The Xinhua News Agency has just published an article that’s not flattering for Mitt Romney. Romney has criticized China in public for currency manipulation and shady trade practices.

In response, Xinhua published a commentary pointing out that Romney’s wealth stems in part from dealing with Chinese companies himself.

The commentary also takes a shot at Romney’s wealth, declaring it “rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics.”

Fair point; I’ll concede that. Romney took a shot at China and China punched back. (Although, if we made a list of EVERY American business that dealt extensively with China, it would be a very long, bipartisan list).

Let me follow up a fair point with a fair question: What IS the Xinhua News Agency? A Chinese version of the Associated Press?

Nope. Think Pravda or Tass instead.

From “Reporters without Borders: (Emphasis added).

With more than 8,000 employees and 105 branches worldwide, the official news agency, Xinhua, is at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party. To mark the 56th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, Reporters Without Borders releases a report of an investigation into how this highly unusual news agency operates. …

Although it is more and more regularly cited as a credible source – nearly one third of the news reports on China selected by Google News originate from the agency – Xinhua, the head of which has the rank of minister, is the linchpin of control of the Chinese media.

Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news agency has been completely subordinate to the CCP.

The Reporters Without Borders’ report includes accounts from several Xinhua journalists who agreed, on condition of anonymity, to explain how the control imposed by the CCP’s Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis.

With the help of former French journalist on Xinhua, Reporters Without Borders exposes the distortion of facts, hatred for its enemies (particularly the United States and Japan) and its support, through the treatment of international news, for the world’s worst regimes.

Boy, I bet that Stephanie Cutter and Danny Kanner had checked the RWB website on Xinhua before they PERSONALLY embraced its commentary on Twitter.

CUTTER: Must read:China’s Xinhua slams Romney for making his money off Chinese companies before running for pres. #hypocrisy.

KANNER: Xinhua on @MittRomney: “ironic” that his wealth “was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies”

Cutter and Kanner work for a presidential campaign. I’ll bet that I don’t need to tell you which one.

As a Republican, if the Communist Chinese (or any Communists, for that matter) are unhappy with my party’s nominee for president, IMO that’s good news for my nominee. But then again, we Republicans are used to Communists being unhappy with us. In fact, we prefer it that way.

Sometimes, you wear your enemies as badges of honor, as well as your friends. Lech Walesa, the hero of “Solidarity” and the Gdansk shipyards, endorses Mitt Romney; the Communist Chinese obviously don’t.

If you’re impressed with Richard Carmona’s background—as I am—remember this important fact. Richard Carmona isn’t the issue here. Harry Reid is.

Richard Carmona is running for the US Senate as a Democrat. (Although, if you go to his website, he seems more interested in touting his bona-fides with Arizona Republican notables, as opposed to Democratic ones. Reminds me of how hard Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabby Giffords fought to appear on Fox News Network in the 2010 election cycle—wonder why?)

Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. The Democrats have chosen him to run the Senate, because Democrats currently hold the majority in the Senate in Washington.

This excerpt from the Senate.gov website describes the power of the Senate Majority Leader: (Emphasis added).

Majority and Minority Leaders

Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties’ positions on the issues. The majority leader has also come to speak for the Senate as an institution. Working with the committee chairs and ranking members, the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar and keeps members of his party advised about the daily legislative program.

the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar.

Translation: If the majority leader refuses to schedule your bill, your bill never sees the light of day.

This allows candidates to tell voters one thing, without actually having to deliver on those promises. Here’s how.

Let’s say you’re running as a moderate, who promises to put principle and the voters over the interests of his political party. That leads voters to think that, once in Washington, you’ll be able to really change things!

But, what if the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t want to change things? What if he/she likes things just the way they are?

You can write all the moderate bills and make all the moderate speeches you want. If the Senate Majority Leader refuses to schedule those bills for a vote, they’ll never get to the Senate floor. They’ll never become law. It’s as if you get your drivers’ license, but you’re denied the keys to the car. Yes, you can technically drive…but in reality, you can’t get anywhere.

In the House of Representatives, members can use a “discharge petition” to force a vote by the full House on a bill. This gives the House a way to overcome an attempt by the chamber’s leaders to stop a bill they don’t like.

In the Senate, however, discharge petitions are subject to filibuster. “This potential for obstruction of all legislative business is one reason that the Senate almost never uses the discharge petition as a way to force a bill from committee to the floor.” Here’s the link to Wikipedia’s entry on the Discharge Petition. Read it, and you’ll see how weak the discharge petition option is in the Senate.

Moreover, imagine being that brave moderate Senator, standing up for your constituents and principle by bucking your partisan Majority Leader. As you’re gathering signatures for your discharge petition…how willing do you think your colleagues will be to buck the Majority Leader? How many Sancho Panzas will join Don Moderate Quixote in his joust against the person who controls ALL business in the Senate? (Committee assignments, too).

Harry Reid is the main reason that Congress hasn’t completed a formal budget in THREE YEARS! Ever since the GOP took control of the House, they’ve tried mightily to get Congress to complete its traditional and legal responsibilities and pass a budget.

Harry Reid refuses to schedule budget votes, because they might embarras the Democrats. When you create a budget, you have to decide where you want to spend money and where you’re willing to cut back. (Reminds you of your household budget, doesn’t it?)

Paul Ryan and the House GOP have taken lots of heat because the House has produced its part of the budget. They’ve gone on record making hard (and often unpopular) spending decisions.

Harry Reid has stymied efforts in the Senate to proceed with ITS part of the normal budget process. In so doing, he avoids placing the Democrats on record. (That’s leadership!)

Reid does this, because he can. He understands the power of the Senate Majority Leader. He probably won’t run for reelection in four years, so he doesn’t have to face voters again. And, he knows that most Mainstream Media (MSM) reporters have those Shepard Fairey Obama “Hope” posters on their walls, to which they pray daily. Hence, Reid knows he won’t get too many irritating questions on why the Senate refuses to execute the normal budget process.

If you were Harry Reid, would YOU allow the Senate to vote on bills that might repeal Obamacare? Or, make the kinds of changes to Obamacare that most people want?

If you were Harry Reid, would YOU allow the Senate to vote on bills that stop the out-of-control deficit spending which is adding to the debt burden that our children and grandchildren will have to pay?

If you were Harry Reid, what would you do if a moderate Democrat Senator came up to you and insisted that you allow a bill to come to the floor that would do precisely those things?

You’d probably let your inner Italian speak for you. More specifically, you’d let your hands speak for you. “Non mi frega,” translated as “I don’t give a damn.” (“Swiping the hand forward from under the chin is offensive in some cultures, but in Italian it simply means ‘I don’t care.’”) (It’s number 4 on the list).

I suspect Richard Carmona knows all of this. I suspect he knows that, no matter what moderate things he promises to Arizonans, Harry Reid will undoubtedly quash them. Carmona can then blame Reid, and the Tucson media will helpfully busy itself with other things.

If you want things to change in America, the Senate needs to change. For all the reasons I’ve laid out here, a vote for Carmona is a vote for NO change.

I wonder whether Richard Carmona endorses Harry Reid continued reign as Majority Leader, should the Democrats hold the Senate. I wonder if Carmona approves of Reid’s handling of legislation in general and the budget process in specific? Boy, wouldn’t it be nice if the Tucson media were to ask Carmona some tough questions about Harry Reid’s leadership of the Senate?

But, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that. They have their own “Hope” posters, and they’re pretty busy praying.

…if you’re a country, that is.

US Embassies have been attacked in Egypt, Libya and Yemen within the past few days. An American ambassador is among the dead…something that hasn’t happened in over thirty years.

If you think our adversaries are rational people, open to sophisticated diplomacy, turn on the television.

Remember all those elites who scoffed at us? The ones who, after 9/11, urged America to heed the United Nations and the wishes of world opinion? The elites who cared more for the approval of partygoers in Davos and Paris, or the approval of Ivy League faculty? (Faculty which, to a great extent, STILL thinks of ROTC as an endeavor unworthy of the Ivy League).

Do you think they had the right idea? Turn on the television and find out.

I’ll readily admit that George W. Bush made a bunch of mistakes in office. However, he scared the hell out of our enemies.

Shortly after Saddam Hussein was toppled, Muammar Quadaffi voluntary renounced his Weapons of Mass Destruction program. When the Italian prime minister asked him why, Quadaffi replied that he saw what happened in Iraq, and he was afraid.

If your enemies fear you, you are safer. If they don’t fear you, they’re more likely to try and hurt you.

Now, you may be able to absorb their blows and win the battle in the end. But, at what cost? Osama bin Laden was NOT scared of the USA—he called it a “paper tiger.” So, he thought it was worth it to risk the attacks that we now know as 9/11.

In the “big picture” view of things, the USA won in the end. Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is in tatters. But, we paid a pretty heavy price to win that fight. Personally, I miss the World Trade Center and the 3000+ of my countrymen that we lost that day.

The best military and intelligence capabilities in the world can’t 100% safeguard us. Our society is too big, too open and too dynamic. We are not an island; we are connected to a global community. There are simply way, way too many openings for us to defend all at once, all the time. If you really want to be safe, you can’t just absorb blows—you have to prevent them.

Wouldn’t it have been better if bin Laden had been scared to death of us? Just like Quadaffi was?

Do you think terrorists and insurgents are scared of us now? Turn on the TV.