare
(Beijing, PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, 1999), 26.
on-line Internet, 14 November 2005, available from
http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf.

Ernest Mandel, Beyond Perestroika: The Future of
Gorbachev’s USSR ed. and trans. Gus Fagan (New York:
Verso, 1989), 3.

Ibid. 3, 5.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. J. H. Haung.
(New York N.Y.: Quill, 2000), 48-49.

Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Sweet and Sour: Recipe for a
New China Policy, RAND. on-line Internet, available from
www.rand.org/.webloc.

Ibid.

US China Commission. United States-China Relations
and Strategic Perceptions. USCC Testimony, 2001. on-line
Internet, 26 October 2005. available from
http://www.uscc.gov/textonly/transcriptstx/teswor.htm.

US House. China’s Strategic Intentions and
Goals: Hearing before the House Committee of Armed Services.
106^th Cong., 2^nd sess., 2000.

Ibid.

“The military Power of the People’s
Republic of China 2005.” Department of Defense Annual
Report to Congress, 2005. on-line Internet, 23 December 2005.
available from
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf.

Von Clausewitz 87.

Ibid. 75.

Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, 50,

Ibid, 135.

Ibid, 116.

David Lague. “Coming to terms with China’s
ascent.” International Herald Tribune, 7 November 2005.
on-line Internet, 14 December 2005. available from
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/news/rchinover.php.

Clive Crook. “Our Faith-Based Future,” The
Atlantic Monthly. 296. no. 5. December 2005. n.p., on-line, 20
December 2005, available from
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/faith-based-future.

Paul Krugman, “The China Syndrome.” New
York Times, 5 September 2003, late edition, pg. A-19.

Ibid.

Boyd, Alan. “ASEAN, China all smiles for now.”
Asia Times, 3 December 2005, on-line Internet, 18 December
2005, available from
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FL03Ae02.html.

Wang Jisi. “China’s Search for Stability
With America.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005,
84 no. 5, 39-40.

Krugman.

Ibid.

“How China runs the world economy,” The
Economist, 28 July 2005. n.p., on-line, Internet, 8 December
2005, available from
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4223552.

Ibid.

Louis Kuijs. Investment and Saving in China.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3633. Beijing, China:
World Bank, 2005.

“The great thrift shift.” The Economist,
22 September 2005, on-line. Internet, 21 December 2005, available
from
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQTRPNR&no_na_tran=1.

Dean Honeycutt. “Those ‘evil’
currency traders.” World & I, March 98, 13 no. 3,
pg 64. On-line. EBSCOHost, 14 November 2005.

Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, 47-48.

Ibid, 145-146.

Information office of the State Council, People’s
Republic of China, China’s National Defense in 2004.
Beijing, 2004. 20 December 2005, online Internet, available from
http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20041227/.

Ibid, 13.

Ibid, 26.

Ibid, 27.

Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, 86-187.

RAND Study Predicts China’s Defense Spending
is Lower Than Previous Outside Estimates. RAND Corp.. 2005.
on-line Internet, 21 December 2005, available from
http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/05.19.html.

Ibid.

Foreign exchange markets. BIS 75^th
annual report chapter V. Bank for International Settlements, 2005.
on-line Internet, 26 October 2005, available from
http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2005e5.pdf.

Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare
26.

David Isenberg. “How Russia keeps China armed.”
Asia Times, 19 November 2004, on-line Internet, 27 December
2005, available from
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FK19Ag02.html.

Ibid.

48
US China Commission.

Association
of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
online Internet, 18 December 2004, available from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN

50
CIA
- The World Factbook - Appendix B. on-line Internet,
18 December 2005, available from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.

Alan Boyd. “China adds its might to ASEAN.”
Asia Times, 1 December 2005, on-line Internet, 18 December
2005, available from
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FL01Ad08.html.

Ibid.

US China Commission. United States-China Relations
and Strategic Perceptions. USCC Testimony, 2001, on-line
Internet, 26 October 2005, available from
http://www.uscc.gov/textonly/transcriptstx/teswor.htm.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Democratic
Republic of China. Shanghai Cooperation Organization. on-line
Internet, 19 December 2005, available from
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/sco/t57970.htm

Susan L. Clark-Sestak. U.S. Bases in Central Asia.
Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 2003, 3-5.

Fred Weir. “Russia, China looking to form ‘NATO
of the East’.” The Christian Science Monitor, 26
October 2005, on-line Internet, 26 October 2005, available from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p04s01-woeu.htm.

Ibid.

“Suppression, China, Oil,” The
Economist, 7 July 2005, n.p., on-line Internet, 19
December 2005, available from
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4158711.

David Zweig and Bi Jianhai, “China’s Global
Hunt for Energy.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005, 84
no. 5, 29.

Christopher Pala, “China eyes share of Kazakh
oil: Canada judge OKs bid for fields,” The Washington
Times, world section pg. A19, on-line. EBSCOhost, 19 December
2005.

David Zweig and Bi Jianhai, “China’s Global
Hunt for Energy.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005, 84
no. 5, 29.

Peter S. Goodman, “China Invests Heavily In
Sudan’s Oil Industry: Beijing Supplies Arms Used on
Villagers,” The Washington Post, 23 December 2004, A01,
on-line Internet, 1 January 2006, available from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html.

Antoaneta Beziova, “China-Iran tango threatens US
leverage,” Asia Times. 30 November 2004, on-line
Internet, available from
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK30Ak01.html.

US House. China’s Strategic Intentions and
Goals: Hearing before the House Committee of Armed Services.
106^th Cong., 2^nd sess., 2000.

Ibid.

Robert S. Ross. “Assessing the China Threat.”
National Interest, Fall 2005, on-line. EBSCOHost, 24 October
2005.

Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief
History of the Twenty-First Century (New York, N.Y.: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2005), 416-417.

Bibliography

ASEAN. On-line Internet, 18 December 2005. Available from
Association
of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Barnett, Thomas P.M. The Pentagon’s New Map. New York,
N.Y.: Putnam, 2004.

Beziova, Antoaneta. “China-Iran tango threatens US leverage.”
Asia Times, 30 November 2004. On-line. Internet, 23 December
2005. Available from
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK30Ak01.html.

Boyd, Alan. “ASEAN, China all smiles for now.” Asia
Times, 3 December 2005.

Boyd, Alan. “China adds its might to ASEAN.” Asia
Times, 1 December 2005. On-line Internet, 18 December 2005.
Available from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FL01Ad08.html.

CIA
- The World Factbook - Appendix B. On-line.
Internet, 18 December 2005. Available from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.

Clark-Sestak, Susan L. U.S. Bases in Central Asia.
Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis, 2003.

Crook, Clive. “Our Faith-Based Future.” The Atlantic
Monthly. 296. no. 5. December 2005. n.p. On-line. Internet, 20
December 2005. Available from
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/faith-based-future.

Foreign exchange markets. BIS 75^th annual report.
Bank for International Settlements, 2005. On-line Internet, 26
October 2005. Available from
http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2005e5.pdf.

Friedman, Thomas L. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the
Twenty-First Century. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2005.

Goodman, Peter S. “China Invests Heavily In Sudan’s Oil
Industry: Beijing Supplies Arms Used on Villagers.” The
Washington Post, 23 December 2004. On-line. Internet, 1 January
2006. Available from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html.

Honeycutt, Dean. “Those ‘evil’ currency traders.”
World & I, March 98. On-line. EBSCOHost, 14 November
2005.

“How China runs the world economy.” The Economist, 28
July 2005. On-line. Internet, 8 December 2005. Available from
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4223552.

Information office of the State Council People’s Republic of
China, China’s National Defense in 2004. Beijing, 2004.
On-line. Internet 20 December 2005. Available from
http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20041227/.

Isenberg, David “How Russia keeps China armed.” Asia
Times, 19 November 2004. On-line Internet, 27 December 2005,
available from http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FK19Ag02.html.

Jisi, Wang “China’s Search for Stability With America.”
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005, 84 no. 5.

Khalilzad, Zalmay M. Sweet and Sour: Recipe for a New China
Policy, RAND, no date available. On-line. Internet, 22 December
2005. Available from www.rand.org/.webloc.

Krugman, Paul. “The China Syndrome.” New York Times.
5 September 2003.

Kuijs, Louis. Investment and Saving in China. World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 3633. Beijing, China: World Bank,
2005.

Lague, David. “Coming to terms with China’s ascent.”
International Herald Tribune. 7 November 2005. On-line
Internet, 14 December 2005. Available from
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/news/rchinover.php.

Liang, Qiao and Wang Xiangsui. Unrestricted Warfare. Beijing:
PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, 1999.

Mandel, Ernest. Beyond Perestroika: The Future of Gorbachev’s
USSR. Edited and translated by Gus Fagan, New York: Verso, 1989.

Neustadt, Richard E. Alliance Politics. New York, N.Y.:
Columbia University Press, 1970.

Pala, Christopher. “China eyes share of Kazakh oil: Canada
judge OKs bid for fields.” The Washington Times.
On-line. EBSCOhost, 19 December 2005.

Paret, Peter. “Clausewitz.” In Makers of Modern
Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Edited by Peter
Paret, with the collaboration of Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

RAND Study Predicts China’s Defense Spending is Lower Than
Previous Outside Estimates. RAND Corp.. 2005. On-line Internet,
21 December 2005. Available from
http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/05.19.html.

Ross, Robert S. “Assessing the China Threat.” National
Interest, Fall 2005. On-line. EBSCOHost, 24 October 2005.

“Shanghai Cooperative Organization.” Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. On-line
Internet, 19 December 2005, Available from
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/sco/t57970.htm.

Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Edited and translated by J. H. Haung
New York N.Y.: Quill, 2000.

“Suppression, China, Oil.” The Economist, 7 July
2005. On-line. Internet, 19 December 2005. Available from
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4158711

“The great thrift shift.” The Economist, 22
September 2005. On-line. Internet, 21 December 2005. Available from
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQTRPNR&no_na_tran=1.

“The military Power of the People’s Republic of China
2005.” Department of Defense Annual Report to Congress,
2005. On-line Internet, 23 December 2005. Available from
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf.

US China Commission. United States-China Relations and Strategic
Perceptions. USCC Testimony, 2001. On-line Internet, 26 October
2005. Available from
http://www.uscc.gov/textonly/transcriptstx/teswor.htm.

US House. China’s Strategic Intentions and Goals: Hearing
before the House Committee of Armed Services. 106^th
Cong., 2^nd sess., 2000.

Weir, Fred. “Russia, China looking to form ‘NATO of the
East’.” The Christian Science Monitor, 26 October
2005. On-line Internet, 26 October 2005. Available from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p04s01-woeu.htm.

Zweig, David and Bi Jianhai, “China’s Global Hunt for
Energy.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005.

A Man Without a Country

2009-04-13T17:38:00.003-06:00

The Iowa ruling on gay marriage is yet one more nail on the coffin of American Patriots.

Someone once said I did leave my party...my party left me.

Somewhere down the track there is the Liberal led United States while I'm still sitting here with my bag of Judeo-Christian values, Western European culture, Colonial work ethic and ingenuity.

The interesting thing about homosexuality is that the constitution doesn’t and shouldn’t limit what two people do in private. But historic American culture does frown upon it because America was built upon Judeo-Christian values.

The problem now is that Judeo-Christian values must be curtailed because hedonism is the new American religion. Pleasuring yourself as you please, be it sexually, through drug use or whatever other devious what that “doesn’t harm anyone else,” is the new bible.

If you wish to commit lewd acts in private, I won’t know, and won’t care, however the track this is taking is frightful.

Gay bishops? What is next, are we going to have studies that proved Jesus was gay?

No, it might not get that far, but this will be next. Churches will be limited in what they preach about homosexuality because it will become a form of “hate speech.” As I said before, I don't care what you do in private as long as I can speak what I believe in public.

You see, Judeo-Christian values must be marginalized. Hedonists don’t appreciate being told they are doing something wrong or that they shouldn’t be pleasuring themselves in such a way-it detracts from their hedonistic pleasures.

Hedonists take two paths. One is to become atheist and claim that people who believe in God are not enlightened and might as well believe in Santa Claus too. The other is to claim that they are perfectly in line with Judeo-Christian values and that all previous liturgical history is incorrect or invalid.

There are two outcomes that are inevitable. One is that Churches will have their teaching politically corrected to assuage the hedonistic urges of the demon laden left or Churches will be marginalized as archaic thought and go the way of the Latin language.

Either way, it is a bleak future for the US. A good portion of the country is already too busy pleasuring ourselves to do any real work and it is only going to get worse what you kick God completely out of the country.

Barack OStalin Strikes Again, Big Brother Key to Passing Budget

2009-03-18T09:45:00.001-06:00

I'm asking you to head outside this Saturday to knock on some doors, talk to some neighbors, and let them know how important this budget is to our future-Barack OStalin

The next step is after checking up on your neighbors, you will need to report to Big Brother on the attitudes of your neighbors to see who needs to be "educated."

Oh, it will take some time to get to the next step, but it is coming out incrementally.

First there will be a public list of those who favor Barack OStalin's communist manifesto published on the web somewhere...the "enlightened".

After some time a list of "unenlightened" will need to be published. These people will then be re-educated. You won't be sent to concentration camps, but your phone numbers and addresses will be published and the "enlightened" will be encouraged to call and knock on your door in order to aid your journey to "enlightenment".

Barack OStalin Taking Charge of Your Paycheck

2009-03-16T20:11:00.001-06:00

Coming soon to a paycheck near you. Big brother telling you how much you should earn.

Barack OStalin has already stated how much of you paycheck he is going to swipe. Now he’s going to dictate how much of a paycheck, that he’ll swipe from, will be.

This was the problem Americans, who have any knowledge of the constitution, saw coming with the bailout of American banks.

Putting government funds into a capitalist market is playing with fire…but only if you want to have a capitalist economy. If you want a socialist economy, it is an OUTSTANDING idea, because then you can start dictating terms and running the bank from the politburo (formerly called the congress).

In a capitalist market, private and public corporations make decisions that would best advance their financial interest. If that means that American banks want to put their money in Dubai, well then that is where they should put it. If they feel America is bad investment, they shouldn’t put their money there…even if the government gave them the money.

If these banks make a bad choice, they should be left to die on the vine-that’s capitalism. If you bail them out and then don’t like the investments they make you don’t bail them out again-that’s government meddling. If you bail out bank, dictate poor investments (which investing in an OStalin run America with all his anti business policy-taxes, environmental etc. is) and the banks fail, what do you do then?

The administration needs to let business, stand or fall on its own decisions. Dictating terms of corporate policy is what got us into this mess with the Community ReInvestment Act.

The government basically drove these banks into the ground by dictating financially unsound corporate policy and then chastised the banks for financially unsound corporate policy!

It would be comical if it weren’t so sad.

Legalizing Narcotics

2009-03-15T11:37:00.001-06:00

Most people might be surprised that I am all for legalizing narcotics.

But, of course, I do get my caveats-If it is discovered that you have decide to take narcotics you must:

1) Never receive any government assistance under any circumstances (welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, affirmative action-all of it gone). The benefits? You no longer have to pay into Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid. You still have to pay income taxes, because the military is still protecting your intoxicated hindquarters.

Remember, prior to WWI when government was not the big brother that it is now, narcotics was a personal choice. Anyone could do narcotics, but the damage done to an individual only harmed the individual. There weren’t many auto fatalities since autos were still relatively rare.
2) You may never hold a position in the federal government to include elected official. Yes, this would have eliminated the last 3 POTUSs. Don’t tell me there isn’t anyone out there that hasn’t done drugs, the military if full of drug free people.
3) Any company can refuse you employment for this cause alone.
4) Remove drug addiction from the ADA.
5) If you lose a civil court case, the individual or next of kin will provide a sentence for you in addition to the penalty levied upon you.

While I’m sure I’ve left some prudent points off, this is my stance on narcotics. If you wish to be truly libertarian when it comes to narcotics, then live like a libertarian.

Just think of all the money this country would save if all the dope heads didn’t get free healthcare, and didn’t drain productive corporations.

The argument is, well you just can’t let these people die? The answer is, can we afford to save everyone who is only interested in their own fleeting hedonistic pleasure? The answer is, not without bankrupting the country.

It's Not So Bad-Barack OStalin

2009-03-13T11:21:00.003-06:00

When will the presidential tail chasing end? The economy isn't that bad, yet 2 weeks ago, we needed to commit "generational theft" to save the economy. The president is running out of orafices to speak out of at this point. When will it end?

It doesn't end. The POTUS is chasing his tail trying to appease the world.

We have a president that is in over his head. Growing up without a father has formed Barack OStalin into a populist. He desperately needs affirmation. The problem is, is that DC is not the place for affirmation-this was W's strength and OStalin's downfall.

He is deeply offended when criticized. He probably has the thinnest skin of any recent president. Because of this he will try to deflect tough decisions onto Pelosi/Reid then wash his hands of it. This was probably best displayed with the NAFTA discussion out of two sides of his mouth during the campaign, but it also came up recently with the "imperfect bill." If it wasn't what you wanted don't sign it-there'd be a continuation resolution waiting for you before you could sneeze.

Foreign policy-quite comical. He already said he was going to dismantle the US military (specifically missile defense) then he tried to play the missile defense card with the Bolsheviks. YOU CAN'T PLAY A CARD YOU'VE ALREADY DISCARDED. But he was trying to make an overture towards the ex-Soviets and was told to stuff it-at which point he denied he actually made an overture.

NOW, he's got H. Clinton trying to suck up to the Reds with the idea of NATO playing nice with Russia. HE'S TRYING TO BUY FRIENDS, because of his need to be liked-its disgusting.

Some people just don't like you and want you dead no matter what-AKA Iran. He stuck his hand out to Iran and was told where he can stuff it.

When is Obama going to realize he is going to have to make enemies (besides conservatives) for the betterment of the US and mankind for that matter.

BTW-Where's Joe? haven't heard from him in a about 2 weeks...isn't it time for him to stick his foot in his mouth again. Hey Joe try this statement...people without jobs don't add to the economy...and neither do people who work for the government.

Obama Shunned by Medvedev Over Missile Defense Overture

2009-03-03T16:12:00.000-07:00

Obama was snubbed by Russian President Medvedev like an impotent gelding on Wednesday. Medvedev told Obama to stuff his offer to halt missile defense development in return for Russia’s help in stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

It seems that not the whole world is so impressed with Obama. The characteristic Obama lacked that Hillary Clinton has was testicular fortitude. Dealing with the Russians is not like dealing with the Republican’s, you can’t give a slick speech to the American people and convince the Russians you’re right and they should see it your way. The Russians don’t care.

Obama’s incompetence has put him into a trap that requires him to continue the development of American’s missile defense shield even though he has promised to dismantle it.

Since Obama campaigned on neutering the US militarily, there is no incentive for Russia to cooperate with the Obama administration. So what does Obama do at this point? Go back on his campaign promise, or look like a lame duck in the eyes of the Russians?

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by promising and then delivering a larger and more capable military. Obama is doing just the opposite.

As Obama continues to destroy America, both militarily and economically, Obama’s voice in the world will become weaker and weaker. This is only the beginning.

Do Americans Want Barack OStalin’s Presidency to Fail?

2009-03-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

Absolutely! There is a significant portion of America (those who believe in the freedoms our forefathers fought for) that desperately wants Barack OStalin to fail. It is no wonder that Barack OStalin believes the US Constitution is “deeply flawed.” Although he mentions that it was flawed in its treatment of slaves, he is waging a war on the constitution, as we know it.

Barack OStalin is attempting to consolidate power much the way Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela. Like Chavez, OStalin ascended to power by promising free healthcare and education through college and the expansion of other social programs. The next step for OStalin:

“On August 15, 2007, Chavez called for an end to presidential term limits. He also proposed limiting central bank autonomy, strengthening state expropriation powers and providing for public control over international reserves as part of an overhaul of Venezuela's constitution. In accordance with the 1999 constitution, Chavez proposed the changes to the constitution, which were then approved by the National Assembly. The final test was a December 2, 2007 referendum.”

And now Venezuelans have little say in how their government is run. This is the future of America if Barack OStalin is successful. So, yes, absolutely, freedom loving American’s want Barack OStalin to fail. Is it un-American for American’s to want a president who is anti-American, as we know and love it, to fail? Most definitely not!

There is hope though. Productive Americans and foreigners alike have made their voice heard loud and clear. By scurrying away from American markets in record droves, Americans and foreigners alike have stated loud and clear that Barack OStalin is bad for America.

Barack OStalin to Limit Charitable Contribution Deductions

2009-03-02T11:36:00.001-07:00

Barack OStalin’s quest to consolidate a totalitarian socialist state marches on. The latest is in an attempt to limit the amount charitable contributions can be deducted for tax purposes. Instead of deducting at the tax rate your earnings may put you at, it will be capped at 28%.

Proponents tend to be short sighted. “Rob Reich, an associate professor at Stanford University, urges critics to look at the big picture.” He thinks that the government (which has proved itself incompetent time and time again) will be able to provide services with the money that it takes from the increased tax revenue.

In reality the government is accomplishing social engineering and building a totalitarian state. Barack OStalin and his drive towards a socialistic dictatorship must limit charitable contributions. The hope for OStalin is to dry up contributions to conservative organizations (conservatives are more charitable than liberals without question).

Churches and freedom based organizations like the NRA must be attacked under the Barack OStalin drive towards a socialist state. Instead nefarious organizations such as ACORN, Planned Parenthood and PETA need to be funded.

Conservatives may still be able to donate to organizations they believe in. However, Barack OStalin will steal the tax credit the conservative deserve in order to fund organizations that will continue to thwart American freedoms and liberties.

Money poured into churches and the Heritage Foundation hamper the Barack OStalin march towards socialism and social engineering. Barack OStalin needs a welfare state to ensure his reelection.

By stymieing charitable contributions he will ensure a greater welfare state. Nonprofit organizations will suffer no doubt-perhaps in the billions of dollars according to some studies. The added benefit is that there will be a larger welfare state, which will in turn create a larger voting base for the fledgling dictatorship. The larger welfare state will need to turn to the government since nonprofits will have less to do less with. Thus making the population more dependent on the “benevolent dictatorship.”

The Goal for Barack OStalin is to get as many Americans into the government welfare system as possible. This will ensure his reelection and possibly a reversal of the 22^nd Amendment to the constitution-presidential term limits.

It is a curiosity whether Barack is fashioning himself after Stalin, Chavez or Castro. Either way, he is no Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Clinton or American for that matter.

War on the US Constitution

2009-02-28T06:22:00.005-07:00

Not since President Franklin Roosevelt tried (unsuccessfully) to expand the SCOTUS has a POTUS waged such a fierce war on the constitution of the US. The military is aware of this administration’s contempt for the US Constitution and the military itself, and has taken note.

Upon entering military service during the Cold War era under President Reagan the author was instructed that you are not in the military to defend the president, congress, the American people or American territory, but the Constitution of the United States. As the explanation states in the linked pdf-even if the enemy arises from among us. While there are clauses in the US Constitution that subordinate the military to the POTUS and Congress, it is not intended to be at the expense of the Constitution itself.

The presidency is not a playground for individuals to use for their own personal gain. Although William J. Clinton used the office for his own personal gain, he also feared the military and rightfully so. Errors he committed early in his administration caused him to lose the faith of his military and he never regained it. The civil-military relationship during the Clinton years was severely flawed.

The military is trained to be vigilant and knowledgeable. Consider the reading lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines along with the curriculum of the Senior Service Schools of ARWC, AWC, NWC, NDU and ICAF, not to mention ISS. You will find that the company the author keeps is more educated than the current administration could ever hope to become. While some were doing cocaine, the military was doing calculus. While some were organizing a community, the military was saving entire countries and civilizations in operations like PROVIDE HOPE, PROVIDE COMFORT and others.

The difference is the military is relatively quiet about it. The military doesn’t need to build a Roman Coliseum in a modern day football stadium to bolster its self-esteem. The thin skin of this administration...placing blame on the previous administration, would not be tolerated in the military. When a MiG rolls in behind you, there is no welfare, foodstamps, government bailouts or excuses. The next time you are in the company of a special operator, pay attention to what they say, and more importantly what they don’t say.

The military understands this administration was against the war from the beginning. Whether support from the war was warranted at the beginning is not in question though. What is in question is the cowardice this administration displayed in demanding an early an expedition exit from Iraq at all costs almost ensuring defeat in Iraq. If this administration had its say in 2007 and not 2009, more US troops would have been lost in a losing effort than the victory this administration enjoys today. It is this cowardice the military notes specifically when judging the leadership qualities of this administration. The surge won the war and this administration is benefiting from it even though it campaigned against it and had been against it from the beginning.

Collectively, the military knows more about statecraft than this or any administration will ever know. And depending on how this administration behaves, the military will guide it or allow it to fail all on its own. In conclusion, when waging war upon the US Constitution, tread lightly.

Obama's Drug Program

2009-01-28T20:24:00.001-07:00

One of Obama's campaign promises that has already had an effect is his Drug Program. Obama plans to, "Impose limits on private sector healthcare business profits."

Sound like a utopia, but it has severe consequences. Profits drive revenue and research at pharmaceutical corporations.

The first thing pharmaceutical firms have done is spent money on a campaign to keep their profits. This is money that could have been put into research and development for new drug remedies. The cure to various illnesses just took a hit when Obama got elected.

You will hear some conservatives say that if they wouldn't get a fair market price for the drug they invented and produced, they would not put it on the market. This of course is too extreme to be real. The truth is they wouldn't make the drug in the first place.

The reality is that pharmaceutical boards convened shortly after the Obama election and diverted R & D funds to political action committees to stop Obama's socialist drug plan.

Also, and more importantly, the R&D money that was meant for drugs that might be used for medicines covered under the Obama Drug plan was diverted to projects that would maximize profits-lifestyle drugs.

So we may not have cure to HIV/AIDS, cancer, heart disease and other illnesses, but we'll have longer stronger erections, firmer tushes, and prettier smiles.

It would be irresponsible for these companies to not maximize profits. America is/was a capitalist country. If designer drugs are going to maximize profits, the drug companies that move R&D to these drugs are going to make a larger profit and grow, squeezing out drug companies that don't make this shift.

Additionally, the best researchers are going to demand the the biggest salaries. And if making Viagra garners a bigger paycheck, America will get Viagra. So the companies making the designer drugs will eventually get the best researchers.

Obama wants to tinker with the free market and has already caused damage to drug research.

China Uses Environment to Kick US While it is Down

2008-11-08T00:59:00.001-07:00

Suddenly, global warming has become an item of interest for China. Now that the US is on the ropes China believes global warming is a problem that must be solved now. US unemployment is 6.5%, Stocks are down in the neighborhood of 40% and the national debt just topped $11 Billion. Except for the furthest left of Americans, global warming just took a back seat to survival.

"China proposed last week that rich nations (translation: US) devote one percent of their economic output to helping poor countries fight global warming. "

The US economy has exploded into nothing bringing much of the rest of the world down with it. Meanwhile China just replaced the US in September as the largest producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the gasses theorized to produce global warming.

Yet, China doesn't believe it should put any money towards fighting global warming. "China has long resisted calls to join rich nations in setting targets for emissions cuts, saying its relatively low per capita emissions and recent emergence as a major source of greenhouse gases should exempt it from action."

The bottom line is China is trying to stress and already stalled US economy. China is now using the environment as a weapon against the US. Once the US's economic power dwindles, China would then be in power to set the world agenda. And under that agenda, global warming would probably get very little attention.

Too Big To Fail

2008-11-06T16:17:00.001-07:00

Too big to fail has become a buzz word meaning government bailout. It also means what some would call corporate welfare.

Joe's Cigar Shop on the corner of Elm and Main will fail and go out of business if he doesn't run his business well enough to evolve with the times and continually put out a decent product for a fair price. And the government will not notice the insignificant blip Joe and his half dozen employees might have on the big scheme of things.

GM, UAL, AIG and other large US companies are a different story. Those companies going out of business would affect millions of voters and cause a great strain on the economy if these companies went under and flushed out to the unemployed market.

To counter act this, the government has been known to back these companies (with taxpayer dollars) so they can restructure and return to profitability. The prime example of this is Chrysler under Lee Iacocca during the 1980's. Chrysler took government loans and eventually paid them back with interest…early.

Unfortunately, although Chrysler is the example, it should be the exception because Lee Iacocca was an exceptional leader.

Right now, GM, Ford and especially Chrysler are having difficulties. The government is faced with letting one of these companies go under or providing financial support with taxpayer's money. This is hardly what capitalism was built off of.

Some state it is the CEO salaries fault, while other claim it is the unions' fault. There is plenty of blame to go around but the foreign car makers popping up all over right-to-work states would indicate the unions deserve at least some of the blame.

Maybe mergers are partly to blame-for two reasons. The first reason is because sometimes the good comes with the bad. The second is to keep companies from growing into too-big-to-fail corporations.

Continental Airlines and United Airlines were destined to merge as soon as Northwest Airlines decided to merge with Delta. Three of these businesses are well run and the third is a dud. Continental was smart enough to see that merging with United would only put a drag on their success. Yes, United Asian routes are a gem, but at what cost?

Right now, United is on the ropes again because of poor management among other reasons. Should Continental merge with them now? No. Continental would be better served if they let United fail completely and then pick up the scraps. Would tens of thousands of people lose their seniority and or jobs? Yes. But what is the alternative?

The other alternative is Continental merges with United and temporarily saves the jobs of United employees. The problem is that the problems plaguing United are most likely still there. Now the jobs of two airlines worth of people are now in jeopardy. At this point Continental/United is too big to fail. The merger has aggravated the situation, not cured it.

Even if the two airlines were well run, Northwest and Delta, if hard times fall on the airline industry it is hard to let the new larger company fail. If they didn't merge, one would fail and the other has room to grow. Eventually, (hopefully under a capitalist society) during an upswing a new airline with a better business model is built to replace the one that went under and provide competition for the legacy airline.

In the auto industry and in the airline industry the US companies that have the best business models are also not the largest, Saturn and Southwest. Bigger isn't always better.

Once the company has gotten too-big-to-fail the government has two options.

Let the company sink and brace for the economic and political repercussions.
Feed it financial backing and hope the company survives and doesn't squander away taxpayer money, or worse, come back again and again for fiscal injections of taxpayer money.

Which one is best? As usual, it depends on the situation. The US automakers have been going downhill steadily for decades, they probably aren't a good investment unless there is a complete overhaul to their business model that would cripple the union most likely.

A more motivated worker for less pay is required and that is impossible under the circumstances. Robotics which makes better cars at a lower cost is also needed.

Capping CEO and executive salaries is an idea, but that could just run off the best CEOs and executives. The talented and qualified ones should have no problems securing a higher paying position elsewhere if their current salary is cut. The incompetent ones would be left behind because they wouldn't be as marketable. So capping CEO and executive salaries is probably not a solution.

Obama has already stated he is going to bail out the auto industry. The question now becomes, how often will he have to bail out companies with incompetent leadership, an unmotivated overpaid workforce with a inferior business model?

Obama Wins, Stocks Tumble

2008-11-05T16:30:00.001-07:00

As I predicted, November 5, 2008 would be a bleak day for the stock market.

Obama's tax policies are already taking effect. The US markets offered their opinion of the new president-elect and dumped more than 3% as a welcome to the new president –elect.

Meanwhile, overseas markets are gaining.

It isn't rocket science. The US has elected a president who is anti-US business, promising to weigh US corporations with higher taxes. To avoid those taxes, investors (American and foreign) have decided to pull their money out and invest in other markets.

"Stocks fell initially as investors cashed in gains after a six-day run that lifted the Standard & Poor's 500 index more than 18 percent. But the selling picked up momentum as the market worried anew about the weakness of the economy and pondered what an Obama administration might do."

There isn't much to ponder about what Obama said he'd do. He said he'd raise taxes on corporations and when US corporations tried to save money by outsourcing jobs overseas, he'd punish them with more taxes.

Beyond taxes though, Obama has promised to engage in economic isolationism (protectionism). Some argue that economic isolationism accelerated the Great Depression. Although he worded it awkwardly, Obama basically said that he plans to get rid of NAFTA and engage in "fair" economic treaties. He also said as an aside to Canadian leaderships that he was lying when he said he'd trash NAFTA. But to get union support Obama said what he had to in order to win. What he'll do ultimately is debatable. But if he doesn't engage in protectionism, the unions that supported him will press him. But ever since he won the Democratic nomination, the unions had nowhere else to run so they had to support Obama.

Day one of the Obama legacy left a black cloud over America. The cost of the American Idol presidency experiment is going to come with a hefty price tag for the American worker.

How many days until the 2012 vote?

Beware the Obama Tax Cut Promise

2008-10-29T15:49:00.001-06:00

There is quite a flap going around the media right now about whether Joe Biden has a slip of the tongue when he said that people making over $150,000 were going to be taxed or did he let slip the secret of the candidacy?

Doesn't matter, everyone who earns a living under the Obama plan will get a tax hike. You can go to the bank on this, the Obama presidency will look at the deficit and state, "The deficit is much higher than we thought-we're going to have to raise you taxes." Obama will tell you this lie to your face because as it stands now, he knows he can't cut income taxes and create the spending spree he's dreaming of.

The only way Obama could pull off his spending spree is to cut corporate taxes and let American countries flourish with the yoke lifted off its back. This will bring in new investments into the US. With new investments come new and better job, a greater income for America overall, and tax revenues grow.

The Obama plan will punish companies like Boeing who has shipped some jobs overseas by outsourcing. But Boeing is in the fight of its life with Airbus currently. Add to this Obama's desire to cut military spending on programs Boeing is planning on providing and you've just killed the last major aerospace company in the US.

On the other hand Airbus is subsidized by the European countries. In other words, European countries give Airbus money to be more competitive (this also has its pitfalls), the US plans to take more from Boeing to be less competitive.

For those of you who work for Boeing (or any US corporation), I'd start building the resume now! Obama plans to put a significant number of you on the street.

The bottom line is you try to make American corporations attractive to foreign investors by lowering the taxes (corporate taxes) they'll pay in corporate taxes.

Yes, the investors pay the corporate taxes, not the company. Also the consumer and workers pay the corporate tax. It is a fallacy to think the CEOs will suffer because of corporate taxes.

Ask yourself this, who is punished if you raise taxes on a corporation? The bottom of the socio-economic scale, not the upper. To pay the taxes, the company has to modify its business model by paying workers less, laying off workers, raising prices, paying smaller dividends, or a combination of these options.

The Obama plan will raise taxes on the lower class even if it doesn't do it through income taxes. What Obama is promising right now is to give you chump change in an income tax cut and swipe you wallet from your back pocket when you aren't looking. And he won't even deliver on the income tax break.

I'll be disappointed if any of you are shocked when Obama breaks his promise that families making less than $250,000 will get a tax break.

What Happens When Nobody Waves the American Flag Anymore?

2008-10-27T20:48:00.001-06:00

The mistake made during this election is the liberal underestimation of the conservative movement.

Barack Obama is not a president the conservatives of this country will tolerate. The disgust the liberal felt towards George W. Bush doesn't register compared to the outright loathing conservatives feel for Barack Obama. Conservatives tolerated the liberal presidents in the past, but Barack Obama will destroy the nationalism the conservatives feel for this country. We will now question whether the US is the greatest country in the world. All the ill feeling towards the US the liberal have felt for years will now be rivaled by the new socialist state Barack Obama plans to unload on the backs of working patriotic Americans. No, paying taxes is not patriotic Joe. You've lost touch with America somewhere on the line with AmTrack.

This was was a conservative friend explained to me. Remember how much the conservatives hated Hillary Clinton? He would have tosed any chance of McCain winning to have president Hillary Clinton instead of the chance of an Obama presidency. Clinton is on the left. Obama is off the charts.

By definition nationalism goes against liberalism in terms of foreign policy. But nationalism is vital to a strong nation. National is displayed by the conservative that will drive a Ford Focus because it is built in America even though it may be an inferior product. Meanwhile, the liberal drives by in his Toyta Prius, nose up in the air, disgusted with the uncouth flag waver.

If the future, the conservative will think twice before buying American. The country no longer stands for the ideals he once believed in.

Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of America." WHAT? Conservatives for the first time in our adult lives are disgusted with America. We were embarrassed by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, but Barack Obama is not just any other liberal president. He wants to begin the socialst revolution in America. "Spreading the wealth around," by definition is socialism. The liberals who deny this are engaging in newspeak.

For the conservative, America will no longer be America.

The military will have a much different feel. During liberal administrations, careerism starts to grow in the ranks because "the cause" fades during liberal administrations. Under an Obama administration, "protecting and defending the constitution" will take on a new meaning. Obama will wage war on the constituion in ways that haven't been seen since FDR. Obama has discussed his plan to destroy the military. He plans to make the US vulnerable to any kind of attack.

The nationalist puts his investment dollars in America, not because it was the best investment to be made, but because the very thought of investing in a foreign country was unpatriotic. But why invest in a country that no longer shares the same values as the conservative? The conservative might as well invest in a country that shares the same work ethic and values as the conservative.

For the longest time liberals looked down at patriotic conservatives and labeled us flag wavers as if that was a bad thing. Well, liberals are about to get their wish. Conservatives are preparing to pack away the flags. Hopefully the damage Obama will do won't be irrevocable, otherwise, we might as well give our flags to Good Will and hang our heads in shame for what we let happen to our once great country.

For the first time in my adult life I will feel subjected to a hostile oppressive government.

So what happens to the country when nobody waves the flag?

Capitalism, Taxes, Schools and the NFL

2008-10-22T20:09:00.001-06:00

Yes, it appears that many economists like the Obama plan, yet they still haven't explained how it will work. This does not imply that I endorse the McCain economic plan by any means and that is why Obama will win the election is because too many capitalists don't trust McCain either.

Both plans will put us further down the socialist path. In my humble opinion in the second debate, McCain actually sounded more socialist than Obama. What is a capitalist to do?

As for pure capitalism as an economic policy-no that doesn't work, unless you have a strict dictatorship at the helm-same goes for socialism.

Cooper wrote: "The free market system is also being called into question by younger economist who apply the theories in real life. The whole basis for it was to bolster the middle class it's roots are such, but it no longer does that, hasn't in some time as a matter of fact. The conservatives absconded with the free market system making it into a coorporate welfare system which no longer works as it was intended."

Corporate welfare is not any better than social welfare. Unfortunately, our officials need to buy votes as Ike pointed out on your site. To do this they need to keep certain industries afloat. Is GM too big to let it go under? United Airlines and US Airways should have gone under years ago, but they were continuously kept afloat by the government. But the people who work for those companies vote. http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12454133&source=features_box2

What if the ruling party didn't have to worry about votes and could let the market forces push unproductive companies out? Sounds like China to me. Does China have a better economic system than the US? That has been my contention for quite some time.

Communist countries were the only countries without a lower class. Funny, but as China's middle class starts to grow, their lower class is starting to grow also.

You can't worry about unproductive people/corporations being crushed if you want a middle class.

You are correct that the middle class is shrinking but not because of capitalism. It is the social programs that are shrinking the middle class.

This is how it works. To have a middle class, you need to have a lower class. By trying to raise the lower class, social programs with their taxes and the relatively diminishing wages of the middle class push the middle class into the lower class to the point that it is more financially to stay at home and collect a government check than it is to go out and earn a fair wage. To combat this, liberals raise the minimum wage, but that just creates inflation requiring the welfare checks (and social security and other social programs) to rise with it.

Bottom line-the Obama plan will increase the middle class by pushing the middle class into the lower class and then calling it the middle class. To truly have a middle class, you MUST have a lower class.

As for corporate taxes-Obama's plan will do significant damage to the US economy and it has already taken place. Some of the sell off from early October was from the realization that Obama is going to win the campaign. I along with thousands of other Americans are waiting for the day after the election to move significant sums of money in our IRAs and 401Ks from American markets to overseas. Unfortunately, the smart ones have already moved their money overseas.

The rationale is why should I invest my money in a company that is going to be hamstrung by corporate taxes?

The consequences are that American companies will have less capital to use for investment, growth, research, etc. This means less American jobs and a larger lower class.

People who have struggled to get to the upper middle class with be penalized more than the wealthy because the biggest different between lower middle class and upper middle class is the investments you have in rental properties, markets or commodities. Under Obama, gains in these will be taxed at a flat rate, who knows how high, but significantly higher than the 15% McCain proposes. The worst part is that by increasing the capital gains taxes on my rental house, Obama instantly reduces its value because the ROI will be less.

It is criminal to think of the struggles I've endured to leave the lower middle class to reach the upper middle class only to have a socialist populist "spread (my) the wealth around." I personally will lose thousands of dollars overnight when Obama is elected.

As for schools…Capitalism along with school vouchers can fix any school provided the students are raised with some semblance of Judeo-Christian values and know right from wrong.

Let's go back to the 1920s and the NFL. Back then, if you were intelligent and a good college football player you went on to work at a desk job somewhere and turned your nose up at the NFL because the NFL was a joke. George Halas and Red Grange changed all that. Halas gave Grange a significant salary and that changed the face of the NFL. When they got paid better, the players got better.

So we should pay teachers $250,000 per year right? I'm all for it, but there is one caveat. Like the NFL, you are only employed and paid by how productive you are. If you become unproductive you are shown the door. Everyone gets a one year contract every year.

Imagine how good teachers would be if they were paid $250,000 per year and had to teach as if their job depended on it? It is amazing what you can do with a little capitalism.

The parents are the fans and the vouchers are the money for their season tickets. Of course they will want to root for/have their child attend a winning school.

If a school doesn't get enough vouchers that school goes under (teachers and administration furloughed) and the productive school remains.

Yes, this is all fantasy because America doesn't have the fortitude to leave someone behind. Another one of Bush's failures of social engineering.

Gumballs, Government Subsidies, Price Caps and the Obama Plan

2008-10-21T18:13:00.002-06:00

What I'd like to do is explain in the simplest terms why the Obama plan to provide government financial assistance to healthcare, college tuition and other programs won't work. Meanwhile I'll also demonstrate in simple terms why price caps and windfall profit taxes are troublesome.

Let's start with you walking into Wal-Mart and wanting a gumball. On the way in you see the gumball machine, drop a quarter in it, twist the knob and out pops a gumball. You slap it in your mouth and go happily about the store smacking bubbles and annoying everyone within 3 aisles of you.

But there are some unfortunate Americans (including the kid you knew in high school that wasted his life's potential by skipping class and committing nefarious acts) out there that can't afford that quarter for the gumball. The Obama presidency, along with the Pelosi/Reid congress, believes it is travesty that any American can't afford a twenty-five cent gumball. A media campaign ensues and voila, in the next budget there is a provision that provides every American all the quarters they need for gumballs.

Now Wal-Mart was selling about 80 gumballs a day at 25 cents for an income of $20. Since the government subsidy they are selling 100 at 25 cent for an income of $25. Well, the people who could afford the 25 cent before the subsidy can still afford the 25 cents. So Wal-Mart adds the 25 cent subsidy into the price. Wal-Mart now sells 80 gumballs a day at 50 cents (25 from the consumer and 25 from the Obama led government) for an income of $40! THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA! Says Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, the "unfortunate" Americans still don't get a gumball.

So now, congress acts quickly to put a windfall profit tax of 25 cents per sale for gumball sales and puts a price cap of 30 cents on gumballs. Now, Americans only have to pay 5 cents out of pocket for a gumball.

At this point, Wal-Mart stops selling gumballs because in stead of making on 5 cents per sale on a gumball, they are now going to sell super balls for 15 cents and no American can get a gumball now.

In other words, why become a doctor when you can be a lawyer. How about we put a windfall profit tax and more price caps on lawyers?

Think this can't be true? Men's Health believes you can now get good deals on healthcare overseas. They are American trained and don't have to deal with American lawyers and government. When government subsidizes healthcare (tax breaks, Medicare, Medicaid), healthcare gets more expensive.

As loans for houses were easier to obtain, the price of houses shot up. That didn't work out too well, now, did it?

College loans are coming easier and larger. Tuition is keeping pace. How much is your college tuition? Well, how much is your college loan?

If you get pre-approved for a car loan for $30,000 even though you only want a $25,000 car, you don't tell the car salesman that is how much you got approved for. Otherwise you'll end up paying $30,000 for a $25,000 car.

"How much does this car/medicine/tuition cost?" "How much you got?" is going to be the answer.

As I've shown above, government intervention in terms of taxes, subsidies and price caps usually have an adverse affect on the market for any particular commodity.

This meddling type government what Obama has PROMISED us. Don't drink the Obama Kool-Aid. His plan has been vetted before and it failed before. Think before you drink and vote!

The Politically Incorrect Reason For this Economic Catastrophe

2008-09-21T19:53:00.001-06:00

The banks were forced into making the bad loans because of the Community Reinvestment Act or face consequences.

The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

This is yet another socialistic policy enacted by a Democratic President (Jimmy Carter) that fostered disaster in an otherwise, almost, free economy.

So, yes, Jimmy Carter is at fault, the the other group of people who are at fault are the "low- and moderate-income" individuals that sought loans they knew they could never pay back.

Who will pay? Everyone who pays taxes will pay, but under Obama's socialistic reform, the individual who will pay the most are the middle and upper-middle class.

Those who invest in American corporations in the form of mutual funds or direct stock sales in their IRAs and 401Ks will pay dearly. Between the dividend tax increase and the corporate gains tax increases Obama plans to force upon the moderate retirement saver, the middle and upper-middle class will be driven into the lower middle class.

Obama's plan doesn't raise the lower class to the middle class, it pushed the middle class down. Instead of saving that extra $10 for your retirement each week, under Obama's plan, you might as well just have another beer at the local tavern because either way your retirement won't change.

Silver lining? Perhaps if you invest overseas. If you invest overseas you may see the decline in the American economy as your opportunity to benefit from America's economic woes brought on by socialist policies.

Lost in this hubbub, however, is a bigger idea that Mr. McCain and his economic team have put forward: a cut in the corporate tax rate, to 25 percent from 35 percent. It is perhaps the best simple recipe for promoting long-run growth in American living standards.

Cutting corporate taxes is not the kind of idea that normally pops up in presidential campaigns. After all, voters aren't corporations. Why promise goodies for those who can't put you in office?
In fact, a corporate rate cut would help a lot of voters, though they might not know it. The most basic lesson about corporate taxes is this: A corporation is not really a taxpayer at all. It is more like a tax collector.
The ultimate payers of the corporate tax are those individuals who have some stake in the company on which the tax is levied. If you own corporate equities, if you work for a corporation or if you buy goods and services from a corporation, you pay part of the corporate income tax. The corporate tax leads to lower returns on capital, lower wages or higher prices — and, most likely, a combination of all three.
A cut in the corporate tax as Mr. McCain proposes would initially give a boost to after-tax profits and stock prices, but the results would not end there. A stronger stock market would lead to more capital investment. More investment would lead to greater productivity. Greater productivity would lead to higher wages for workers and lower prices for customers.
Populist critics deride this train of logic as "trickle-down economics." But it is more accurate to call it textbook economics. Students in introductory economics courses learn that the burden of a tax does not necessarily stay where the Congress chooses to put it. That lesson is especially relevant when thinking about the corporate tax.
In a 2006 study, the economist William C. Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office estimated who wins and who loses from this tax. He concluded that "domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden."

Wall Street, McCain, Obama

2008-09-18T21:56:00.001-06:00

It just doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, McCain or Obama, we're still screwed.

I finally came across an honest partisan radio program the other day. I know that sounds strange, but it is true. When it comes to Wall Street it doesn't matter who winds up in White House, McCain or Obama, they'll both be impotent.

What the commentator, not host, said is that people think that if they're guy wins, things will get fixed, if the other guy wins-catastrophe, and vice versa. The commentator said their both wrong.

Maybe the commentator was trying to protect the president or congress, but I doubt it. The Wall Street powers that be hold too much power over who gets elected and what bills get passed for any single politician to be able to influence the situation.

It is the syndicate all over. You either play ball with us, or you find yourself at the bottom of the river, or in this case out of office.

And just like the syndicate, you can't go to the police in this case, because there is no police force except perhaps the SEC and they just got steam rolled.

Either way, the American taxpayer is going to pay more in taxes so that political cronies who are in charge of industries like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can walk away from disasters like this with millions.

IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE AMERICA, AND YOU NEED TO START DEMANDING IT!

Just like the Drill Here Drill Now mantra has been heard in congress, we need to demand a change in tax policy in the US.

Eliminate all federal taxes except for a flat tax for people making above the average American salary.

Or, eliminate all federal taxes and institute a value added tax and provide a check to all Americans that would pay the taxes on the average American salary so those below the median line don't pay taxes.

Any guesses on how long it will be until Mexico starts having an illegal American problem? At the rate things are going this week, it will be before the November election.

I Married a Sarah Palin

2008-09-17T03:03:00.002-06:00

It came to me when I came across a friend I hadn't seen since high school in the 80's. I tried to describe my wife, and I finally came to the conclusion that, I married a "Sarah Palin."

Not to go through my wife's entire resume, but she is a very accomplished mother, professional and wife.

She is a 1985 graduate of the Air Force Academy and is currently a Colonel in the Air Force Reserves. And like the real Sarah Palin, she outranks her husband.

She's won several professional honors including YWCA woman of the year, Company Grade Officer of the Year, and Program Manager of the Year for the entire Air Force.

Meanwhile, she has coached all three of her children in some sport, including her son's junior high basketball team even though she never played basketball. But like the real Sarah Palin, experience sometimes doesn't mean as much as natural leadership skills.

Additionally, although my wife is only two years Sarah Palin's senior, she is just as attractive as the real Sarah Palin.

This is what makes Sarah Palin so attractive. America already knows her. She is our spouse, sister, daughter and mom.

Why Charlie Gibson, Bill O'Reilly and the Rest of the Media Really Doesn't Matter

2008-09-14T21:31:00.001-06:00

I don't know which candidate it was or which major network it was, but essentially the reporter threatened the candidate that with out the network's interview, the candidate could never get elected because the candidate's message would never get out to the people.

Do you think it is time for the media to catch up with the 21st Century? Barack Obama was going to text his VP pick to his loyal supporters before he let the media in on it. The media was on fire trying to get the scoop and in the end probably spent too many resources on a story that didn't really go anywhere.

In the 21st Century the candidates can bypass the media and go straight to their constituency. If you really want to know where a candidate stands on the issues, you can always go to the website. "Lipstick" comments are out there for Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart to make money off of by sensationalizing them and pretend that they mean something.

Charlie Gibson ability to confuse Sarah Palin over the Bush Doctrine (which I originally thought was Bush 41's doctrine-based on the Weinberger doctrine) only shows that Charlie Gibson has the ability to ask trick questions. It doesn't tell us anything about the candidate.

Similarly, Bill O'Reilly's badgering Barack Obama into saying the surge won doesn't tell us anything new. Ninety percent of intelligent Americans know that the surge work and that Barack Obama was against the surge, but also against the war in the first place. Was there any new information? No, not really except that Barack Obama can say he was wrong about something, except he never really said he was wrong so in the end, there was no new information.

The thing you have to understand about the Keith Olbermanns, Bill O'Reillys and even Charlie Gibsons of the world is that they are not employed to inform you as much as entertain you. Don't misunderstand there is some information, analysis and original thought provided, but it isn't necessarily intelligent.

Where to find intelligent thought: The most enlightened conversations are usually found on the internet. Once you weed out the insane and unintelligent, there is a world of wonderful ideas out there on the web. I've found that most of the time the author of the article isn't as intelligent as the people who comment on the post.

It would help the media immensely if it would rid itself of these almost intelligent people and replace them with people who really are intelligent. And by that I mean people who listen more than talk. Let the interviewee tell their story and let the American people just the answer for themselves. Badgering and grilling only proves what as ass the interviewer is.

The point is: The candidate was perfectly right to snub their nose at the interview demand. In the 21st Century the candidate can get his message straight to the people.

Going into a hostile interview doesn't do anything for the candidate. Sarah Palin didn't gain any significant number of votes by subjecting herself to Charlie Gibson's badgering, just like Barack Obama didn't gain anything by getting grilled by Bill O'Reilly.

Hopefully, in the near future, we won't have these Mickey Mouse games on the networks.

Russia Learns Planes are Better than Missiles

2008-09-12T22:50:00.001-06:00

Well, you have to give them credit, they didn't try to put missiles in this time.

The Russians have deployed nuclear capable Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela.

This is a shrewd move on the part of the former Soviets becuase unlike the missiles they tried to put into Cuba, the bombers (which are there only temporarily) can come and go as they please. The Russian bombers don't present the threat of permanently based missiles, because they lack the permanence of missiles, but they should actually present a bigger threat, because they must be tracked at all times.

This time when the Russian bombers went in, th press knew about it and that means the Russians wanted the press to know. The Russians (Putin and his lapdog Medvedev) wanted to send a signal to the US that they (meaning Putin) was extremely upset with the new missile defense system treaty the US signed with Poland.

This sounds like a job for some F-22s. The problem with F-22s is that they are so capable and classified, that only the people who fly them know exactly what they can do and therefore this detracts from the Air Force's ability to sell them to the American public (who are the ultimate customers). But, if the F-22s are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm sure they can send a signal to the Russians.

Diplomatic efforts: The diplomatic front on this confrontation is going to have to surround our allies in Eastern Europe-our Western Allies lack the fortitude for diplomacy beyond garanteeing "peace in our time." Direct negotiations with Russia will be fruitless, because they will only be satisfied when they can reign in and dominate the former Soviet states of Georgia, Ukrane and Moldova. This is a outcome the US cannot allow if it intends to retain any credibility in the world.

If the US doesn't protect the fledgeling democracies on Russia's eastern border, it will allow Russia to press further west with their span of control. If the US doesn't protect Georgia, why would it protect Poland would be the thinking in Moscow.

In the long run this is only for show and it got the attention of the US, but ultimately nothing will come of it. The US economy is mending and with McCain-Palin poised the take the White House, the Russians will not test the resolve of the US. As long as the US continues to pursue its own carbon based fuels and alternative enery with the same ferociousness of the summer of 2008, oil and natural gas prices will drop on the open market and Russia will lose a major cash cow.

With this the Russian military will start to deteriorate once more and the threat of a resurgent Russia will dwindle.

Bill Clinton Predicts Big Win for Obama...Really?

2008-09-11T20:00:00.001-06:00

During a one on one conversation, former president Bill Clinton predicted that Obama would win big over McCain this November election.

I'm not sure who was laughing louder, Hillary who was obviously standing in the background with a sharpened knife for Obama's back or the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.

Remember, Clinton is the one person Obama should least get solace from. The Clintons have been planning their third and fourth term as president since the day Bill last won in Novemeber 1996.

But the question that is running through everyones mind is, "When will Hillary replace Joe Biden." Biden seems to have already gotten the word that he's going to be replaced. I'm sure in the spirit of Vince Foster, Biden is has been given the choice to either step aside, or get very sick, very soon.

From there, the Clintons will hijack the Obama presidency and Obama may become ill himself.

Something Else to do with $7 Million than contributing to John McCain

2008-08-31T20:29:00.002-06:00

It appears that Sarah Palin was quite a hit with conservatives, bringing in over $7 Million after she was added to the GOP ticket. My father told me that callers on the Lars Larson radio program in Oregon were saying that they had to rummage through the garbage to look for their McCain letters so they could donate (which is silly because they can always donate online at the John McCain website linked here).

What I don't understand is why conservatives needed to wait for Palin to be added to the ticket to donate to McCain. This is their options, donate to McCain, or have Obama steal their money in fhe form of new taxes.

But only the rich will be taxed right?

Big fat lie #587 from Slick Willie Wannabe Obama.

If you have iinvested in a US comapny (or work for one) you will be taxed. At a massive rate too. The capital gains taxes on the money the companies of your IRA and 401K make for your retirement is going to be taxed at nearly twice the current rate, going from 15% to 28%. That means if your company made $100 in capital gains this year, Obama wants to take $28 dollars (instead of $15) before it ever gets to your investment portfolio.

If you thought money was going away from American companies now, just wait for Obama to get his hands on your taxes.

My point is this is the option conservatives have now, invest in John McCain, or put your money overseas in foreign companies.

Additionally, Obama wants to raise corporate taxes. Here's 20 reasons to cut corporate taxes.

Here are some choice reasons I've cherry picked.

4) Some 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer high-paying jobs. (Yes, you the middle class that Obama has lied to about lower taxes-this applies to you). China has a lower corporate tax rate than the US!

7) A new OECD study found that corporate taxes are the most damaging kind of tax.

8) Corporate taxes lead to double taxation. Profits are taxed a first time at the company level and then again as dividends. (Obama wants to steal from your retirement twice-at a higher rate!)

13) An EU study of 50,000 companies found that a 1 percent increase in marginal corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages. (Corporations deal with this tax by reducing wages-raise minimum wage and they'll cut jobs. They can't pay money they have to give to taxes.)

14) It's bipartisan. Among people who have called either for a reduction in or elimination of corporate taxes are John McCain, Charlie Rangel, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Lester Thurow.

15) It's a hidden tax: Even workers get hit by it, but they don't know it because they don't directly pay the tax.

18) For every dollar the government collects in revenue, the corporate tax may actually cost the government $1 in revenue through slower economic growth.

And this is how you deal with this-the day after the election, if Obama has more delegates that McCain, take every last penny you have and move it overseas into foreign investment with a less hostile tax code-may I suggest a country with a flat tax rate (that's why the $7 Million to McCain).

Hey, President-elect Obama, do you hear that sucking sound? Yeah, that would be invesment in US corporations moving overseas (led by George Soros and other rish liberal elitists) quicker than you can say, "Just words".

Although this pretty much garantees a President Palin in 2012, the damage will already be done with 4 years of incompetence the White House hasn't seen since a peanut farmer from Georgia moved in.