The China-Gate Canidate - The Idiot's Guide to China-Gate
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets. Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.
China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy, equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies. In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.
A Public Outcry Stopped Clinton in 1998 from Leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard
to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas. How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose. As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.
To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs. Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes. Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.
In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked. Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.
"We Like Your President, We Want to see Him Re-Elected"
Former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way. Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China. Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash. Needless to say, China does not share Clinton's enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1. "War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."
The hunt began when U.S. intelligence authorities learned through a series of clandestine telephone intercepts that Beijing had covert plans to influence the American elections in 1996. A Senate committee headed by Sen. Fred Thompson tried unsuccessfully last year to track down illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese, but was successfully stonewalled by the Clinton administration, ably assisted by the minority Democrats on the committee and their propagandist friends in the mainstream press, who mocked Thompson for his inability to deliver on his earlier intimations of foreign interference in an American election.
With the publication of the first in a series of New York Times articles written by Jeff Gerth, based on reporting done by himself, David Johnston and Don Van Natta, Thompson would appear to have been vindicated in a major way. What the Gerth article offered was no less than a smoking gun in the form of an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung to Justice Department investigators that he had given the Democrats nearly $100,000 that came from the Chinese People's Liberation Army. The money had been passed to him by Lt. Col. Liu Chao-ying of the PLA, whose father, General Liu Huaqing, was at the time the top military leader in China and a leading figure in the Chinese Communist Party.
According to Chung, $80,000 went Directly to the Democratic National Committee
He also said that Col. Liu, an executive in the Chinese aerospace industry, told him the source of the money. Jim Kennedy, special advisor to the White House counsel, commented, "We had no knowledge about the source of Chung's money or the background of his guest. In hindsight it was clearly not appropriate for Chung to bring her to see the President." He was apparently referring to a fund-raiser to which Chung had brought Col. Liu. Both had been photographed there with President Clinton.
"Appropriate" doesn't begin to cover it. Both Clinton and Gore had repeatedly attended fund-raisers at which well-heeled foreign investors had been present, yet they continue to maintain that they knew nothing, nothing about illegal foreign campaign contributions. Their story is about as credible as that of the piano player in the house of ill-repute who had no idea what was going on upstairs. The hundred-thousand-dollar question is what the Clinton administration had to do for all those generous donations. When foreign entrepreneurs kick in big time to an American political campaign it's probably not because they have acquired a passion for this or that variety of American politics. More likely they have some sort of quid pro quo in mind. That is the whole point of making foreign campaign contributions illegal.
Gerth, in his article, mentions that Chung's account is backed by "supporting documents" bank records, for example. Chung's testimony is the first concrete evidence of direct payments from the Chinese government to the Democratic Party, which are, of course, illegal. The existence of a Chinese plan to influence the American election suggests that the hundred thousand dollars passed by Col. Liu may be no more than the tip of the iceberg. The Justice Department is attempting to determine whether other Chinese executives or government officials were involved in such payoffs to the Democrats.
According to Gerth's article, an official of the Chinese government at first denied that there was any plan to influence U.S. elections, but by the following Tuesday, Deborah Orin had reported in the New York Post that "Chinese officials have confirmed that a top generals spy-trained daughter funneled illegal campaign cash to the Democratic National Committee."
The Gate Swings Open, Clinton traveled to China
Where he announced an increase in the pace of collaboration between the U.S. and China in the area of space technology. At the time the illegal contribution was made, the president had made certain decisions intended to make it easier for American commercial communication satellites to be launched on Chinese boosters. This was an important issue for Col. Liu's company which, in addition to building missiles for the Chinese military, is in the commercial satellite business.
It is also important to certain American companies, especially those in the communication satellite business. Companies such as Hughes, Loral, Motorola, and Martin Marietta, that build satellites had been paying hundreds of millions of dollars to launch their products on U.S. boost vehicles. The cost of using a Chinese booster is just $25 to $85 million per launch, according to Washington Times national security correspondent Bill Gertz. There was a problem, however. The Chinese boost vehicles were not reliable. On average only one launch in four could be expected to succeed.
In an article he wrote for National Review, Gertz explains how the American companies set out to get more payload into orbit for their money. Gertz quotes Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C. "Starting in 1993, Hughes and other satellite makers who wanted China to launch their payloads made every effort to limit the possibilities of error." In pursuit of this goal the companies were prepared to share "some of America's most sensitive missile technology." They conducted a series of discussions with the Chinese Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology on such arcane technical subjects as the adequacy of the "altitude-control system on the Long March launcher" (could Gertz possibly have intended to write "attitude control" here)?
Test Firings of a Kick Motor for the Booster's Last Stage the "Kick Stage"
imparts the final velocity vector to the payload and must meet rigorous accuracy requirements). Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the deal is described as follows by Gertz: "U.S. companies were also involved in giving China the same technology used to launch MIRVs (multiple, independently targeted re-entry vehicles), hydra-warheads that vastly increase the firepower of nuclear missiles." Why would U.S. companies do such a thing? Well, take for an example the launch of two "Iridium" satellites on May 2, using a Chinese Long March 2C booster.
The Iridium satellites, made by Motorola, will be part of a world-wide cellular-telephone network. The launch was near perfect, thanks to the infusion of U.S. technology, including "state-of-the-art satellite-dispensing technology." The know-how required to dispense multiple satellites into various orbits is not unlike that used to deliver multiple nuclear warheads to diverse targets. In both situations the problem consists of imparting a highly accurate velocity increment to each payload, whether the final destination is an orbit, or a target on the Earth's surface. (Note that the term velocity implies both a speed and a direction).
Since there have been recent attempts by people who have only a superficial grasp of the technical details involved to deny that so critical a transfer of military technology actually took place, it is worthwhile to explore this issue in more detail. Henry Sokolski, addressed the matter in a paper he wrote titled "Beyond The Loral-Hughes Controversy: A Decade of US Satellite Transfers And Their Military Significance."
Martin Marietta Launch their AsiaSat II Satellite on a Chinese Booster
They were concerned about the quality of the kick motor the Chinese were using. The solid fuel rocket motor had only been used once before in the launch of a Pakistani satellite and the operation had not been entirely successful. In an effort to assure that the kick motor would be sufficiently reliable to launch their satellite, the U.S. companies involved did an analysis to determine whether the grain structure of the solid propellant was properly designed to produce the exact amount of thrust required within the rigorous time constraints.
The thrust program of solid rockets is determined by the shaping of the propellant charge, or "grain." The speed of combustion and thus the pressure within the combustion chamber is determined by the size of the surface area exposed, and this changes as the propellant burns. Too much surface area exposed at a given time could result in excessive force being applied to the payload, resulting in damage to the satellite. Unless the thrust is precisely controlled in conformance with the guidance program, the payload will not go where it was intended to go.
Although theoretically the Americans involved in the analysis were not supposed to discuss the results with their Chinese counterparts, it would be naive to suppose that the latter did not take -note of any design changes that may have resulted and draw the appropriate conclusions. Other foreign nationals were also involved in the analysis and there is no way to know what information they may have imparted to the Chinese.
The Perfection of this Kick Motor has a Direct Military Significance
The Chinese adapted the Russian solid fuel SS-25 ballistic missile to their military requirements. This weapon uses a solid fueled post-boost vehicle (PBV) to defeat anti-missile defenses by maneuvering the warhead to evade them. (A purely ballistic trajectory is sufficiently predictable to present an "easy" target to the anti-missile missile). The similarity of the PBV to the kick stage is obvious and the technical improvements to the kick motor are directly applicable to the PBV.
Things didn't always go smoothly with Chinese satellite launches. In February of 1996 a Chinese Long March booster launched at a facility in Southern China exploded, destroying a $200 million American satellite owned by Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Space & Communications Ltd. The two companies analyzed the failure and came up with a number of recommendations on how to avoid such mishaps in future launches. These were presented in a detailed report which pinpointed the cause of the failure as a defect in the booster's guidance system.
Since the Long March rocket is also used to deliver nuclear warheads, the technology transferred in this instance has military value, but the two companies did not bother to check it out with the State Department to determine whether it is legal to share such information with the Chinese, who many in Washington see as a potential future adversary. After mulling the matter over for several months, the two companies reported to the State Department what they had done. This triggered a Pentagon investigation which concluded that "United States national security has been harmed."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), Chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, put the issue in sharper focus: "It seems what happened was a sterile, coldly calculated decision to fix these problems with no consideration of the national-security implications to the United States." Rohrabacher added, "We should not be making their missiles better." On the face of it, the congressman would seem to have a point. It is conceivable that one day Chinese missiles could be launched at American cities, anyone who doubts this should be aware that there are presently more than a dozen Chinese warheads targeted against American cities and thanks to the technical information we have given them, they will probably be able to hit them.
For the sake of full disclosure, it should be mentioned that Rep. Rohrabacher represents California's 45th congressional district, where the Delta rocket is made. The congressman is quite outspoken about that aspect of the issue as well, "Even the perfecting of the Long March for civilian [satellite launch] purposes was a betrayal of American interests because you're using a technology developed in the U.S., probably at the taxpayers' expense, in order to enable an economic adversary to defeat Americans in the economic arena," This speaks to the growing constituency for economic nationalism as advocated by Pat Buchanan, for as the congressman says, "The real victims here are American aerospace workers who are being sold out by their own companies."
A Textbook Case of "Free Trade" Harming the National Interest of Individual Americans
The free trade crowd like to tell us that the loss of low tech jobs to third world countries will be balanced by a burgeoning market for workers with high technical skills in this country. Perhaps they should tell that to the laid off workers who used to build Delta rockets and see how it plays. No doubt the stockholders of companies such as Hughes and Loral will benefit, but apart from that, it is difficult to see how the country or individual Americans benefit from this deal. Rohrabacher is not alone in voicing such sentiments. Rep. James A. Traficant (D-Ohio) complained of the trade surplus China presently enjoys relative to the U.S.
references: NewsMax Chuck Baldwin WND
The UN Plot to Confiscate Civilian Weapons - Weapons Control, your Choices and your Responsibilities
Informational Video's from Behind the New World Order