Friday, April 4, 2025

Why would Nancy Pelosi be opposed to Trump’s China tariffs?

Watch: Nancy Pelosi in 1996 Assails U.S. Free Trade with China: ‘Is This Reciprocal?’

In 1996, on the House floor,
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) assailed a
then-bipartisan plan to give Most
Favored Nation (MFN) trade status
to China, arguing that while the U.S.
has low tariffs on China-made goods,
China has high tariffs on
American goods.

While debating opening U.S. free trade with China by giving the communist country MFN status, Pelosi made clear she opposed the plan, noting the growing trade deficit and how it was leading to economic devastation for Americans.


Thursday, April 3, 2025

“All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”




Not Just Bad Policy: The Founders Called it Treason and War
By: Michael Boldin|Published on: Apr 2, 2025|Categories: Founding Principles


Treason. Invasion. Conquest.

That’s how the Founders and old revolutionaries described usurpation – power stolen, not delegated.

And it wasn’t just rhetoric. It was a foundational, and now-forgotten principle at the very heart of the American Revolution.

When government repeatedly goes beyond the limits of the Constitution, it’s not just an innocent mistake – it’s a kind of war waged against the sovereignty, or final authority, of the people.

MORE THAN JUST “BAD POLICY”

To the Founders, this wasn’t theory – it was a warning. Few, if any, put that warning into sharper words than St. George Tucker, a patriot of the Revolutionary War and one of the most important 
George Tucker
constitutional scholars of the early republic.
“If in a limited government the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people, which is thus endeavored to be subverted, and transferred to the usurpers.”

Tucker called it treason. Thomas Paine explained the foundation of it – where all power comes from.

“All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”

Paine and Tucker weren’t inventing something new. These were long-established principles, recognized for generations. Over a century earlier, Algernon Sidney laid the same foundation:

“The making of laws, coronation, inauguration, and all that belongs to the chusing and making of kings, or other magistrates, is merely from the people; and that all power exercised over them, which is not so, is usurpation and tyranny.”

John Locke took that idea a step further – defining usurpation as the theft of power that rightfully belongs to someone else:

“Usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to.”

A WAR AGAINST USURPATION

The American revolutionaries fought a long, bloody war to free themselves from the evils of usurpation.

People often say the Declaration of Independence listed grievances. But that word isn’t even in the text. Instead, the Declaration complained of “a long train of abuses and usurpations” and “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations.”

The American revolutionaries weren’t just airing policy disagreements. In the Declaration of Independence, they told the world that power had been seized – stolen – and turned against them.

And they didn’t stop at lofty ideals. The Revolution gave birth to something entirely new: written constitutions that put those principles into binding law. As Tucker explained:

“The American revolution seems to have given birth to this new political phenomenon: in every state a written constitution was framed, and adopted by the people, both in their individual and sovereign capacity, and character.”

This affirmed a core truth: the people hold sovereignty – they are the source of all power – and government is merely their agent, not their master.

“By this means, the just distinction between the sovereignty, and the government, was rendered familiar to every intelligent mind; the former was found to reside in the people, and to be unalienable from them; the latter in their servants and agents.”

John Jay, the first Chief Justice, emphasized that this principle was built into the Constitution itself: it only outlined the specific business the people chose to delegate to their agents:

“The Constitution only serves to point out that part of the people’s business, which they think proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated”

And he made it clear that these people were never meant to rule, but only to serve:

“those persons are to receive that business to manage, not for themselves, and as their own, but as agents and overseers for the people to whom they are constantly responsible, and by whom only they are to be appointed.”

WAR ON THE PEOPLE

The Founders didn’t just see usurpation as a legal issue. They saw it as something far more dangerous – not merely a theft of power, but a form of war against the people themselves.

Benjamin Franklin vividly described this during the Philadelphia Convention.

“As all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the Governing & Governed.”

At the height of the Revolution, Samuel Adams recognized the same truth – attacks on liberty are INVASIONS – an act of war:

“The people hold the Invasion of their Rights & Liberties the most horrid rebellion and a Neglect to defend them against any Power whatsoever the highest Treason.”

A century before that, Algernon Sidney called those who usurp power the greatest enemies a people can face.

“If he be justly accounted an enemy to all, who injures all; he above all must be the publick enemy of a nation, who by usurping a power over them, does the greatest and most publick injury that a people can suffer.”

Locke took it further. Usurpation, he said, isn’t just theft – it’s a form of domestic conquest.

“As conquest may be called a foreign usurpation, so usurpation is a kind of domestic conquest.”

And conquest, by its very nature, is war.

“Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people.”

Thomas Gordon didn’t hold back – he described lawless power as one of the most monstrous evils a people can face:

“There is something so wanton and monstrous in lawless power, that there scarce ever was a human spirit that could bear it; and the mind of man, which is weak and limited, ought never to be trusted with a power that is boundless. The state of tyranny is a state of war.”

St. George Tucker drove the point home – calling every act of usurpation not just theft, but treason or warfare against the people:

“Every delegated authority implies a trust; responsibility follows as the shadow does its substance. But where there is no responsibility, authority is no longer a trust, but an act of usurpation. And every act of usurpation is either an act of treason, or an act of warfare.”

A PRINCIPLE OLDER THAN AMERICA

This wasn’t some new American twist. It was an ancient truth. Cicero, 2,000 years ago, didn’t merely warn – he branded such tyrants as monsters on the spot.

“For as soon as a king assumes an unjust and despotic power, he instantly becomes a tyrant, than which there can be nothing baser, fouler – no imaginable animal can be more detestable to gods or men – for though in form a man, he surpasses the most savage monsters in infernal cruelty.”

In The Law of Nations. Vattel didn’t hold back – he called breaking the constitution “a capital crime.”

“To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted.”

NO LAW, NO OBLIGATION

Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui – likely the inspiration behind the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence – argued that when people with power violate fundamental principles, the people are not only freed from any duty to obey, they’re almost duty-bound to resist.

“But if the abuse of the legislative power proceeds to excess, and to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the laws of nature, and of the duties which it enjoins, it is certain that, under such circumstances, the subjects are, by the laws of God, not only authorized, but even obliged to refuse obedience to all laws of this kind.”

He was building on the work of people like Thomas Gordon who also took the position that no one was bound to obey usurpations of power.

“Human reason says, that there is no obedience, no regard due to those rulers, who govern by no rule but their lust. Such men are no rulers; they are outlaws; who, being at defiance with God and man, are protected by no law of God, or of reason.”

Patrick Henry put this principle into practice with his Resolutions against the Stamp Act in 1765. Referring to the hated tax as “illegal, unconstitutional and unjust,” he forcefully argued that the people are not bound to obey.

“The Inhabitants of this Colony, are not bound to yield Obedience to any Law or Ordinance whatever, designed to impose any Taxation whatsoever upon them, other than the Laws or Ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid.”

Tucker tied it all together – First, with a reminder that acts beyond the limits of the constitution – are not law at all.

“Acts of congress to be binding, must be made pursuant to the constitution; otherwise they are not laws, but a mere nullity; or what is worse, acts of usurpation.”

That being the case – the people are not bound to obey them. Going further, anyone taking an oath to support the constitution is bound to actively oppose them.

“The people are not only not bound by them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to any unconstitutional act of any department of the government.”

THE CONSTITUTION OR TYRANNY: THE CHOICE IS OURS

Violating the Constitution isn’t just a political mistake. From the Founders and Revolutionaries to the great thinkers who came before them, usurpation was called what it truly is: theft of power, treason against the sovereignty of the people, and an act of war and conquest.

This was the view of those who laid the intellectual foundation for the American Revolution – Locke, Cicero, Sidney, Vattel, and so many others. It was the view of founders like Paine, Adams, and more. They all made it clear: when government crosses the line, it turns from servant to enemy.

The Constitution isn’t a suggestion. It’s the supreme law of the land.

Here’s the kicker almost everyone ignores today: treason and tyranny will never stop themselves.

It’s up to the people to protect and defend their own Constitution and their own liberty – whether the government likes it or not.


Tags: Algernon Sidney, declaration of independence, Emer de Vattel, Founding Principles, History, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, John Locke, St George Tucker, Treason



Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin and Facebook.





Wednesday, April 2, 2025

We win, you lose... yet Obama and Hillary walk free.

 

Tuesday, April 1, 2025

For the first time in modern history a judge's robe isn’t bullet proof. Now he's facing criminal charges.



Monday, March 31, 2025

Storm Clouds Gathering


 





Widespread Voter Fraud as Millions of Non-Citizens Get Access to Social Security, Medicaid, and the Ballot Box — Millions Referred to DHS for Illegal Voting Prosecution (VIDEO) “This is mind-blowing!”


Billionaire entrepreneur and Trump advisor Elon Musk dropped a bombshell this weekend during a fiery 100-minute town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where he campaigned for conservative judge Brad Schimel in the state’s upcoming Supreme Court election on Tuesday.

Joined by Antonio Gracias, a private equity titan and a key member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team tasked with rooting out waste in the federal government, Musk unveiled a shocking chart: a dramatic spike in Social Security Numbers issued to non-citizens, soaring from 270,000 in 2021 to a mind-blowing 2.1 million in 2024.

That’s almost 5 million non-citizens now embedded in the system—collecting benefits, draining taxpayer dollars, and, most alarmingly, infiltrating the voter rolls.

“This is a mind-blowing chart,” Musk declared, pointing to the data. “This wasn’t an accident. This was a massive, large-scale program under the Biden administration to import as many illegals as possible—ultimately to change the voting map of the United States, disenfranchise the American people, and lock in a permanent deep-blue, one-party state from which there’d be no escape.”

Gracias, founder of Valor Equity Partners and a self-described son of legal immigrants, echoed Musk’s outrage.

“We went to Social Security to find fraud, and we stumbled on this by accident,” he said.

“And this isn’t political, by the way. My parents are immigrants… My brother and sister all born in Spain. I’m pro-legal immigration. This is not political. This is about America and the future of America. And there are a lot of good people in the system that pointed this in this direction. I want to honor them right now. They’re working with the government today and took the risks to show us these numbers and tell us what’s going on.”

Gracias continued, “We found 1.3 million of them already on Medicaid as an example. On every benefit program we went through, we found groups from this particular group of people, 5.5 million people in those benefit programs. And then what was really, really disturbing us was why. We’re asking ourselves why. And so we actually just took a sample and looked at voter registration records, and we found people here registered to vote in this population.”

The evidence, according to Musk and Gracias, is undeniable. By sampling voter registration records, they uncovered non-citizens who not only registered but voted in American elections.

“We’ve referred them to prosecution at Homeland Security Investigations,” Gracias revealed. “That’s happening right now.”

But the scandal goes deeper than voter fraud. Gracias, who traveled from D.C. to Social Security offices and the southern border alongside Musk, painted a grim picture of a system rigged to incentivize illegal entry.

“And then you walk across the border. They do what’s called a “release on your own recognizance” and give you an NTA — a Notice to Appear — which is to appear before a judge. The wait times on judges are, on average, six years. Look it up on Grok — you’ll see it. Immigration judges — there are only 700 of them. This is 5.5 million people,” he explained.

Gracias continued, “So what happens then? Once you’re in the country and you’ve got asylum through one of these pathways — and we mapped the whole thing out — you can apply for a work document. You file a 765 — that’s the work form. You get this form called the 766 — that’s the authorization. And then the Social Security Administration automatically sends you your Social Security number in the mail. No interview. No ID.”

Musk didn’t mince words about who’s to blame. “This is worth just reiterating. People sometimes think that under the Biden administration, that he was simply asleep with the switch. He wasn’t a sleep. No. They weren’t asleep with the switch.”

The human cost, however, is what Gracias called “the darkest thing.”

He estimates human traffickers and cartels raked in $13 to $15 billion exploiting this broken system, preying on desperate migrants from Africa and Central America.

“You think someone in Africa or Central America has $10,000 to $20,000 to pay these traffickers? No. What happens is: you come in, then you owe them the money. You’re an indentured servant,” said Gracias.

“And if you don’t pay? What do they do? They kill your mother. They kill your brother. They kill your family. What happens next? That’s what we discovered. And I have to tell you, it’s tragic to me. The human tragedy this created is the real problem,” he added.

Even worse, ICE data reveals 30,000 children who never showed up for their hearings and 270,000 more who didn’t even get Notices to Appear.

“ICE told us that kids are being trafficked back and forth across the border to complete families to make this easier. This is a human tragedy,” Gracias said.

“And how many of these people died on the way up here that didn’t make it in? What happened to them? We created a system here that created a incentive for people to come and been taking advantage of by these traffickers.”

Watch:

Jim Hᴏft Jim Hᴏft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016. You can email Jim Hᴏft here, and read more of Jim Hᴏft's articles here.

SUSIE WILES

 

Sunday, March 30, 2025

They live amongst us... THE INSIDERS

911 


0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Corrupt Judge Gets His Due

Corrupt Judge Mocks Karoline Leavitt - Ends Up in Handcuffs Minutes Later!


0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Friday, March 28, 2025

NPR National Propaganda Radio


We spent half a billion dollars a year for stations like @NPR and @PBS to bury the truth, call half the country illiterate Nazis, have drag queens on tell kids to shimmy and shake and tell Americans that there are at least 3 genders. To summarize, CEO’s of NPR & PBS 2 biased women who went after Pres Trump with unwarranted verbal attacks & smears, employ 87 Dems 0 GOP. Promote transgender people to influence little children to shimmy & shake. Today, they just didn’t remember or their opinions simply evolved.\ Trump Gunner: Taxpayer dollars should not fund propaganda that insults half the nation, pushes radical ideologies, and distorts reality. NPR and PBS have abandoned objective journalism in favor of leftist activism. It's time to cut the funding and let them survive on their own if they want to push this nonsense! Media needs to be independent and not funded by the government. That's a pretty simple rule to live by. If they can't support themselves by attracting listeners or viewers and advertisers then they'll go under. Pretty basic stuff here. The News Variable Show of Whatfinger News, with Mal Antoni hosting... All controversial statements by Mr. Antoni are his own opinions. If you don't like them, don't watch. If you are one of those nut cases who watch just to complain, get a life or stick to fake news. We have no time for your BS. America needs patriots that just say it like it is. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Mr. Antoni is now the main editor over at Whatfinger News, the greatest aggregate news site out there - with more news and commentary daily than the next 7 competitors combined. Experience it once and you're hooked https://www.whatfinger.com/ ------

DISCLAIMER: This show contains opinions of the host and guests and is meant for education and/or entertainment purposes only. News Variable provides information and the sources where it was obtained. Viewer discretion is advised.

Elon Musk and the DOGE Team. Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000

 

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Wednesday, March 26, 2025

BREAKING: Venezuelan President Maduro has Now Turned In State Evidence Against The Biden Administration.



BREAKING: Venezuelan President Just Publicly Surrendered to President Trump! Maduro Has Now Turned In State Evidence Against The Biden Admin & ls Releasing PROOF That Biden Asked The Venezuelan Government TO SHIP Tren de Aragua Drug Gangs Into The US.  

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Joe Biden, no jail time...yet! U.S. Representative Nancy Mace, "It will blow your effing mind."




 

SO GOD MADE TRUMP

 

Monday, March 24, 2025

Trump’s Mineral Revolution

Storm'n Norm'n 

Age of Trump 

Trump’s Mineral Revolution Secures Our National Sovereignty

by Ronald Beaty | Mar 23, 2025

In a world where nations wield resources as weapons, President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production,” signed March 20, 2025, stands as a clarion call to restore America’s industrial might. This isn’t just policy — it’s a declaration of independence from the shackles of foreign dependency and bureaucratic paralysis. For too long, the United States has ceded its mineral supremacy to adversaries like China, watching helplessly as Beijing’s grip on rare earths, lithium, and cobalt strangles our economic and national security. Trump’s EO, rooted in conservative principles of self-reliance, deregulation, and economic vigor, is a masterstroke to reclaim what is rightfully ours: the ability to fuel our future from our own soil.

This is not blind nostalgia for smokestacks but a forward-looking stand for sovereignty.

The stakes could not be higher. America’s vast mineral wealth — lithium in Nevada, uranium in Utah, copper in Arizona — lies dormant beneath a web of federal red tape, a legacy of progressive overreach that has kneecapped our miners and enriched our rivals. China controls 60-70 percent of global rare earth production and over 80 percent of their processing, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, while we import 100 percent of our rare earth oxides. This isn’t just an economic embarrassment; it’s a strategic vulnerability. Every F-35 jet, every Tesla battery, every wind turbine relies on minerals we don’t produce at scale.

Trump’s EO rightly frames this as a national security crisis, invoking the Defense Production Act and a prior “National Energy Emergency” (EO 14156, January 20, 2025) to slash regulatory barriers and unleash private enterprise.

At its core, this order embodies the conservative ethos: government as a facilitator, not a dictator, of prosperity. It mandates agencies to identify and approve mining projects within 10 days, prioritizes federal lands for mineral extraction, and mobilizes capital through innovative mechanisms like the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and Defense Department leases. This isn’t reckless — it’s resolute. The EO’s timelines are tight because freedom delayed is freedom denied. When the Bureau of Land Management takes seven years to permit a mine, as it did with Nevada’s Thacker Pass lithium project (still pending in 2025), we lose jobs to Beijing and sovereignty to bureaucrats. Trump’s order cuts that Gordian knot, proving that limited government can still act with purpose.
Consider the economic stakes. The mineral sector could be America’s next great frontier, a modern echo of the steel and oil booms that built our industrial backbone. The American Mining Association estimates that domestic critical mineral production could generate 50,000-100,000 jobs, mostly in the heartland. In states like Wyoming and Montana, where unemployment lingers from coal’s decline, this EO offers a lifeline. Onshoring battery and magnet production could slash EV costs, boosting firms like Rivian while cutting reliance on Chinese supply chains.

Critics, predictably, will cry environmental apocalypse. They’ll conjure images of scarred landscapes and poisoned rivers, ignoring that modern mining, from heap leaching to tailings management, has evolved since the 1970s. The EO doesn’t gut safeguards; it streamlines them, demanding Congress clarify the Mining Act of 1872 — a law so outdated it predates the light bulb. This is a mandate to strike a balance: stewardship of natural resources doesn’t mean locking resources away but using them wisely for human benefit.

Besides, the real ecological threat isn’t American mines — it’s China’s, where lax standards devastate ecosystems while we wring our hands. If we don’t mine here, we outsource the damage there, a hypocrisy no one should accept.
The EO’s genius lies in its fusion of public power and private dynamism. By waiving cumbersome DPA requirements and delegating authority to Defense and the DFC, Trump turbocharges investment without ballooning the deficit. Picture this: private firms leasing DoD land in Nevada to build refineries, backed by SBA loans and Export-Import Bank offtake deals. Government clears the path, entrepreneurs pave it. The proposed DFC mineral fund, paired with Defense’s Industrial Base Analysis, could rival China’s state-backed juggernauts, proving that free markets, not socialism, win resource wars.

Obstacles to Extracting Minerals

Yet, Americans must temper their enthusiasm with realism. This EO isn’t a magic wand. Our mineral processing lags — zero rare earth refineries operate stateside, per the Department of Energy — and rebuilding could take a decade. China’s cost advantage (20-30 percent cheaper, per industry analysts) means U.S. miners need tariffs or subsidies to compete, tools the EO sidesteps.

Legal challenges loom, too; environmentalists will sue under NEPA, as they did with Minnesota’s Twin Metals (blocked 2023-2025), testing the order’s mettle. And rural communities near mines may balk, fearing water shortages or cultural disruption — a reminder that liberty includes local voices.

These hurdles don’t diminish the EO’s vision; they refine it. Success will require complementary steps: tax credits for processing plants, vocational programs to train miners (only 13 U.S. universities offer mining degrees, per the Society for Mining Engineers), and trade policies to level the playing field. Congress, too, must act on the Mining Act, a task Trump’s team should press with the same urgency as border security. With Republicans holding the House and Senate in 2025, this could pass by year’s end, cementing the EO’s foundation.
The broader implications are profound. For decades, we’ve let globalists hollow out our industries, trading self-sufficiency for cheap imports. Trump’s EO reverses that surrender, echoing Reagan’s call to stand tall. It’s a middle finger to the Davos crowd who’d rather we beg Beijing than dig in Boise. And it’s a strategic coup: uranium independence bolsters our nuclear edge, rare earths secure our tech primacy, and copper fuels our grid. In a multipolar world, where China and Russia hoard resources, this EO positions America to lead, not follow.


This is not blind nostalgia for smokestacks but a forward-looking stand for sovereignty. Yes, execution matters — agencies must deliver, investors must step up, and greens must be reasoned with, not steamrolled. But the alternative is grim: a nation beholden to Xi Jinping’s whims, our factories idled, our defenses exposed. The EO’s flaws — tight timelines, processing gaps — are fixable. The American people should back this effort at mineral independence with the same resolve that built this nation. If we don’t, someone else will. And they won’t wave our flag.

Sunday, March 23, 2025

So you want to buy some gold do you?


 

Don't ask me why I said what I said...but when Levin mentioned Gramsci I...

 The best of Life, Liberty, and Levin.

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds


Until we get rid of the cancer that eats away at our Republic, there will be conflicts amongst us; aka, "There will be wars and rumors of war." 

Barack Obama is the carcinogen that damages the DNA of America and is spread widely within the Democratic Party.  Rather than saying that Obama is a follower of Gramsci, Marx, Engel or others, it would be more correct to say he is the ultimate follower of Columbia University which is the institutional summation of Communist thought in today's America. Whether we dwell on FDR's "The Forgotten Man" or Obama’s "From The Bottom Up", these are appeasing words coming from the men who never forgot themselves and governed from the top down.

"I think we have to rebuild healthy mediating institutions, worker organizations, civic associations, religious associations, trade groups, both in the real world and the virtual world, and they need to be adapted to how we live today. And they have to operate from the bottom up, and we have to find ways of bringing people from different backgrounds together in these groups, so we can all develop better habits of listening to each other, and debating each other, and making group decisions together for the common good." ~ Barack Hussien Obama 

~ Storm'n Norm'n 

Friday, March 21, 2025

CHINA, JAPAN, and AMERICA...in my humble opinion

A senior official in charge of the Communist Party of China's external activities expressed his wariness of Taiwan, where Japanese politicians continue to visit, when a delegation from the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan visited Beijing.

 On the 21st, Liu Jianchao, director of the Central Liaison Department of the Communist Party of China, met with a delegation from the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, including former Chairman Katsuya Okada, who visited Beijing. Liu reportedly mentioned the successive visits of Japanese politicians to Taiwan and the movement towards an Asian version of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Former Chairman Okada explained that "it is short-sighted to say that a Taiwan emergency is a Japanese emergency," but said that there are many Japanese businessmen and tourists in Taiwan, and that "if a Taiwan emergency were to occur, Japan would have no choice but to take a great interest in it.

 " In response to former Chairman Okada's statement that "disarmament should be discussed between Japan and China," Director Liu reportedly emphasized that China's increased military spending is "for the sake of protecting the country," saying that China's capabilities are inferior to those of Japan and the United States.

________Storm'n Norm'n OPINION_______

The thing that caught my eye was in that last paragraph:

China's increased military spending is "for the sake of protecting the country," saying that China's capabilities are inferior to those of Japan and the United States.

I don't believe for a minute that China's military spending is for "protecting" the country, but rather in preparation for an attack offensively against America. Their long range goals have been documented elsewhere and its Japan interests would be only if Japan would get in their way in accomplishing their long range goals.  

China has openly declared its desire to occupy America and in recent years have actually purchased thousands of acreage to establish a pre-invasion presence. (By the way... Where are all those military aged men who recently entered the country across our southern border?) You can read more about China's interests in America by clicking on the following statement by a previous Chinese Defense Minister:

"Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our needs for mass colonization."

As far as the inferiority/superiority assessment of Japan vs China I think it was fairly accurate described some years earlier than the above article; as follows:

China and Japan have distinct approaches to military readiness, with China prioritizing a large, modernizing military focused on maintaining CCP control and Japan focusing on defense and technological advancements, though both have been modernizing their militaries. 
Here's a more detailed comparison:
China:
  • Focus:
    China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) is primarily focused on upholding the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) rule, rather than preparing for large-scale war. 
  • Modernization:
    China is rapidly modernizing its military, investing heavily in advanced technologies like hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence. 
  • Naval Power:
    China has surpassed Japan in terms of aggregate tonnage of principal surface combatants, with the PLAN exceeding the JMSDF in total tonnage by about 40 percent by 2020. 
  • VLS:
    China's catchup in vertical launch systems (VLS) has been stunning, with the PLAN having 75 percent more VLS cells than the JMSDF by 2020. 
  • Doubtful Combat Readiness:
    Some analysts, including RAND, raise doubts about the PLA's combat readiness, citing internal corruption, political priorities, and a lack of combat experience. 
  • Historical Lessons:
    China might be drawing lessons from Imperial Japan's World War II strategy, aiming for swift strikes to prevent U.S. interference in a potential conflict over Taiwan. 
Japan:
  • Focus:
    Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) prioritize defense and maintaining regional stability, rather than aggression. 
  • Technological Advancements:
    Japan is known for its advanced military technologies, including the E-767 AWACS plane, which has a long flight range and high speed. 
  • Naval Power:
    While China has surpassed Japan in terms of aggregate tonnage, Japan maintains a lead in average tonnage per combatant. 
  • Strategic Alliances:
    Japan is strengthening its military and forging strategic alliances with other countries, particularly the United States, in response to growing threats from China. 
  • Defense Capabilities:
    Japan is ramping up its military defenses, developing advanced technologies like railguns, and responding to China's actions in the region. 
  • Historical Context:
    The relationship between China and Japan is deeply rooted in their long history of conflict, particularly during the "Century of Humiliation".