There is something about controlling information and censoring any criticism that can blind you to irony. That seems to be the problem this week when a Chinese spokesperson objected that a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre as a violation of international law. So massacring thousands is a purely domestic matter but criticizing it is an international law violation.
Pompeo called on China to disclose the full death toll from the suppression of the 1989 student-led protests. There still is no official count on the number of dead. What really was likely to tick off the Chinese was Pompeo’s praise for the “heroic protest movement” that ended when “the Chinese Communist Party leadership sent tanks into Tiananmen Square to violently repress peaceful demonstrations calling for democracy, human rights, and an end to rampant corruption.”
The Associated Press reported the response complaining that the message “grossly intervenes” in domestic Chinese affairs and characterized Pompeo’s comments as “an affront to the Chinese people and a serious violation of international law.”
The statement truly fits within the twisted logic of the Communist regime where communist leaders and their families live like princes and citizens are rated according to their citizen scores. Thus, it is the public discussion of the massacre and not the massacre itself that is the outrage for the Chinese.
Over the years various Western news media have quietly admitted there’s no evidence that even a single student died in Tiananmen square that day. You can Google various articles that debunk the myth over the years. How the original lies got started. Of course we know why they were perpetuated and why eg the NYT keeps lying about it 21 years after they published an article debunking it.
China did have an official death toll for the student protests and it was zero, which matches what eye witnesses have said. They also said that completely different protests by a completely different group of people in a completely different part of Beijing on the same day came to 300 dead (many of which were the unarmed soldiers trying to restore order). That’s always been the official Chinese position and eye witness accounts seem to back it up.
Tiananmen is an interesting example of how propaganda by Western media can grow to the level of a sort of legend so quickly and despite being against all the facts and even with many articles debunking the false accounts. People just don’t check the facts. It’s all narrative.
Over the years various Western news media have quietly admitted there’s no evidence that even a single student died in Tiananmen square that day.
I guess the sorosphere outfits are facing competition from outfits in violation of FARA.
ha ha ha the PLA finally checks in with a hireling.
6 dollars you were promised meant 6 yuan and that post will only fetch you 1/6 of a dollar dude, sorry to inform you
Now it says 504 Gateway… no telling what you are going to be reading…. Cheers!
Only if you have no knowledge of the direction they are taking and want them to go in the direction the local Socialist Party is supporting.
China’s accusation that criticizing its massacre of peaceful protesters violates “international law” is a good example of why countries must maintain sovereignty. When countries merge into “Super States”, such as the EU, for example, then they get stuck with bad laws created by unelected bureaucrats that their own citizens don’t want. There’s nothing they can do about it. Should the US ever find itself in some similar Super State, it could well discover that free speech gets curtailed by the bureaucrats overseeing it.
A good example of a bad rule the member states are stuck with is the semi-annual movement of the EU Parliament between two different countries. It costs millions of Euros, and grinds government to a halt. Totally ignorant, and yet there is absolutely nothing any of the member states can do about it. It’s like the Time Share that won’t go away, and they’re stuck paying rent in perpetuity. I wish them the best of luck in Brexit.
How many think the current leadership of China.. the ones that took it into market capitalism, the ones that allowed all their citizens access to vehicles, cell phones, laptops have anything to do with those that were in power during the Tianamen incident?
Did you ever stop to THINK that dumping on people who ARE moving in the correct direction instead of remaining mired in left wing socialists regressivism like one of our own political organizations MAY be the wrong thing.
Or are you purposefully encouraging a regression like the path you chose instead of the Representative Constitutional Republic. Never mind allowing those who are incorrect to violate their Oath of Office and encourage it to happen. Speaking of Comrades Ocasio and Pelosi.
Why two? Something went wrong with the wifi hook up and a 505 message popped up. So I backed out deleting and started over and bang there they were.
Also I don’t get the privilege of making changes or deletions.
So to finish….
Have you been to China? Recently, lately? If not quit acting like you know what you are talking about. I fully support the right of that country to make changes in the direction they are going and fully deny the right of of our own socialist foreign ideology to insert their ROTTEN version.
I have severe doubts that China is moving in the right direction. It still calls the dense smog around Hong Kong “fog”. It’s implemented a “citizen score” that will prevent people from getting a job, anywhere, or flying, if they get a bad score for slights such as criticizing the government. The government gets to decide who’s a good boy. It still hasn’t come clean to its own people about what happened in Tieneman. Plus, China is some of the most prolific, state-sponsored thieves of American intellectual property on the planet.
Although it allows limited capitalism, it is viewed as temporary, and without the strong individual rights necessary for capitalism to be a fair system. China’s constitution still states its “highest ideal and ultimate goal is the realization of communism.”
The citizen scoring and Big Brother surveillance state is a monumental step backward.
Did China ever agree to go under International Law. Or is it like a President making a deal and the country being held to it when the deal or treaty to be exact was never consented to as required by USA law?
Just like when we refused as a unit to wear a blue beret and put ourselves under the command of foreigners.
What became of it. We wore our own and followed our own leaders and still did the job.
Enough of this left handed violation of laws unless like The Law of Land Warfare it’s agreed to by our entire government as required.
China is brutally and mercilessly oppressive and totalitarian; true to the nature of communism. China is immutably communist. The success of Hong Kong and predacious, lucrative trade with the West have not “changed its spots.”
________________________________________________________________
KING RICHARD II
“Rage must be withstood:
Give me his gage:
lions make leopards tame.”
THOMAS MOWBRAY
“Yea, but not change his spots:…”
Why He Didn’t Fight Communism
TRUMP CLAIMS INCREASED DEFENSE SPENDING..
COMPENSATES FOR HIS LACK OF SERVICE IN VIETNAM
“I thought it was a terrible war,” Trump told Piers Morgan on “Good Morning Britain” on Wednesday. “I thought it was very far away, and at that time nobody ever heard of the country. So many people dying, what is happening over there? So I was never a fan — like we’re fighting against Nazi Germany, we’re fighting against Hitler.”
The exchange occurred after Morgan asked Trump whether he “wished” he had served in the military, particularly in Vietnam, which Trump avoided with a string of student deferments and a medical disqualification for bone spurs.
Trump appeared to harness a deeply held belief in U.S. memory — that the Vietnam War was fought by reluctant draftees in an unpopular conflict, in turn providing cover for those who sought to avoid it altogether.
But the United States did not send an army of draftees to Vietnam. Between 1964 and 1973, volunteers outnumbered draftees by nearly 4 to 1. In Vietnam, two-thirds of troops had volunteered to serve. They did so for a variety of reasons: a sense of duty, to avoid dim prospects at home or to have control over their assignments that draftees did not.
“I would have not have minded that at all. I would have been honored” to serve, Trump said, though he did not address accusations of draft dodging with Morgan.
However, Trump added, he has increased the Pentagon’s budget during his tenure, which he said should be considered as an amends to avoiding service.
“I think I make up for it right now,” Trump said, describing a proposed defense budget that will approach $750 billion in 2020. “I think I am making up for it rapidly.”
An increasing defense budget has not translated to a potent, agile military, however. For instance, in March, Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, expressed concern that billions of dollars he needed for hurricane repairs were stalled. Meanwhile, the Pentagon diverted focus and resources to operations on the U.S. southern border.
Edited from: “Trump Is Making Up For Not Serving In Vietnam With Increased Defense Spending, He Says”
Today’s Washington Post
For all those visionary Lefties out there; the Tiananmen Square massacre, or even modern day Venezuela, is what it looks like when you support the idea that all rights come from government and you’ve lost the ability to fight back.
Olly, it wouldn’t matter what the Chinese in Tiananmen Square, the Jews in Warsaw, slaves in Virginia, or Ukrainians in the 1930’s believed about where their rights came from. They had none. You confuse a belief in whether someone actually has rights with a belief in passivity regarding them. I believe in civil and human rights as strongly as you do, but I don’t acknowledge they exists without our making them exist.
Anon Why do you think they want your guns? to leave you defenseless so they can rule with an iron fist. look at the places you named above all those people had no means of defense.
Bruce, who is “they”?
Do you really think that if Trump refuses to leave office and the military backs him up that you and I are gonna’ make that go away with our guns? More likely, somebody steals them and goes off in a school or commits suicide.
I believe in civil and human rights as strongly as you do, but I don’t acknowledge they exists without our making them exist.,
Really? So what you’re saying is you really don’t believe civil and human rights exist beyond your own imagination. What argument are you going to make to justify your imagination when you are in the minority?
Olly, are you high? You’re the one imagining rights exist when clearly they don’t. No, those rights exist right now in real time in the US, and most them do also in the countries of our democratic allies. That is something to celebrate as a real advancement for humans. God and nature had nothing to do with it. Humans did it and it is up to us to expand and keep those rights.
You’re the one imagining rights exist when clearly they don’t. No, those rights exist right now in real time in the US, and most them do also in the countries of our democratic allies.
Do I need to be high to follow your logic train?
You say I’m imagining rights exist that clearly don’t; yet you state those rights exist. Hmm.
You didn’t answer the most important question:
What argument are you going to make to justify that real advancement when a majority of your fellow humans support a government advancing in a different direction? Remember: Elections have consequences.
Olly, I have no clue what your point(s) is/are.
To be clear on what I think: Those rights exist here and in the countries of our democratic allies, not insubstantial part of the world, and more than at any previous time. They don’t exist in China – though their lives and even freedom are much improved over their past, or at all in North Korea.
As to the argument I would make in favor of widening and keeping our rights and freedoms, you want my speech? Of course I would argue for the benefits to both individuals and society, including future generations.
I have no clue what your point(s) is/are.
JUSTIFY your claim to certain rights. What happens to the legitimacy of your claim when a majority want to claim something else?
Olly, just like your claim to natural or God given rights, they will cease to exist for some period of time. I have some faith in our improvements due to civilization and knowledge to think and hope that a belief in the superiority of systems built on consent of the governed, with rights and freedom will survive whatever dark days may – or may not come. We are still at heart, tribes of beings close to chimps and share much of their savagery and impulse, but we have come a long way and I don’t think we’ll forget what got us here.
but we have come a long way and I don’t think we’ll forget what got us here.
How do you think we got here? Because if you’re putting your faith in human nature, you’ve either forgotten or never knew.
Olly, we are all we have, and for coming from a tribe of chimps we’re doing very well. Human nature is both the best and the worst, but we have the ability to improve on that, and we have. That’s how we got here.
Human nature is both the best and the worst, but we have the ability to improve on that, and we have.
Human nature has never improved. What has improved is how we manage it in civil society. The Divine Right of Kings was a long time means to manage it. That was rejected in a very consequential way. Some rights were determined to preexist the state. They could not be legitimately taken away.
Is the reason you deny natural rights exist outside government based primarily on the insecurity of those rights?
Olly, when you say “What has improved is how we manage it.in civil society”, I agree and mean the same thing. Yes, we (humans) remain capable of unspeakable atrocities. But as a for example. the behavior of ISIS – public beheadings – which is almost universally looked on with revulsion as barbaric, was common behavior for societies up to several hundred years ago. Slavery is a much diminished institution though it exists in pockets.
I agree that rights cannot be legitimately taken away because a growing number of humans believe that democracy with individual rights are superior for both individuals and society. I don;t agree these rights always existed since they haven’t and always will, though I hope we are smart enough to make it so. I don’t believe in any other beings guaranteeing them then other than humans.
If I were to summarize the fundamental difference between us it would be this:
My position: Those rights that I refer to as natural rights preexist government. If the government doesn’t secure them then they are disabled, but still in existence.
Your position: No rights exist until government recognizes them and secures them. If the government doesn’t secure them, then they no longer exist.
Let me ask you this: If I’m a victim of identity theft and everything that I could rightfully claim as mine was taken away, do I no longer exist?
Olly, I have good news! You would still exist.
I’m glad to know you think that is good news. 😉
Suggest re-reading of the Declaration ofIndependence.
The Declaration is not the law of the land, and it’s stament on rights was not included in our Constitution. That was not a mistake. Here’s the preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Declaration is not the law of the land, and it’s stament on rights was not included in our Constitution. That was not a mistake.
Apparently it was. Put another way; they did not imagine that 243 years later we would have people denying what was then asserted as self-evident truths. Yeah, that founding generation sure was an ignorant lot.
Olly, it is ironic that you are the one declaring our founders to have made a mistake and for being short sighted while pretending I am calling them ignorant.
They declared these truths to be self-evident. You believe they are not truths at all and therefore not self-evident. They believed we had rights that preexisted government. You believe no such rights exist. I believe their mistake is in underestimating human nature. They didn’t imagine that one day we would have citizens (not in government) insisting they have no rights other than what their government granted them. Do I have this correct?
Olly, no. I’ve explained my position as clearly as I can, though I might add that they were designing “their government”, which is now ours. It is not some alien force descended on us as many of you on the right prefer to think of it. Without it, you don’t have rights. That’s reality and it’s a pretty good one.
Anon,
The rights exist outside government. The government exists to defend them when necessary and to not encroach on them.
We are responsible to each other for this, as well.
PS Olly, without reading too much into them, I think your comments are based on a fantasy of humans as a collection of individuals associating by their free will into social groupings, but that’s false. We are universally highly social beings who’s very identity is formed by society. Because we can collect and save knowledge and then share it, including the language tools necessary, we have spread across the globe and into every environment. That is the essence of who we are and the key to our success – along with the thumb, upright position, and large brain, no doubt evolved due to success with social interaction. We can’t exist or thrive without social group, and the mass expression of that is government, for better or worse. It turns out, mostly better, again with the evidence being our wild success in the material world but also in the realm of individual rights. But we have to maintain it, it’s not automatic.
I think your comments are based on a fantasy of humans as a collection of individuals associating by their free will into social groupings, but that’s false.
We can’t exist or thrive without social group,
Say what? You state social groups are necessary to our existence, but identify my comments as fantasy. Are you then suggesting it is a fantasy that we are a collection of individuals associating by their free will?
Because we can collect and save knowledge and then share it, including the language tools necessary, we have spread across the globe and into every environment.
Isn’t that essence of the DoI?
We can’t exist or thrive without social group, and the mass expression of that is government, for better or worse. It turns out, mostly better, again with the evidence being our wild success in the material world but also in the realm of individual rights.
That expression of government being our constitution, rooted in the knowledge expressed in the DoI.
But we have to maintain it, it’s not automatic.
Correct. As long as we remain anchored in the principles of the DoI, then we have something to justify it.
The Constitution had to be amended to provide the human rights enjoyed by the free citizens of Virginia. George Mason campaigned among the various states to hold up ratification of the Constitution until it was amended to include something like the Virginia Bill of Rights
“They had none. ”
If they had none, then why would such things be upsetting?
“I don’t acknowledge they exists without our making them exist.”
Then what is the meaning of the 10th Amendment?
And, if the government can make them exist, then they can disappear them, too.
No, they are inalienable and are as much a part of us as existence. They can be tromped upon; they can be ignored; but that doesn’t make them not exist.
Prairie, we disagree on definitions among other things.
No, the government cannot disappear rights without violating the Constitution and if anyone violates them without recourse the rights don’t exist. That doesn’t mean passive acceptance.
Anon,
“the government cannot disappear rights without violating the Constitution”
True. However, the Constitution didn’t bloom into existence without the recognition of said rights. The rights were recognized and the Constitution was formulated to best promote and protect them.
Have you ever had the experience of looking right at something but not recognizing it? Then, in a flash, you realized the person or object was there? The person or object was there all along; you simply did not recognize that it was. The rights have been there all along; people needed to recognize them.
Note the Preamble:
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”
There can be no Justice without a recognition and defense of civil rights. Tranquility is in peril when we do not recognize one another’s rights. What is Liberty without the recognition, promotion, and defense of the rights inherent to our existence? As established in the Constitution, the government is not only established as being formed by the people, but that the rights of the people are not to be infringed upon by said government. The rights preceded the formation of the government.
I fundamentally disagree with you regarding “if anyone violates them without recourse the rights don’t exist”.
That is nonsensical. The rights were violated, but they were violated without recourse. Rights can only be violated if they exist.
Some animals are more equal than others lies behind “anyone violates them without recourse the rights don’t exist” if you get down to the bedrock.
If one’s rights are being violated without recourse, then it is the governing body that is at fault for not giving you recourse.
Rights have permanence just as objects do, even if hidden behind the blanket of a corrupt government refusing or ignoring the need for recourse.
Very good post Prairie Rose!
I fundamentally disagree with you regarding “if anyone violates them without recourse the rights don’t exist”
I believe this is at the root for those that believe all rights come from government. There are three ways that I see that belief may come from:
1. They don’t believe in a Creator (God) and therefore everything that exists is a manmade construct, including rights.
2. They believe in a Creator (God), but government is where their rights come from.
3. Regardless of where they believe their rights come from, if they aren’t secured by government, then they don’t exist.
All 3 reflect a dependency on the state that was never the intent of the framers. You rightly mentioned the 10th amendment. Clearly there are designed limits at the federal level and at the state; the people retain the rest. Their belief flips that on it’s head, with the federal consuming powers that were never intended, the states taking the leftovers, and the people closing their eyes to it all hoping they don’t get run over in the process.
That dependency makes them victims of their own ignorance. If they truly believed the government has all the power, then they would never defend themselves against any charges by the state. They would just plead no contest and get it over with. If they were the victim of any crime, they would simply accept whatever restitution they got, including nothing. The next logical step would be bypassing trials altogether. And ownership in nothing.
In reality, of course they’re going to defend themselves, even if guilty. Of course they won’t accept the state doing nothing in the event a crime was committed against them. Once they’ve had enough of the abuse, then they would begin to understand the backstory to the DoI.
So of course they have rights that precede government. They have rights just because they exist. We give to the government the power to provide a certain amount of security of those rights. If they fail, that only means those rights exist in an insecure state. And if our government persists in that failure, we have to take it upon ourselves and find other means to secure our rights, (paraphrasing) all the way up to altering and/or abolishing our existing government and instituting a form of government that will secure those rights.
Seems to be quite the popular mode of conduct for leftists. It’s right at home here as well. Erase history and re-write it to your liking.
But let us not forget:
“I was really being tough and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters. They were great letters. And then we fell in love.”
Trump expressing his affection for a murderous dictator. Despicable…
That’s diplomacy at work. Study some history. Or not.
Diplomacy at work? You mean like Trump excusing/ignoring MBS’s murdering of a journalist? I’ll await the judgment of history if you don’t mind…
What journalist?
Kashoggi
Jeffery, I think it was a ruse to make Vladimir jealous.
the irony of this while watching the democrat house call for contempt of Barr while Holder still roams free is astounding.
They operate on the old adage: do not air dirty linens in public.
Their laundry is piling up, considering all their other problems they ignore or pretend do not exist (lack of religious freedom or freedom of speech, Orwellian rating system, environmental issues, animal cruelty, etc etc).
This is what CNN aspires to be.
It’s a rotten country.