Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Obama all promised to 'get tough' with Communist China on issues from human rights to trade, then did the opposite. Obama promised to stop China currency manipulation and renegotiate NAFTA but did neither, backing out on his NAFTA promise almost immediately-UK Telegraph, Washington Post. (For a quarter century the Clintons have lied to Americans on life and death issues for the country including free trade deals made in back rooms and have been rewarded with great wealth for it. Other countries therefore assume US citizens can be stolen from)

Feb. 2009 UK Telegraph:

"Recent American presidents, her husband Bill Clinton included, began their terms of office promising to "get tough" with China over issues from human rights to trade." Mrs. Clinton "offered a conciliatory hand of friendship to...China, contradicting hostile policies both she and President Barack Obama promised during their presidential campaigns last year."

...........

Feb. 2009 Washington Post:

2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear 

"President Obama...said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait."...

...............

Feb. 20, 2009, "Hillary Clinton: Chinese human rights secondary to economic survival," UK Telegraph, Richard Spencer in Beijing

"Hillary Clinton has told China that the US considers human rights concerns secondary to economic survival."

"Arriving in China on her first visit as US secretary of state, Mrs Clinton promised a new relationship between the two countries, one she considers to be the world's most important of the 21st century.

Mrs Clinton landed in Beijing from South Korea, where she lashed out at the North Korean "tyranny" of its leader Kim Jong-il.

But in contrast she offered a conciliatory hand of friendship to Mr Kim's ally China, contradicting hostile policies both she and President Barack Obama promised during their presidential campaigns last year. 

She said she would continue to press China on issues such as human rights and Tibet, but added: "Our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."...

[Ed. note: Not stated what's meant by "the security crisis" ] 

(continuing): "Recent American presidents, her husband Bill Clinton included, began their terms of office promising to "get tough" with China over issues from human rights to trade.

Mr Obama's campaign pledges to protect American jobs from competition from low-wage economies and to force China to revalue its currency were received badly in Beijing.

But in advance of her trip, Mrs Clinton called the US-China relationship the world's most important of the 21st century.

"Some believe that China on the rise is, by definition, an adversary," she said last week. "To the contrary, we believe that the United States and China can benefit from and contribute to each other's successes."

Washington has been left with little choice but to improve ties in the wake of the financial crisis, which has seen the huge trade imbalances between the two explode in a debt crisis in the US and an export crisis in China....

China now owns more than $600 billion (£420 billion) of US government debt, and will be called on to buy more as President Obama's stimulus package inflates the budget deficit. 

Jim McGregor, who runs the JL McGregor research company in Beijing and used to head the American Chamber of Commerce in China, said that where US leaders once came to Beijing to hand out lectures, now they came to "kiss up"
.
"The power relationship between the United States and China has shifted greatly over the last ten years and dramatically over the last three months," he said. "America needs China badly right now."

China announced in advance that it was willing to resume the military dialogue with the Pentagon it suspended over US arms sales to Taiwan last October.

Mrs Clinton is also expected to discuss a joint approach to climate change.

Her harsh words for North Korea may be intended to reassure America's closest regional allies, South Korea and Japan.

Some Japanese officials are uneasy at the growing rapport with Tokyo's old rival China, while even Washington's stance on Pyongyang has recently sounded more conciliatory than either Japan's or South Korea's.

In 1995, when Mrs Clinton attended an international women's conference in Beijing, she offended her hosts by criticising their one-child policy, among other human rights complaints."...

............. 

Comment: The Bushes, like the Clintons and Obama, believed that "Americans came last" if at all: "The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists:"

6/27/16, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell

"The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists....Trade and immigration policies,...it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American....

In foreign policy, the liberal interventionists who would staff a Hillary administration line up seamlessly with neoconservatives in support of continued American "hegemony."... 

Opposition to this establishment consensus has been advancing, by fits and starts, and is now too large to be ignored.... 

On the triad of trade, immigration, and foreign policy, these voters are nationalist, not globalist—they would limit America’s intervention in foreign conflicts and subject the importation of products and people from the rest of the world to a more rigorous is-it-good-for-us test. (And by “us” they mean themselves, not the Fortune 500.) By nominating Trump, the Republican Party has finally been forced to come to terms with these sentiments, choosing a candidate who is largely disdainful of the globalist consensus of GOP donors, pundits, and think-tank experts. For Trump and his voters, the “Reaganite” basket of so-called “conservative” issues—free trade, high immigration, tax cuts for those with high incomes and entitlement cuts for the middle class—was irrelevant or actually undesirable.

Meanwhile the Democrats under Hillary Clinton have solidified their identity as a party of America’s top and bottom, revolving around the dual axis of urban coastal elites who benefit from their ties to a global economy and poorer ethnic minorities. The Clinton wing of the Democrats defends the free trade deals and has now joined much of the hard left in opposing meaningful enforcement of America’s immigration laws. (Before his campaign started, Bernie Sanders assailed open-borders advocacy as a right-wing “Koch Brothers” argument, but the logic of his party’s politics drove him to embrace amnesty and non-enforcement.) On the left, the argument that national boundaries are themselves, like racism or sexism, an arbitrary and unjust form of discrimination is made with growing frequency. During their debates, both Clinton and Sanders expressed support for an amnesty-based immigration reform and opposed the deportation of migrants who had not committed crimes here.... 

“Border wars” have replaced “culture wars” as the critical dividing line between the parties.... 

In one form or another, this nationalist-versus-globalist division is being reproduced in almost every country in the West facing the pressure of working-class decline and mass immigration. Given the opportunity, most European voters have consistently resisted ceding greater powers to the EU, but their votes have had little impact. Marine Le Pen, the National Front leader who now heads most French presidential polls, mocks France’s President Hollande by referring to him as Angela Merkel’s vice chancellor, a functionary permitted to administer “the province of France.” Throughout Europe, right-wing nationalist parties are rising in the polls against establishment coalitions unable to preserve either the economic gains won by past generations or public safety in migrant-dominated urban areas. 

Trump is obviously part of this pan-Western nationalist/populist wave, and may be the first to break through in a major Western country. But even if he loses, he will have transformed the Republican Party. Because the Democratic coalition, perhaps now best exemplified by the twin poles of Goldman Sachs and Black Lives Matter, is inherently unstable, there is every likelihood that a more conventional politician, making use of Trump’s basket of issues, will again win the GOP nomination and eventually the presidency."...







................