Recently in China Category

As you might recall, we wrote a month or so ago about how Mitt Romney is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China. Today, we write about Rick Santorum's Quisling moment. Like Mitt Romney, Santorum started out his career labeling himself a progressive, distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, working closely with unions and pushing other liberal legislation.

In his later years, Santorum referred to liberal fellow Senator Arlen Specter as his mentor and even endorsed him against a conservative primary rival "because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it's in the best interest of my state." Obviously, those would be liberal interests. Specter led the controversial charge for amnesty in 2006 despite a precedent-setting uproar by Americans who made history with the sheer volume of calls to the capital switchboard made to register their abhorrence of the legislation Specter championed. Instead of acquiescing to the will of the people, however, Specter marched up to his lectern on the Senate floor, pounded it with his fist and declared, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Specter was soon removed from office, but Santorum continued to have nice things to say about him.

Enter Rick Santorum 2012, candidate for Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, champion of contraceptive bans and backward Taliban-style rules for women - the obvious over-compensation for his liberal past. All of this would be as comical as a goofy sweater-vest were it not for the real damage his voting record as Senator has done, is doing, and will do to our survival national security interests.

To wit, Santorum voted in 1997 to allow the sale of supercomputers to China, whose military leaders have repeatedly sworn to destroy us, make war on us, and to literally "exterminate" our entire population. Maybe if Santorum had spent less time distancing himself from Reagan and Gingrich in the 1980s, he would have learned something rather important: giving your enemy the technological advantage is suicide. In recent years, China's fastest supercomputers surpassed our own for the first time in history, and by 2010 were an astonishing "47% faster than the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's machine". Make no mistake: this alone disqualifies Santorum to be Commander-in-Chief.

Our strategic advantage has long leaned on technology, given our comparatively small force size vis-à-vis China or the former Soviet Union. China's army alone is roughly the size of our entire population. Imagine that force size equipped with modern weaponry that far exceeds our own. That is defeat and the end of America. Rick Santorum voted for that.

Clearly, Santorum has failed to comprehend the strategic consequences of his actions, as the recent outcry over his outspoken opposition to manned space flight and a return to the moon demonstrates.  Former Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and current national security advisor to Newt Gingrich Stephen Yates rightly eviscerated Santorum's childish, out of touch, and ultimately suicidal space policy:

I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.

American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.

We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.

As with Romney and Huawei (and many of his other failures), Americans might be more forgiving if there were some serious evidence of enlightenment; however, in the case of both Romney and Santorum such an opening of the mind has not transpired and both candidates continue to represent an indirect but existential threat to American national security.



H/T to @MissLiberty on Twitter for the heads up on Santorum's pro-China voting record and for the China supercomputer tech links.

Related:

China's Supercomputing Goal: From 'Zero To Hero'

Rick Santorum's Voting Record

Middle East Quarterly: Russian and Chinese Support for Tehran

China Plans Manned Moon Mission

China's Challenge at Sea

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

It's hard to believe but there are still some who discount the threat posed by Iran to the West once the regime acquires and readies nuclear weapons. But why is Iran a threat? To answer that question we must ask some others:

• Would Iran like to see the West destroyed? Yes
• Is Iran willing to take action to bring this about? Yes
• Is Iran currently taking action to bring this about? Yes
• Would the end of this course of action legitimately threaten the West? Yes
• How seriously could Iran hurt us? A single nuclear weapon detonated above North America would emit an electromagnetic pulse capable of frying our electrical grid and nearly everything utilizing electronics. This could literally lead to the extermination of 90% of the population within a year.
• Can Iran be deterred? No
• Can the threat be defended against or mitigated? Not yet. The technology exists but it has not been implemented.
  
• What is being done to defend and mitigate? Too little
• How long before Iran's nuclear capability is operational?  Estimates vary from a few months to a couple of years at the optimistic end of the spectrum.
• How long before defense and mitigation techniques are operational? A few years.

As you can see, there is already a frightening gap between when many believe Iran will possess nuclear weapons and when we will be able to defend against them or reduce their impact.

Iran has already promised to "wipe" the US and Israel off the face of the earth. Newt Gingrich makes a very good point on this, as well. If a person believes it is a good idea to blow himself up with a suicide vest in order to kill just a few of his enemies, why wouldn't he want a nuclear bomb and be willing to accept the consequences of retaliation after launching a devastating attack on his enemies? But the threat is even worse than that of a single - or even a few - cities being destroyed by nuclear attacks at ground level. Presently, Iran's nuclear weapons program is being developed in conjunction with missile tests that include delivery systems being detonated at apogee to simulate an EMP attack. A single EMP event over North America could be sufficient to knock out our entire electrical grid, which may take up to a decade to replace.

Within the first year after such an event due to starvation, dehydration, and disease, up to 90% of the US population would be dead. That's from a single EMP from a single, fairly low-yield bomb, and Iran's leadership has talked openly both within political circles and internal military white papers and other documents about the desire to make an EMP strategy their top priority.

Furthermore, there is no deterrent as there was with the Soviet Union because the official form of Islam propagated and adhered to within the regime believes that they will herald in the era of the 12th Imam (their messiah) once Armageddon begins; furthermore, this is also the same belief system that glorifies the suicide bomber as a martyr for Islam.

The Iranian regime is willing to accept heavy losses by any retaliation and they believe it is their God-given purpose to obliterate the United States, and soon they will have the capability to do so. Furthermore, the US would be so badly weakened - if it exists at all - that retaliation and certainly any sustained conflict with Iran and its axis partners would be impossible from a resource standpoint. The best we could do is drop a few nukes on Iran, which Iran is willing to accept. I would say that is quite a real threat.

We must begin to accept reality on its terms rather than how we wish it to be, and in so doing ensure that no attack from Iran, its axis partners China and Russia, other allies or terrorist groups will be capable of inflicting serious damage.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

UPDATE for yesterday's post: As it turns out, Mitt Romney as governor was a wholly-owned subsidiary of China. Rep. Duncan Hunter, member of the House Armed Services Committee excoriated Romney in 2008, advising voters then to steer clear of a pro-China Romney. To this date Romney has failed address the problem, demonstrating further how unserious a candidate he is for Commander-in-Chief - although there's very lttle anyone could say to save himself from the inevitable disqualification this type of footsie with a hostile regime that has called for "exterminating the US population" brings.



From Newsmax, 2008:

"As the founder of Bain Capital, Governor Romney has an obligation to utilize his influence within the company to terminate the proposed merger between 3Com and Chinese defense contractor Huawei," said Hunter. "In light of China's refusal to port several American naval vessels last week, it is increasingly more important that American military technology be protected from foreign companies, such as Huawei, that are closely aligned with the Chinese government."

Hunter refused to endorse Romney in 2008 for this specific reason.

"This proposed deal, which Governor Romney can work to terminate should he choose to do so, is unpatriotic and damaging to national security," continued Hunter. As further detailed in a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, Huawei has close ties to the military of communist China and allegedly aided Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. 

As mentioned yesterday, "Huawei [is] linked by the Pentagon and other key figures in national security as an espionage front group of Beijing's Ministry of State Security (MSS)." In 2007, the tech-industry news site Cnet noted that Huawei is run by a former PLA officer by the name of Ren Zhengfei.

Meanwhile, Ren has gone about building Huawei into a success story disregarding the usual corporate niceties. In 2000--three years before the WMD craze got us all nutso about taking out Saddam--the CIA accused Huawei of secretly selling a communications system to Iraq. In the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, Huawei and two other Chinese companies were singled out for carrying out "extensive work in and around Baghdad"--mainly telecommunication switches and the installation of fiber-optic cable.

The article goes on to mention Romney's involvement:

[...]Friday we learned that Bain Capital is paying $2.2 billion to acquire 3Com. Part of the deal involves China's Huawei Technologies, which will acquire a minority stake in 3Com.
And, oh, by the way, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor running for the Republican presidential nomination--he headed Bain Capital for 14 years.
Six degrees of separation. In this case only 2--but who's counting.

In a later interview with Fox News, Hunter went farther and told Chris Wallace, "I think Mitt Romney's a no-go for that reason alone".



A note of disclosure: As a Newt guy, I'm not telling you to vote for Newt, although he is the best candidate on national security and I do recommend you do; however, I think as long as you stay away from Romney, Huntsman, and Paul, your choice will not be a candidate who potentially does direct damage to our national security interests. I personally think Newt would agree with the principle that one of the most important things we can do as Americans is to keep more bad actors out of the White House.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

During the 26-minute penalty box phase in Sunday morning's New Hampshire debate where far-left NBC host David Gregory banned Newt Gingrich from taking part in some of the most crucial parts - parts where 1%-ers like Huntsman and Perry and all the other candidates all far less qualified were heartily invited to opine - Willard "Mitt" Romney and Jon Huntsman fell into a dustup over China. Huntsman, the official spokesperson for the most genocidal regime in human history in a stunning are-you-serious display of ignorance for a supposed Sinophile stated that we should not seek to protect our interests in responding to China's trade war against us because it would cause a trade war. Come again?  Meanwhile, Romney - now brought up to speed only in sound bites by one of his advisors who seems to be a closet fan of Donald Trump - doesn't know about this trade war stuff, but he sure would like to raise taxes on China because that's what he's had so much experience doing to people in his own state and it's safe - he knows how to do it. Play your strengths.

Mr. Huntsman certainly is not inexpert on the topic of China. He has spent many years in China first as a businessman and then as Obama's China ambassador - and his company has over $9 billion tied up in China (surely no conflict of interest there).  Huntsman is incredibly knowledgeable on the topic, which again makes his blunders on the topic so stunning. Where he may be faulted is in the area of his affections, or at best, his understanding of what motivates the regime and what its implications are for the world - particularly in light of similar regimes throughout history, which is our only guide. Huntsman falters in part because he's no historian, no philosopher, and certainly no political scientist, but no amount of education can make up for a gut that is seemingly off its axis (or in the case of the Axis of Evil, riding high atop it).  Fairly recently, a husband and wife team of highly acclaimed researchers Jung Chang and Jon Halliday embarked on a project which became a New York Times best-seller. The book, Mao: The Unknown Story - now banned in Communist China - was an unofficial biography like no other in terms of scope and attention to detail. Along the way, the book mentioned that in the 1960s RINO Richard Nixon made numerous trips to China on business. During his trips he fell in with a beautiful young honey trap who used her influence to affect a friendlier outlook on the regime and may have brought about Nixon's shortsighted and naïve misadventure of "ping pong diplomacy". That policy in turn opened the US up to the most genocidal regime in human history that despite all rainbow and unicorn talk by the administration continued to find ways to destroy us, and most likely played an important role in our defeat in Vietnam along with the genocide of millions in Southeast Asia. To put a nice spin on things, it seems high-school dropout Jon Huntsman is the very best imitation yet of Nixon, albeit with a better tan and a smidgen more personality. But I'm sure he will tell you he's not a crook.

On the other hand, Mr. Romney is in many ways the opposite of Huntsman and in other respects, quite similar. Breathtakingly inexperienced in foreign policy and up until very recently, almost as inarticulate as Rick Perry on the topic until a few of his advisors came to the rescue. Up until this year for Romney, "China" was only something stamped on the bottom of most of the products sold in his Staples office supply stores, covered in the fingerprints of the five-year-olds who were forced to assemble them. So one of the few areas that Huntsman and Romney shared in common with respect to China was that both men had a big money stake in preserving the status quo at all costs - even against the long term national security interests of the United States (though they might both be men of denial rather than malice). Another thing the two share in common is that both men as president would likely continue the failed China policies of the last four presidents, albeit for somewhat different reasons - one because he thinks he's clever, the other because he doesn't know a thing and therefore thinks it must not be important. One thing in Romney's (and almost everyone else's) favor, however, is that he never announced to the world that China's telecommunications company Huawei - linked by the Pentagon and other key figures in national security as an espionage front group of Beijing's Ministry of State Security (MSS) - was a great company or that it had a terrific "worldwide reputation", as Perry once had. But at this point we are only nuancing shades of fail here.

UPDATE: Actually, Romney was totally in bed with Huawei. We mosted more information about it here. And as far as not being a crook as Huntsman may be able to claim and Nixon wasn't, well...

By contrast, Newt Gingrich understands the China threat, its historical context, the nature of communism - and China's flavor of Marxi-fascism deliberately patterned after Nazi Germany - and the finer points of geostrategy, the need to be proactive, the value of covert operations, the importance of morale, and the importance of recognizing proxy wars for what they are along with all manner of asymmetrical warfare. Newt's playing for the right team and understands why and how to do it. The biggest travesty of Sunday morning's debate was not the predictably shallow aping of advisors by Romney or Huntsman's faithful wearing of the red (China) team's colors, it was the exclusion of the only practical, competent, trustworthy, and much-needed Newt Gingrich from this discussion. Nevertheless, Gingrich is the only one to have endorsements by the greatest minds and strategic thinkers of the Reagan era or today, including former Reagan National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane and Dr. Thomas Sowell. Speaker Gingrich's exclusion from the discussion in the last debate is a sad example of biased networks putting politics over national interest. It is important for all Americans that he be allowed to partake in the discussion of national security - an area in which we must have our best leaders step forward.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

As mentioned in my previous post, former China defense minister Chi Haotian called for the use of WMD to annihilate the US population in an act of ethnic cleaning never before seen in human history.

One such method of WMD attack - and also comparatively low-cost - that is gaining wider attention is the use of EMP (or Electromagnetic Pulse). China could employ this method through a proxy power such as Iran or North Korea or a non-state actor, thereby concealing the return address (or China may decide as it examines its cost-to-benefit ratio that such an attack is worth losses suffered during the response).

Here's how it works: A single nuclear missile is detonated at apogee above the continental United States, Europe, Israel, India, Japan or other target sending out several waves of energy toward everything within line-of-sight. Power grids, unshielded electronics such as your computer, transportation (cars, delivery trucks, ambulances, aircraft, etc.), radios and TVs would all be fried. This would have devastating consequences, as you might well imagine.

I believe this is one of the most crucial issues facing the world from a security standpoint. In fact, an EMP has the potential to kill up to 90% of the affected population within a year after the event due to the natural die-off resulting from infrastructure collapse.* It normally takes about ten years to replace major power transformers - and that's under the most ideal conditions. During that time, there would be no way to get food, water, medicine, and other essentials to market; there would be no means of transporting the sick, no method for regulating the indoor climate in hospitals and nursery homes or disposing of waste. Disease, starvation, and the elements would take their toll. And many of the illnesses and accidents treatable today would also become fatal. Refugees would also swarm the countryside, overwhelming those who believed their isolation and self-sufficiency would sustain them.  

If any regime deserves to be taken seriously in its threat to annihilate an entire population, that regime is surely CCP China, which has murdered over 70 million of its own people and counting, making it the most genocidal regime in human history. This is also a regime that makes no effort to diminish the cruelty of death, as we see from its harvesting of organs from living dissidents and the practice of filleting others alive. The regime has also built a vast network of mysterious and pristine cities across its country, which are completely uninhabited, as well as massive underground bunkers. It seems reasonable to assume these serve a strategic purpose and it is clear that it would be strategically useful for a regime intent on initiating - and winning - a nuclear confrontation with an enemy.

As is widely known, Iran has already tested the idea of detonating a missile at apogee and is presently acquiring both missile and nuclear technology from China, Russia, and others within that axis.

However, even if we were to eliminate all nuclear weapons and other man-made sources of EMP tomorrow, of grave concern also is the threat posed by solar events such as the Carrington event of 1859. Such an event - which occurs about every 100 years - would be global. Without hardened infrastructure from the electrical grid to transportation and communications, we are all literally sitting under the gun. That is why the best first strategy for ameliorating this unthinkable threat is to increase our survivability, as mentioned above. The next solar event is inevitable and is also arguably already overdue, and the reduced benefit of a first strike will also deter potential aggressors who seek to use a man-made event to score a quick win.

Without the will to develop new and more secure technologies, there is very little we can do to mitigate such an event, be it naturally-occurring or as the result of an attack from China directly or one of its proxies. So it is key that we understand that the moment to act is now. Otherwise, the inevitable will come. It will either be man-made or sun-caused, but at the point at which it occurs, civilization will suffer a severe downgrade and millions - possibly billions - of unique human beings with hopes, dreams, and aspirations will slowly and agonizingly vanish from the face of the earth.


*Forstchen, William R. One Second After. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2009.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

So GE is finally meeting with the Pentagon to discuss tech transfer concerns on China. About time. The fact GE does any business with the regime should draw into serious question the prospect of future contracts with the Department of Defense, to say nothing of technology transfers which should be treated as criminal.

We should never forget the incestuous relationship between Democrat administrations, corporate cronies, and the Chinese regime, with quid pro quos such as we saw in the 1990s with PLA generals who donated to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. But none of the last four administrations has dealt with or even truly acknowledged the reality that China was fighting a cold war against us whether we wanted them to or not. Part of what is needed is a president who will take a page from the Reagan playbook and severely curtail technology and tradecraft access by the regime.

Two weeks ago, the Pentagon released its annual report on China, and you know it's bad when a Democrat administration finally admits a communist regime that is seeking to destroy the US is actually seeking to destroy the US. Of course, it is also rather shameful that the Bush 43 administration did little to counter the Chinese aggressor, either. In fact, the same year as the 9/11 attacks, China hackers broke into the Pentagon and stole 20 terabytes of data. "If the information had been on paper, they'd have needed a line of moving vans stretching from the Pentagon to freighters docked 50 miles away in Baltimore harbor just to haul it away." As an aside, both this cyber attack and 9/11 occured two years after the 1999 publication of "Unrestricted Warfare" by two PLA officers detailing the use of cyber warfare, terrorism, and other asymmetrical methods to destroy the US.

But even if we gained the upper hand in the cyberwar, how secure would our classified information, corporate secrets and patents be? The regime has made it no secret it uses nationals abroad to spy. Again, common sense serves well: a totalitarian regime that controls every aspect of its people's lives and information flow would let its people freely travel abroad? As with the Soviet Union, those who are permitted to travel are presumed to be those who loyally represent the interests of the regime. At present there are literally thousands of Chinese nationals in the US working ostensibly as students. Naturally, responding to this threat is of the imperative. That's never a perfect process, but it means that most Chinese nationals in the US should be considered hostile. Thus, we should also drastically limit the number of PRC nationals permitted in the US under any circumstances, while at the same time reverse the trend in recent years, which has been to reject those seeking asylum. Part of a good strategy also involves helping China to become a peaceful partner one day, and that means regime change to a stable, peaceful, liberal electoral democracy.

Some might suggest that calling for severely curtailing access by Chinese nationals to the US is a bit harsh. They might also argue that the US benefits more than it is harmed by their presence. So we think. There's a trade-off for everything and unfortunately, this is the case as well. There are certainly quite a few Taiwanese who'd love a shot. The reality is that China has stolen billions from the US in terms of technology and trade secrets as well as military secrets which may one day cost actual lives. Any short term gain proffered by their inclusion is also muted by that gain being passed back to the PRC, which effectively nullifies any advantage. Again, we are not talking about friendly competitors but strategic enemies, as was the case with the Soviet Union. And in the case of China, an enemy whose military leaders have already called for the extermination of the entire US population through use of WMD - if achieved, the greatest genocide in human history.

So we must bar those who are from enemy regimes. China does not allow those it thinks are hostile to its regime to travel outside its borders but instead only permits those to study abroad it thinks will act in its interest. In the long run, the US benefits more greatly from not having its technology siphoned off by a hostile regime and used against it. There are plenty of places in the world from which we can invite students and research partners. We can also invite Chinese officials to defect. But we cannot allow the regime access to our sensitive areas, which unfortunately, due to the nature of Sino intelligence, is a pretty wide swath of academia and S&T (science and technology).

Think about that 10,000 students working on behalf of an enemy regime. We don't benefit. They give us candy laced with poison. The same can be said for poor cyber security. Whatever is gained in the short run in terms of efficiency is lost many times over down the road. Communist China is our enemy and a threat to our vital national security interests. Secrecy is an art we must relearn in order to win the new cold war with this illegitimate regime. It's unfortunate, but the reality is it's just the way the cookie has to crumble. If we want to see Chinese nationals studying in this country again, we'd better get to work helping with regime change over there.

There are a good many things we all want, but as adults we must accept reality on its terms and then find a way to change it to our liking. The path to changing this reality lies not through pretending it does not exist but through a host of proactive policies both defensive and safely humanitarian in that part of the world to bring it about. No one seeing a truck approaching steps out into the road in front of it to get run over; instead he waits for the truck to pass and then he can safely cross the street. And we'll have to wait, but that is the price of the win-win. How long we have to wait will of course greatly depend on what kind of administration we have next.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

In 1962 during his second year at West Point, my father attended an address by the Great American General Douglas MacArthur. It was what would become known as one of the greatest speeches in history. Recently, my father's vinyl recording of the event was re-discovered in a box along with the program. While I have found bits and pieces of audio from the speech on YouTube or in obsolete audio formats posted way back in the 1990s in various corners of the web, I did not see the full audio online, so I thought it might be useful to others to remedy that.

I also felt that reading the speech within the pages of the actual program handed out on the day the address was delivered would be enjoyable for others, so I have scaned it and converted it to a PDF document. You can download and view that here: USMA MacArthur Farewell Address 62.pdf  A copy/paste-friendly version of the address can be found at American Rhetoric and other spots on the web. I hope that you will be enriched by these priceless treasures of our great history and be inspired as an American to know that our greatest days yet lie ahead.

General Douglas MacArthur USMA 1962: Duty, Honor, Country (Full) from Blogbat on Vimeo.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

Ask any Pole, any Czech, any Hungarian what it means to be illegally occupied and raped by another country and they will tell you many stories you do not wish to hear; for they experienced it twice in one century. The first invasion came from Nazi Germany, and as hope dared to look up at the end of World War II, it saw the Soviet Union's tanks rolling by for the second. The brutality is enormous, the carnage unspeakable; the loss unimaginable. Doors kicked down in the dark of night, families disappeared by the military authorities or the puppet government, torture, rape, dismemberment, medical experimentation, and for the "lucky" ones, the heavy fog of fear and oppression.

Today, China is the new Nazi Germany as well as the new Soviet Union rolled up into one hideously evil empire. As all the others, it seeks to expand its Lebensraum into the ancient lands of its neighbors. At present, China illegally occupies the southern portion of Mongolia, Manchuria, East Turkestan, and Tibet. In every instance, China pursues a brutal campaign of physical and cultural extermination, and none is spared, from young to old, from weak to strong.

News of the latest victims comes out of Tibet. Two teenage girls were viciously beaten by a gang of male Chinese occupation forces then kidnapped by the occupiers under the guise of "arrest". Tashi Palmo is only 16; her friend Pema Yangzom just 19. Their "crime": peacefully calling for the end of the genocidal occupation by China of their beloved homeland. For this, they continue to suffer from injuries described as  serious made worse because the occupying Chinese have refused them access to medical care.

It would be helpful if the International Red Cross demanded access to the girls, but the IRC has become in many ways a political organ over the years and it may once again ignore its charter for the sake of expedience. The UN is also unlikely to take action; these girls were not so fortunate as to be born Palestinians, and challenging the human rights abuses of the most genocidal regime in human history - China - which also happens to be one of the leading states of the most influential coalition within the UN that also holds a seat on the UNSC is even more unlikely. Indeed, when you realize that the democracy of Israel has received almost half of all UN condemnations while China, which has murdered over 70 million - and counting - has barely been mentioned, it's easy to see the UN is fairly unreliable in terms of addressing human rights as a rule.

So the next question then is who will speak up. Will Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch stand up for these young teenagers who have their whole lives ahead of them? On occasion both these organizations have taken bold stands against the Chinese regime, yet to my knowledge neither has called for the complete end to all illegal Chinese occupations and it remains to be seen if these somewhat bipolar organizations - also quite politically motivated - will find it in their interest to cast the light of shame on this illegitimate regime.

This, sadly, is just another day in a gilded, blood-spattered hell-hole known as the Chinese sphere, in which those who wish to live are aborted against their mothers' wishes and those who are alive wish they had never been born. Perhaps someday there will be a Western government strong enough morally to take the stand that brought down the Soviet Union three decades ago. Until then, humanity will continue to witness a butchering machine like none other in human history - a human meat grinder - slowly turn as it crushes the lives of millions.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

UPDATE: The human rights group Samizdat International has sent out a press release condemning China's shocking atrocity and calling on the International Red Cross and Red Crescent to demand to see the girls and treat any injuries sustained during the attack. Samizdat International is owned by the author of this blog.

Change some names from this latest Chinese state media aping of the regime's ruling party and you've traveled back in time to an era our grandparents knew well.

The latest straight out of Nazi Germany:

Germany has strived to protect human rights of all social groups while honoring its National Human Rights Action Plan.

On Thursday, the Führer's State Council Information Office (RRIA) published the Assessment Report on the National Human Rights Action Plan of The Greater German Reich (1939-1940), which says all targets and tasks set by the Action Plan have been fulfilled as scheduled.

Over the past two years, Germany has earmarked 2.779 billion Reichsmarks (431 million U.S.dollars) as a development fund for ethnic minority groups.

Levi, a Polish wood artisan, moved to a 100-foot-long brick-wood apartment last year. He said, "It's beyond my wildest imagination that I could have ever got such a nice apartment." Previously, his family, eight people in total, roughed it in a 10-square-foot mud house in a ghetto.

The renovation of his house was, for the most part, sponsored by the Reich.

Like his family, 46,000 households of Poles in his neighborhood were moved to new houses in 1939 in our new communal living center that provides free healthcare and ovens for baking large quantities of bread.

In Czechoslovakia, the people, in carrying out the Action Plan, strived to raise the employment rate of ethnic minority people, and have done so, with full 100 percent employment right outside their new homes.

The Reich has worked to safeguard women's rights to employment and equal access to economic resources. The state now forces women to have abortions whether they want them or not so that they may stay employed for their own good.

The Führer has relaxed restrictions on the disabled people for applying for drivers' license by introducing a revised "Regulations on Application and Use of Driver's Licenses" in 1939.

The revised regulations allow, for the first time, Germans who are able to sit by themselves despite their paralyzed limbs - that they may have obtained while visiting one of our education camps - to acquire a license for adapted vehicles.

According to official statistics, there are 2.8 million people with paralyzed limbs in Germany, and many are longing to drive but had been deprived of the right. Some have driven anyway, hoping to avoid being caught by the police and forced to hand over their kidneys.

A man with disability surnamed Eigelbeck, who is taking driving classes in Berlin, said, "The idea of getting a driver's license makes me excited, which means I could go to farther places. I feel more decent sitting in a car than in a boxcar."

Germany has also made headway in getting every orphan a roof overhead and getting children of migrant workers to classrooms. Our medical experimentation clinics are among the best in the world with both heat in the wintertime and air conditioning in the summer.

In April 1939, the RRIA published the National Human Rights Action Plan of The Greater Reich (1939-1940). It is Germany's first national plan on human rights.

Otto von Hassenwald, vice director of the human rights studies center of the German Academy of Social Sciences (DASW), said fulfilling the human rights action plan as scheduled marked a milestone in Germany's human rights program.

Von Hassenwald said, "Drafting and implementing national human rights action plan is a long-term undertaking, and there will be more such action plans coming," and added, "We are working hard toward the final solution."

Von Hassenwald said he is confident that the Führer will make the people's lives of the Greater German Reich more secure, decent and blissful.

The 56-page report released on Thursday made an overall assessment of the implementation of the Action Plan. It also specified The Greater Reich's efforts on implementing the plan to safeguarding people's economic, social and cultural rights, people's civil and political rights, as well as promoting the cause of human rights in other spheres.

The Chinese regime has clearly announced it protects the human rights of everyone, so we should all go about our business and keep buying products made by happy eight-year-olds. China is a Utopia, after all. That is, except for the aforementioned eight-year-old slave laborer, the Uygar and Tibetan and Mongolian and Manchurian and any other ethnic, religious or political group that does not bow to National Socialism "with Chinese characteristics".

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.