Endangering Our Children and Our Nation
October 19, 2009 by The Staff at TheDP
Filed under From the Right
As a nation of people with disparate interests, we often disagree on political issues and about the events that shape our future as a country. But occasionally a threat arises which should cause us ALL to band together and take action. There is an editorial on Investors’ Business Daily you should read – sooner, not later. Before I got past the second paragraph, I knew this story needed to be posted immediately in the Daily Briefing section on The Daily Patriot, and that the issue warranted further study.
IBD entitled its editorial article, “Selling China The Rope To Hang Us.” Dramatic enough, but I instead entitled the link, “Treason or Stupidity at Commerce?” The first sentence in the IBD column is ominous: “On the eve of a visit by China’s No. 2 ranking military officer, the Obama administration loosens export controls on technology that will benefit Chinese missile development.” “Loosens” appears to be inaccurate, however. What President Obama has actually done is to delegate by executive order his own responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce for certifying exports of missile technology to Communist China.
Can someone please explain to me “why” the Obama administration (or any other) feels the need to allow the transfer of ANY technology and know-how, much less missile technology, to the military and government of Communist China? How exactly is our national interest served? Somebody, anybody, please enlighten me.
China sells us junk plastic toys and cheap manufactured conveniences. Our defense industry wants to sell China sophisticated technology to better aim its missiles at our children and at our soldiers in harm’s way. Is there any doubt that this same technology will eventually end up in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, or any of our other adversaries and enemies? Isn’t our government supposed to prevent such a risk?
Our elected officials must put an end to the careless, even treasonous, giveaway of sensitive technology. Treasonous. What else would you call it? Communist China is NOT our friend, and proves every day that it is not our ally. China is an adversary, and a ruthless competitor, economically and politically. Communist China engages in espionage against the USA every day. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense (even really smart people like Bill Maher) would realize that we as a nation should NOT be providing sophisticated military technology to Communist China.
During the 1990’s, the Clinton administration and its Commerce Department was directly responsible for the intentional transfer of critical missile guidance technology. That much is undisputed. To now repeat the error, by giving export control of such crucial technology to the circus barkers in the Commerce Department, is truly insane. What drives this lunacy, other than the greed and stupidity of politicians, their appointees, and corporate beneficiaries? How much longer will We the People stand by while Washington D.C. undermines the future of our country and the safety of our children and grandchildren?
Why worry, you ask? Are we fearmongering at The Daily Patriot? Shouldn’t we just trust the new Commerce Department to do “the right thing,” despite the failure of prior officials to do likewise?
President Obama’s third and ultimate choice for Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, has a checkered history involving illegal campaign donations from none other than the same influence-peddling Chinese lobbyists involved in the Clinton Chinagate scandal. So is Mr. Locke a trustworthy gatekeeper of our national secrets? Or will he, too, damage our national security as he allows Commerce to again cater to corporate interests?
Surely there is more to learn about Gary Locke before entrusting him with our nation’s security. Surely, there is also need for concern about his future decisions at Commerce based upon his past decisions and alliances. But the bigger issue here is whether or not any Commerce Department should be trusted, given its certain conflict of interest in regards to the sale of strategic technology. Perhaps it is more appropriate for President Obama to instead delegate such decision-making and analysis to the Defense Department and/or the CIA.
Friends and Fellow Patriots,
The original IBD article is actually two pages in length. Read them. Find other perspectives on the issue. Read those. Then do something! Pass the information along to a friend, but take action yourself! I will be calling, faxing, and/or emailing my elected Representatives, despite my skepticism of whether my Senators would ever oppose the efforts of the Commerce Department to sell ANY missile technology to the Chinese Government. Here are links to the Senators and Congressman that represent South Orange County, California: Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Congressman Campbell
Otherwise, you can locate your own representatives by using Google, Yahoo, or Bing, or better yet, start on this US government website.
Let me know what you think. Let me know what you’ve done about it. Your comments are welcome below.
(Thanks to my friend, Jim Dockstader, for his prompt feedback to my original post. He was the inspiration behind additional research, citations, and streamlining.)
Mark Roknich
Editor
The Daily Patriot
Greetings Fellow Patriots,
I think it is important to provide some information that neither the Washington Times nor IBD included in their inflammatory and irresponsible articles: reasoned analysis and references. Neither included pertinent legal analysis of the 2009-31 Presidential Determination and neither bothered to include text of the relevant controls that remain in place. ExportLawBlog provides a legal analysis that indicates that the rule change affects almost nothing of significance but cleans up administrative descriptions to reflect how things are already done. Sounds reasonable and authoritative to me. And a blog from the University of Mississippi School of Law provides a copy of the Determination that includes the original Section 1512 that is still in effect:
Section 1512 outlines controls that have been and will be in effect. There is no “loosening of controls” and as far as I can see there is no “Endangering Our Children and Our Nation.” There is no flow of sensitive technology that will go to China as a result of this. ALL exports to China must have certification to Congress; this remains the same.
Now, because of past loopholes and lapses it might be reasonable to raise an eyebrow upon hearing about the presidential determination. Fair enough…let’s ask some knowledgable people — legal experts. Let’s find out what it really means. Instead, the Times and IBD editors chose to join other daily non-journalistic, loud, fevered efforts over the last 9 months that strain to automatically paint a Democrat president as a traitor, exotic, insane, weak, stupid, lazy, communist, socialist, un-American, and/or dangerous…no matter what he does. Just as with lapel pins, talking with Iran, health care, death panels, a trip to the theater, and ANY other tidbit of news that can be twisted and exaggerated into a criticism or innuendo, the authors jump WAY beyond what the Determination says to whip up disproportionate fear and anger. When something like this comes around that should be discussed all I can think of are the dozens (hundreds?) of other instances in which these authors and those like them have clearly and demonstrably discredited themselves. Given what I see, their motive is not information, but anger, and if you look around at various right-leaning blogs you’ll see the kind of vitriol and froth that this misinformation can spawn.
The 2009-31 Determination is just the latest excuse to continue a campaign to make the presidency illegitimate or worse. I see this approach to public discourse as one of the major problems in this country over the last 15 years…undermines democracy in any number of ways.
I’m angry alright, but not in the way the authors intended. I did my homework.
James Dockstader
As usual, Jim, you are a calm voice amongst the clamor. Pointed as always, but calm nevertheless. While I agree that Section 1512 is intact, the point of my article was to opine that delegating the decision to the Commerce Secretary is a step in the wrong direction.
Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the State Department, either, with such solemn responsibility. As I stated earlier, there is an inherent conflict of interest at Commerce, and State as well. Commerce wants to facilitate trade. That is their primary charter. State wants diplomacy, and wants to “just get along” with friends and enemies alike. While either Department should always work within the confines of national security concerns, should either be burdened with the responsibility of keeping safe our nation’s secrets from her enemies? No they should not, in my opinion.
So, let the President, elected by the People, be responsible for these decisions, not the Commerce Secretary. If the President wants to delegate this solemn obligation, I suggest he delegate to a department whose primary responsibility is national security. The Department of Defense comes to mind.
Remember, we’re discussing missile technology, not coal plant scrubbers.