Why Does the United States Never Hold China Accountable?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

The Chinese recently unveiled its new J-31 stealth fighter over the skies of the city of Zhuhai. Funny thing about the J-31. It looked strikingly like the United States F-35. Coincidence? Not at all. Chinese cyber spies were able to hack into the systems of Lockheed Martin and six subcontractors and steal all but the most sensitive of blueprints—which were stored off-line—for the American F-35. China’s cyber spies are busy, constantly targeting the military, government, and economy of the United States—“from the Pentagon to Los Alamos, oil pipelines to power plants, Google to Coca-Cola.”

Why does the United States put up with this? How is this not an act of war? The American military under the rule of bellicose neoconservatives and neo-progressives in recent decades has become increasingly hostile toward even the most innocuous of threats to “American interests.” President Obama waged an unconstitutional war against Libya, which was no threat to the United States and had not as much as rattled a saber against Americans in years. The United States has become embroiled in all sides of the Syrian Civil War despite Syria having no strategic importance. The United States also appears determined to begin a new Cold War against Russia over Ukraine, which also has nothing to do with the United States. So why is China always given a free pass even when it actively commits acts of blatant espionage against the United States government and American corporations?

One reason that the United States refuses to hold China accountable for its acts of war is that China holds over $1.2 trillion in American debt. This accounts for 8% of American publicly held debt. This dependence on China in order to keep the warfare/welfare state funded and operating makes it unlikely that the United States will ever stand up to China for its extensive program of espionage. The Big Government Neoconservative and Neo-Progressive Statists will not dare bite the hand that feeds.

Another reason is that American corporations are dependent upon the cheap labor and goods that China provides. Hundreds of United States corporations including Apple Computers, Banana Republic, Dell, Cisco Systems, Coca Cola, GAP, LL Bean, Nabisco, Revlon, Walmart, and Xerox produce goods in factories in China. In 2013, the United States imported more than $440 billion of goods from China, resulting in a $318 billion trade deficit. As a result, the corporate interests which control American politics and government will never allow the United States government to exercise a foreign policy which threatens the corporate bottom line.

Unlike nations like Iran and Syria and insurgent groups like the Islamic State, China is a genuine threat to the United States. Not only has the United States become economically dependent on China in numerous ways and not only does China possess the espionage capabilities to victimize American government and corporations, but China possesses the capability to hack into American banks and its electrical grid. As a result, China is an actual threat to the United States. While collapsing the American economy would be equally destructive to China, having so much leverage over the United States makes China a grave threat to the safety of the American people.

(For a detailed discussion of the danger that China poses to the United States, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

Dictatorship, Freedom, and Efficiency

by Gerard Emershaw

The United Nations’ chief climate official Christiana Figueres has recently claimed that China is dealing with climate change better than democratic nations. According to Figueres, this is because China has avoided some of the “legislative hurdles” that are present in the American system. These “legislative hurdles,” of course, are elected representatives in the House and Senate who often disagree, often debate, and often block legislation. China’s dictators can simply push through any “reforms” that they wish.

There is little or no reason to believe that climate change is a real problem. Global temperature appears to have stopped increasing over a decade and a half ago. However, the issue is bigger than that. Take any problem that you believe is genuine and grave. Maybe that problem is air and water pollution. Maybe it is cancer. Maybe it is childhood poverty. Maybe it is obesity. Maybe it is child pornography. It does not matter what scourge you have in mind. The issue is that a dictatorship will always be able to handle some specific problem like these in what might be deemed a more efficient manner. President Obama has often lamented not being a dictator for this very reason.

What a constitutional republican democracy like the United States might lose in the short term ability to deal with a problem most efficiently it more than makes up for with the stability and protection of individual rights that comes from being slow and less efficient legislatively. The checks and balances of the three branches of federal government against one another and the added check of state governments providing another bulwark against federal power provided by the Tenth Amendment guarantees that neither tyranny of the dictator nor tyranny of the majority will threaten the individual rights of all Americans. When it comes to legislating, the slower the better. If climate change were a real problem, having a federal government with the ability to quickly do drastic and draconian things such as banning the use of fossil fuels would threaten individual rights and threaten the nation as a whole. The American form of government allows cooler heads to prevail, and cooler heads are more likely to solve real problems. More importantly, a limited government that cannot easily infringe upon the natural rights of its citizens is less likely to create problems in the first place.

President Obama has recently threatened to again act like a dictator if Congress does not pass the economic legislation that he desires. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” the President warned, hinting that he would use executive orders and other means outside of Congress to establish policies. While executive orders have been commonly used by all presidents, the power to issue them does not appear among the enumerated powers of the President in Article II of the Constitution. Therefore, the President does not have the power to use them. This is especially true when the President uses an executive order in order to establish a pseudo-law which Congress could legislate but has chosen not to. Will President Obama use executive orders to reignite his failing administration? Will he use it to establish economic reforms, gun control, amnesty, climate change legislation, etc.? If he does attempt to do it, chances are an impotent Congress will do nothing to stop him.