Trump, Taiwan, and China — A phone call and a change in direction?

Donald Trump spoke with Taiwan’s President Tsai-Ing-wen on December 3, triggering a thunderstorm of media clatter and protestations. Some mainstream media analysts were “aghast” at the incident. But the fact is Trump was correct to take the call from the diminutive but steely, determined, and democratically-elected Taiwanese president. The Taiwanese have lived under the threat of invasion and even nuclear attack from the communist Chinese for decades.

Taiwan’s President Tsai-Ing-wen

Mellifluous-voiced David Wright, a talking head on ABC News crowed, “it is difficult to tell if Trump’s conversation was a rookie mistake or a deliberate provocation”; while ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd further expounded stating that either way Trump’s posture was “problematic.” The media dog and pony show on Sunday morning reminded me of the egregiously liberal bias I witnessed by ABC News commentators during election night coverage.

Most of the historic antecedents for the One China policy that the United States has observed for nearly 40 years have been ascribed to Republican President Richard Nixon. And while it is true that it was Nixon who opened up China, it was Democrat Jimmy Carter who trampled on the honor of America in 1979 by kowtowing excessively to the communist Chinese by severing diplomatic relations with Taiwan and casting the U.S. ally to the wind. It was one more submissive gesture to left-wing dictatorships and communist regimes during Carter’s administration among a long list of foreign policy failures and disasters.

At the time, Nixon’s trip to China was seen as a betrayal and very disheartening to many conservatives. However, the move was a strategic one that widened the rift between the two communist superpowers, the Soviets and the Red Chinese, and a veritable masterstroke in geopolitics in America’s best interest, a diplomatic coup that widened the Sino-Soviet Split during the cold war. 

For nearly four decades we have had a One China policy, but was that policy sound? Why would a sovereign nation like the U.S. not be allowed to have mutually beneficial trade with Taiwan? Why would the U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, not be permitted to have formal and friendly diplomatic relations with Taiwan, a democratic nation that wishes nothing but to be left in peace while preserving her independence and prosperity?

President-elect Donald Trump

The media predicted a massive, angry, and destabilizing Chinese response, already blaming Trump for his “rookie mistake” or “deliberate provocation.” Moreover, Trump had previously not minced words in lambasting China, accusing the communist nation of terrible business and trading practices and for manipulating the currency to the detriment of the United States. But the feared and expectedly trembling response by China did not materialize. The diplomatic protest — if we can even called it a protest — was a very measured response, that China called bemusingly “solemn representations” with the United States.

According to ABC News, the Chinese foreign minister informed reporters in Beijing that China urged the relevant parties in the United States to handle Taiwan-related issues “cautiously and properly” to avoid “unnecessary interference” in the China-U.S. relationship. The minister insisted, “there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory.”  We will have to wait and see about that.

The U.S. remains China’s largest trading partner, and China has a big economic interest in maintaining that partnership, a trade partnership that actually resulted in an American trade deficit of nearly $340 billion in 2015. Corporativist China is not about to endanger that lucrative trade and chance a military confrontation with the U.S. for an old “runaway province” of Imperial China, especially when the American President-Elect is Donald Trump, and not another kowtowing Democrat president.

Moreover, Vladimir Putin, the formidable President of Russia and a tentative geopolitical ally of China, seems to be on excellent terms with Trump. Both the Russians and the Chinese understand that Trump will not be a push over and understand the concept of American economic and military power under a strong president. They remember the presidency of Ronald Reagan and how the evil empire came tumbling down following his energetic, determined, and projected leadership.

In U.S.-China relations, I believe restraint and civility will be the order of the day!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is President of Hacienda Publishing, Inc., a retired neurosurgeon, and the author of  Cuba in Revolution : Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is 

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Trump, Taiwan, and China — A phone call and a change in direction?, December 4, 2016 Available from:–a-phone-call-and-a-change-in-direction

This article also was published in on December 5, 2016.

Copyright ©2016  Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

A conversation on the progressive media and corporativist elite — Are the American elections rigged?

Jose: Do you think Trump might have a point when he says the election is rigged? I also received this email about the media elite and the corporations pulling the strings: It’s a big club for a select few:

Only 6 Corporations:

1. GE (owns Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures, Focus Features)
2. Newscorp (owns Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post)
3. Disney (owns ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramar, Marvel Studios)
4. Viacom (owns MTV, Nick JR, SET, CMT, Paramount Pictures)
5. Time Warner (owns CNN, HBO, TIME, Warner Bros)
6. CBS (owns Showtime, Smithsonian Channel, NFL.COM, Jeopardy, 60 Minutes)

These six corporations own 1,500 newspapers, 1,100 magazines, 9,000 radio stations, 1,500 TV stations, 2,400 publishers. (I cannot refute this information!)

Lutz, Ashley. “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 14 June 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

And consider the relationships, which are kept within the family (some may be outdated and fleeting, but nevertheless true at one time):

—ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.
—CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
—ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney
 —ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
—ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
—CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
Do you think there might be a little bias in the news because of these self-interested relationships. Do you think, or do you suspect it to be so?

MAF: Hi Jose,
Media bias has been recorded by political science professors as far back as the 1970s, but it has gone on for much longer than that. It is indeed a select club.

To be in the media and corporativist club, one might have to be a progressive CFR member or Trilateralist, and that requires prostituting your beliefs, your integrity, participating in incestuous relationships (as your data demonstrate) and money! Still, though, we cannot blame the corporations for every evil. The corporations also do a hell of a lot of good, when kept in line by informed and vigilant citizens. Your data helps to explain why there is extensive liberal media bias by the incestuous, self-interested, media cartel opinion molders. Global socialism is OK with the corporativist elites in partnership with governments, as long as they are above the fray and able to pull the strings of the working, toiling middle class. The masses below are kept satisfied and in the liberal plantation providing the elite power base in exchange for bread and circuses.

Because they can exercise greater political and economic power when the Democrats are in power, the media elite and their incestuous corporativist relations favor the authoritarian socialism of the Democrats to liberty and the free enterprise system generally favored by the Republicans. This has been well-demonstrated with the evolving concept of socialized medicine in the U.S. The concept of corporativism (the symbiotic partnership of government with the mega-corporations, particularly at the international level) is beyond the present capability of comprehension for the average American in this age of intellectual declivity. The average citizen today erroneously equates “crony capitalism” with the free enterprise system, when corporativism is by far closer to the mark.

But I cannot say that the elections are rigged. We must also blame the decline in standards, growing ignorance and superficiality of our fellow citizens, the American people, who are allowing themselves to be indoctrinated by the media and the popular culture, who are allowing themselves to grow soft in mind and body, who are allowing themselves to become dependent in the liberal plantation in exchange for their votes, even if they lose their liberty.
Those of us who speak out and expose it, get ostracized or are deemed mentally ill. Or as Dr. Blaylock points out one could become an ingratiating progressive antihero! But no matter who wins, the media elite profit from the charade. 

— Miguel A. Faria, M.D.

RLB: Jose and Miguel,

Great material. Yes it is like the old TV program — “All in the Family.” The CFR/Trilateral link is that most of the same communication elite also are CFR/Trilateral members and have been for many years. You will also recall many of the international banking families are also intermarried. The great Foundations also all share directors and this keeps them all on the same page. The Foundations, which are headed by the CEOs of major multinational corporations and international bankers, are the power and wealth behind the NWO that is being designed.

They control the government, the media, the foreign policy, the judiciary, most publishing (especially textbooks used in schools), the international organizations (UN) and the social policy of America and much of the world. Rene Wormser’s book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, demonstrates this in great detail. No segment of our society or of government is free of their guiding hand. As far as corporations, they have their good side — well, they do in terms of productivity — but, as Mises and Hayek both pointed out, they are not strictly free market; they are heavily burdened with their own bureaucracy; they are slow to respond to innovation; they are elitist and they detest, for the most part, competition. Most government regulations, as pointed out by the Manhattan Institute, originated within the corporations, especially multinationals, so as to avoid competition and have the safety net of taxpayer monies and treasury generated “helicopter money.”

As for the election being stolen — well, the mass of the public is poorly informed on the issues and most of their knowledge of the issues comes from the propagandists of the NWO. Yet, as we have seen in every country taken by the collectivists (the communists) they take no chances and will fix the elections. I think it was in Uzbekistan, that the winner received 100% of the vote — most likely he would have won anyway based on extensive indoctrination of the populace and harassment of the opposition candidate (as with Trump) — but they could afford to take no chances so they fixed the election. It’s the communist way. It is interesting to note that it was the Far Left (and communist operatives) that campaigned for the 18-year-old vote in the US — just as they have in other countries. This is because they know the 18 to 20-year olds are most easily manipulated by propaganda and generally have little or no knowledge of the issues. One must appreciate that an 18-year-old has had an awareness of the world (intellectual awareness) for only a very short time — from age 14 to 15. One cannot catch up or obtain the experience (that in truth takes a lifetime to attain) in three years (from 18 to 21 years). The frontal lobes of an 18 to 20-year old are still quite immature and they are highly prone to propaganda. During the Korean War, according to Dr. Hunter, the world-renowned expert on brainwashing techniques used on our soldiers, the communist mind-manipulators concentrated their efforts only on the soldiers under age 30, because they knew they were the ones most susceptible to brainwashing techniques. Older soldiers easily saw through the propaganda. The is why the Left fought so hard for the 18 to 20-year old vote.

It is also instructive that the Left fought equally hard for electronic voting, knowing that it would be quite easy to electronically manipulate the voting machines to register only their candidate, no matter what button one pushes (this is shown on a YouTube video). An expert in this technology testified to this and gave a shocking demonstration as to how it worked. This election is so vital to the Left they will use all methods. — Russell L. Blaylock, MD

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. A conversation on the progressive media and corporativist elite — Are the American elections rigged?, August 22, 2016. Available from:–are-the-american-elections-rigged.

Copyright ©2016

In Bed With Castro

The tragic Elian Gonzalez affair, which has been used so skillfully by the Clinton administration (until the violent pre-dawn raid), will be used, mark my words, for the appeasement of Fidel Castro and for trying to establish normal relations with his brutal communist regime.

Elian Gonzalez is held in a closet by Donato Dalrymple, one of the two men who rescued the boy from the ocean, right, as government officials search the home of Lazaro Gonzalez for the young boy, in the early morning, in this April 22, 2000 file photo, in Miami. AP Photo/Alan Diaz

Defending Fidel Castro and his socialist regime (“Socialism or Death”) has been a passion for many journalists of the establishment’s media since the time of Herbert Matthews of The New York Times. This notorious apologist interviewed Fidel Castro during his days in the Sierra Maestra in the years 1957-1958, when the latter was waging war against the Batista regime, and by romanticizing and glorifying Fidel and his band of barbudos, Matthews paved the road to tyranny in Cuba.

To many of us it is obvious why President Clinton would want normalization of relations with Cuba. Besides his ideological affinity with Cuban socialism, Clinton would transform overnight his legacy from improper relations with “that woman, Monica Lewinsky” (as well as Paula Jones and all the other women he has victimized) to that of being the president who normalized relations with Cuba.

After all, President Richard Nixon’s legacy was at least partially rehabilitated for opening up Red China. Today trade with the Red Chinese is supposedly being used as a geopolitical tool to bring China into “the community of nations,” the World Trade Organization, and to allow a smooth transition to “economic and political freedom.” President Nixon has been given considerable credit for this development. Why couldn’t Slick Willie do better?

Then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 (AP File)

Yes, Bill Clinton would do even better than Richard Nixon did. Clinton may have been the first elected U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives for high crimes and misdemeanors, but that could be forgotten with a new legacy.

Normalization of relations with Cuba could catapult him from that embarrassing historical notoriety to, perhaps, becoming the first American elected secretary general of the United Nations (traitor Alger Hiss was only president of the U.N. founding conference in 1945), or he could be the second U.S. president nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — i.e., for making peace with a dictatorship with which we have been at political war for more than 40 years!

But even if Bill Clinton’s reasons were purely ideological and not political, it isn’t as easy to discern why seemingly divergent groups of Americans, influential Americans, are militating so stridently for normalization of relations with the communist regime.

Among these divergent groups, we find the establishment elite, the captains of industry of the giant corporations who salivate at the thought of the profits they may realize by opening trade with Cuba – among them, Citicorp, the banking and financial behemoth, and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the giant agricultural business, which has been leading the pack for the last six years.

There are others, but ADM has been at the forefront. Dwayne O. Andreas, its chairman and CEO, has long been an advocate of lifting the Cuban embargo. More recently, he has been identified as being “the financial angel” in funding the much-publicized grandmothers’ visit to Elián. And Charley Reese in the Orlando Sentinel (April 23) reveals that Mr. Andreas has already extensive commercial interests in Cuba, some of which may involve exploitation of Cuban workers.

Clinton’s impeachment attorney and now Juan Miguel González’s counsel, Gregory B. Craig (commanding an $800-an-hour fee paid by the Methodist Church), belongs to the law firm that represents ADM as a client. Asked specifically about Cuban political repression, the fact a half million Cubans have passed through Fidel’s political prisons since 1959 (according to Freedom House), and Castro’s overall shameful human rights record, Andreas replied that he “didn’t think about them” in his conversation with Fidel, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “Fawning over Fidel” (May 1996), by veteran reporter Trevor Armbrister.

As to the accumulating evidence of Fidel’s political executions? “That is for the politicians to worry about,” replies Andreas. Obviously, for these corporations, profits come ahead of freedom. The irony is that without freedom they would also lose their profits – as well as their liberties!

Cuban President Fidel Castro addresses United Nations General Assembly during the 50th Anniversary commemorative session on October 22, 1995 in New York City. (ABC News)

In 1995, Castro visited the U.S. to address the U.N. during its 50th anniversary celebration. It was a visit that was quite telling, as divergent groups came out to embrace him and sing his praises. He was the honored guest at the Rockefeller family estate in New York. Yet, because of peaceful but serious protests, the honorific invitation had to be moved to the prestigious Pratt House, the headquarters for the Council of Foreign Relations, on East 68th Street in Manhattan. At that confab, he was met by retired Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman David Rockefeller and a fawning audience of internationalists.

Later, Castro visited and was feted and warmly received by real estate developer and publishing magnate Mortimer Zuckerman and other media moguls and opinion molders such as Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace and scores of other media personalities. Castro called them “the cream of the crop” and in return got a big hug and kiss from Diane Sawyer, the most beautiful of them all.

And finally, during that visit, he was also honored at Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church. There, he was proudly surrounded by U.S. Reps. Nydia M. Velazquez, Charles Rangel and Jose Serrano – all New York Democrats and all members of the extreme left-wing House Progressive Caucus. They are among the 58 U.S. representatives who belong to this group closely aligned to the Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist Internationale, the proud heirs of the first Internationale in which Karl Marx participated over a century ago.

All the members of the Progressive Caucus are Democrats, except for Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who makes no pretenses and is a self-avowed socialist. Interestingly, some of these leaders, particularly some of those who are also members of the Black Caucus, have blamed the CIA for pouring drugs in the streets of L.A. and other cities and killing black youth. Yet, they embrace Castro and his brother, Cuban Defense Minister Raul Castro, who has been implicated for using drugs as an instrument of war against the U.S., as documented by Dr. Joseph Douglass in his book, Red Cocaine. In 1993, a federal court in Miami indicted Raul Castro for drug trafficking. Neither Attorney General Janet Reno nor the Black Caucus has asked for his extradition.

In Harlem, Castro was cheered and applauded by the roaring crowd yelling, “Fidel, Fidel, Viva Cuba, Viva Cuba!” He was warmly bear-hugged by Rep. Charles Rangel and told by the presiding church minister that he was one of the greatest leaders of the world and that they joined him in opposing the U.S. blockade. Then the noted cleric consecrated Castro: “God bless you,” he said, although Castro is an atheist and Cuba officially is an atheist state where the faithful are persecuted.

To this topsy-turvy insanity, my understanding for this admiration for Castro and his regime can only come from Scripture in Romans 1:22-25: “Professing to be wise, they became fools who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D., is an Associate Editor-in-Chief and a World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI;; Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He served under President George W. Bush as member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2002-05); Realclearhistory Author (2012-present); Founder & Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002); Editor Emeritus; Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. In Bed with Castro. Newsmax Media, June 6, 2000. Available from:

Copyright ©2000-2015 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.