Friday, June 10, 2022

The Case Against Sanctions


How the Biden Administration shot 
itself in the foot hoping to isolate Russia.


On May 23, Reuters reported that the Russian ruble had reached a seven-year high against the Euro and a five-year high against the U.S. dollar. The American public is hearing very little about the current “world’s best-performing currency,” in stark contrast to the jubilation of the mainstream media that showered praise on Joe Biden’s sanctions in March, when the ruble suffered a short-term collapse against the dollar. Back then, a dollar was worth 135 rubles; it is now worth 62 rubles. This example serves to illustrate the failure of Western-imposed sanctions on Russia. 

A lack of understanding of the political culture and history of the targeted country, coupled with utter inability to grasp and appreciate the geopolitical ramifications of such sanctions, doomed the administration’s actions from the onset.

It is essential to begin with pointing out that the logic of economic sanctions against Russia was flawed. The expected pressure it was supposed to put on the Russian government rested on two faulty premises. 

First, the great majority of the Russian people are of modest means. They rely primarily on locally produced commodities, rarely purchase imported goods, and are generally used to economic hardships. This majority will not feel the effects of Starbucks closing and will not lose sleep over not having the newest iPhone. 

Further, the decrease in consumer purchasing power predated the conflict in Ukraine and was thus more of the same for the common Russian folk. On the other hand, the loud voices of the liberal upper middle-class minority, which find themselves greatly impacted by the deterioration of their way of life, are simply insignificant in the Russian political balance of power to bring about any desired change.

The second group that sanctions sought to affect were the oligarchs. Perceived as the financial and business arm of the regime, this group of businessmen—often involved in shady practices and state-approved corrupt deals—have always been linked to the Kremlin and Putin’s person. Western observers usually describe this relationship between oligarchs and government as symbiotic, overemphasizing the significance of the financial kickbacks public officials enjoy. 

Anyone familiar with the functioning of Russian governance under Putin, though, knows that, in accordance with the classical spirit of the KGB, financial gains always take second place to the security needs of the state. Oligarchs will never rise up against Putin, no matter the sacrifice, since the alternative cost of crossing him might very well prove fatal. Look at the fate of the once-mighty Boris Berezovsky, one of the great plunderers of post-Soviet Russia, who was found dead under questionable circumstances in his Berkshire house, penniless, and after having apparently sent a humiliating apology letter to Putin shortly before his death. Oligarchs know their place in Russia and it is right under Putin’s thumb.

But the most abject failure of sanctions materializes in their strategic short-sightedness. The immediate impact of halting Russian oil exports to the West has been on the economies of the E.U. and the United States and have already been repeatedly documented. The danger of recession looms ever greater and regular consumers are paying a hefty price for this policy at the gas pump, not to mention the cascading effect this crisis is having on the rest of the economic cycle.

To make matters worse, the greatest beneficiaries of this boycott policy are oil producers themselves, including Russia, as oil prices have skyrocketed since the beginning of the war. And all Russia had to do to counter this Western boycott was shift its attention east, to its giant neighbor whose hunger for energy is never satiated. 

Reports of China buying whatever oil and gas Europe rejected at preferential rates are already surfacing. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov even noted how this is providing a wonderful opportunity to develop Russia’s eastern provinces. It is worth noting as well that trade between China and Russia has veered away from reliance on the U.S. dollar, thus improving Russia’s foreign reserves independence.

Media pundits were quick to celebrate this shift, however, with one claiming that it has transformed Russia from a great power to China’s gas station. Cold War historian Carl Rihan observed “this might well be Mao’s historical victory over Stalin,” as Russia sees itself finally becoming the junior partner in the relationship between the two countries.

Far from being celebrated, this decline in Russia’s global standing should ring alarm bells for U.S. national interests, and it is primarily because of the advantageous position it puts China in. With most economists predicting China’s economy surpassing that of the United States a few short years from now, sanctions gratuitously offered the Asian behemoth a major source of cheap primary material, mainly in the realms of energy, minerals, and metals, many of which are used at the forefront of new generation technology industries.

Russia will also see itself forced to share its own advanced technology with China, particularly in the military field. Historically, the Kremlin has always been reluctant to sell its state-of-the-art weaponry to its eastern neighbor, rightly worrying about any resulting shift in power, mainly because the Chinese have been known to reverse engineer and reconstruct any military hardware they bought. In the past, however, the lag between the purchase of second-tier systems and their successful replication meant that the People’s Liberation Army was always a couple of decades behind other great powers.

With Russia in the corner, it might have no other choice but to sell both its most advanced armaments and the technological know-how that will hasten China’s military modernization. This certainly threatens American global military standing because, unlike Russia, which has the scientific and technological infrastructure but no financial and economic capabilities to back it up, China can easily deploy vast production capabilities and effectively upgrade its arsenal to match that of the United States.

It has become clear by now that sanctions are not producing the desired deterrent effect against Russia. Contrary to what they were designed to achieve, sanctions are wreaking havoc on the global economy and hurting long-term American interests. These sanctions are indeed a new failure on the part of Biden’s foreign policy team and seem to have been nothing more than a knee jerk response to a seismic global event that the current administration could not properly manage and the ramifications of which they could not foresee. Sanctions are indeed proving to be useless in the face of a disaster that should have been averted to begin with.



Disinformation Panels, Corrupt FBI Activity, Govt Control over Speech in Social Media, The J6 Propaganda Effort, it is One Long Continuum


Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum.  This point is where many people get confused, it is also the most critical element that Washington DC must hide in the aftermath.

The systems of government were retooled during the administration of Barack Obama to fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between government and the American people.  Their success in that objective is the discomfort you see, feel and deal with every day.

The people who created the Fourth Branch of Government used every tool in their arsenal to outlast and remove Donald Trump; then they turned to the one cognitively challenged candidate who would not be a threat to the construct, Joe Biden, and installed him through fraud and mail-in ballots.  Everything is downstream from this construct.

Prior to 9/11/01 the greatest threat to government was considered to be from outside the U.S, vis-a-vis terrorism.  After 9/11/01 the greatest threat was redefined, Americans were now considered the threat, the enemy tracking radar was turned around to look inside America.

In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

DHS and ODNI were created because Americans were now the threat to government. Stop. Pause. Think.  You are taking off your shoes at the airports because YOU are the threat.  You pass through body scanners because YOU are the threat.  Stop. Pause. Think.  How does that define your relationship with government?

Fast forward five years – What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new surveillance and security construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political (ideological) opposition became the target of the new national security system.

This distinction is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  DHS came along in 2002 and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. 

When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus.  However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.  The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution.  Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake.  However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design.  By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath.  The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.

As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening.  Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together.  You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.

It is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding fourth branch of government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.

History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military), to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.

Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.

If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.

After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected and few people pay attention to.

It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.

After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.

I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.

The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.

The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning; almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.

There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.

None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.

[GO DEEP]



X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- June 10

 



Time for a little #Flashback Friday: Some gifs I made today of 'Waiting for the Moon':








Here's tonight's news:


Roberts Is Courting a Constitutional Crisis

There doesn’t appear to have been a moment in our history when the potential killing of a Supreme Court justice could have had such consequential effects.


The attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh makes it abundantly clear that Chief Justice John Roberts is playing with fire in refusing to issue the Court’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The potential for someone to make an attempt on a justice’s life was predictable once the draft majority opinion, in a shocking move, was leaked—but the threat appears more serious in the wake of a deranged person having arrived at Kavanaugh’s home with the stated intention, and with weapons in tow, to kill him. 

It is hard to imagine the devastating effect upon our already polarized society, its institutions, and the Constitution itself if someone were to murder a justice in cold blood and then reap the following rewards for the assassination: 

  • Because Supreme Court rulings aren’t final until released, a 5-4 ruling to overturn Roe would immediately become a 4-4 opinion, thereby leaving Roe on the books. 
  • The president who would get to replace the murdered justice would be Joe Biden, who has repeatedly said he is firmly committed to keeping Roe in place.
  • The Senate that would get to confirm Biden’s nominee would be the current Democratic-controlled one, and the Democratic Party is adamantly committed to upholding Roe

In short, an assassination could lead to Roe being upheld rather than overturned in the short term, Biden and his Democratic allies being able to replace the murdered justice with one of Biden’s choosing ahead of the midterm elections, and Roe remaining a fixture in the constitutional firmament in the long term. 

There doesn’t appear to have been a prior moment in our history when the potential killing of a justice could have had such consequential effects. Roe wasn’t  decided on a 5-4 vote; the murder of a justice wouldn’t have swung its 7-2 outcome. In all of American history, the only other case as contentious as Roe—and as lawless, unconstitutional, and fateful—was Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was decided on a 7-2 vote by a Southern-dominated Court. The murder of a justice wouldn’t have swung its outcome, either.

Eight years after Dred Scott, a murder did swing the outcome of Reconstruction to a significant (albeit unknowable) degree. But at least Abraham Lincoln’s political foes didn’t get to decide his replacement.

A potential assassination in our day that led to the results described above would be viewed by at least half of all Americans as being so lawless, so barbaric, so unjust, and so in defiance of fair play that it’s hard to imagine the extent of the rift that would develop or how it could potentially be healed. In that horrible circumstance, Roberts should surely cast his vote as a replacement vote for his fallen colleague’s, thereby bringing about the same result (although now by a 5-3 vote) that would have transpired had the laws of our land been followed and a justice of the Court not been killed. But there is no clear sense Roberts would do that.

It would be far easier and simpler for Roberts merely to release the majority opinion now and release the dissents later, when they are ready. 

This would hardly be a radical move. When I ran the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice, the bureau’s long-standing policy was that if a contractor, member of the press corps, or anyone else released any of our statistics prematurely, we would depart from our existing timeline and release those statistics at that moment. The bureau believed it was better to deviate from the planned release schedule than to allow a premature release on someone else’s part to do damage. In the instance of the Supreme Court and this opinion, the potential for damage is vastly greater.

The chief justice has given every indication thus far that he is determined to treat the unscrupulous release of the draft opinion as a one-off event that won’t cause him to do anything else differently (other than trying to find the brazen perpetrator who betrayed the Court’s norms). But the extraordinary news from Kavanaugh’s home makes clear that it’s pure fantasy to pretend that nothing else has changed—that everything else can proceed as if the leak had never happened. 

In fact, things have changed. The motivation to kill a justice is now too great. Too much of our nation’s commitment to civility and lawfulness is on the line. It’s time to release the majority opinion. If Roberts continues to play with fire, we could face a crisis like none we’ve ever faced before at a time when we’re perhaps least prepared as a nation to withstand it.



Study: Team Zuckerberg Masking Heavily Pro-Democrat Tilt Of 2020 Election ‘Zuck Bucks’

The $332 million that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan provided to help run the 2020 elections was distributed on a highly partisan basis.


The $332 million that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan provided to a progressive group to help run the 2020 elections was distributed on a highly partisan basis that favored Democrats, according to a new analysis by election data experts.

While these “Zuckerbucks” or “Zuck bucks” were touted as a resource meant to help all jurisdictions administer the election during Covid lockdowns, tax records filed by the progressive Center for Tech and Civic Life show that the group “awarded all larger grants – on both an absolute and per capita basis to deeply Democratic urban areas,” particularly in swing states, according to the new report. Its authors are William Doyle, research director at the right-leaning Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute, and Alex Oliver, chief data scientist at Evolving Strategies, a nonpartisan research group.

The report contrasts with a report Zuckerberg commissioned in December, which emphasized that “more Republican jurisdictions, defined as municipalities that voted for Trump in 2020, applied for and received grants.”

Doyle and Oliver say this conclusion is misleading because Republican jurisdictions were far more likely to receive grants of less than $50,000, which, they wrote, were “likely not substantial enough to provide the funding, infrastructure, and personnel to materially change election practices in the recipient jurisdiction.” These small grants comprised 27% of the center’s awards.

In the counties where CTCL made its 50 largest grants in terms of per capita spending, the average partisan lean in favor of Democrat Joe Biden over Republican Donald Trump was 33 points — meaning the aid could be expected to stimulate more Democratic votes. Twenty-five of the top 50 grants per capita went to just five states: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas (the latter two where “Democrats were optimistic about Biden’s chances,” the authors write).

Seven of the top ten largest grants per capita went to counties in Georgia and Wisconsin, states that Biden narrowly won by 12,000 and 21,000 respectively. (Along with the report, Evolving Strategies has put together an online map and visualization app that tracks CTCL’s top 100 grants on a per capita basis.) 

From the Evolving Strategies report.

“The distribution of the CTCL program’s grant amounts – both in absolute and per capita terms – shows, unequivocally, a systematic bias in favor of Democratic jurisdictions,” they write. The larger grants revealed a “partisan pattern of funding [that] was especially apparent in swing states. Regardless of intention, CTCL’s geographic allocation of larger grants is prima facie and de facto partisan.”

Before 2020, the private funding of election administration was virtually unheard of. Against positive coverage of the development in liberal news media, conservative activists sounded the alarm about CTCL’s efforts. “Privatizing the management of elections undermines the integrity of our elections because private donors may dictate where and how hundreds of millions of dollars will be managed in these states,” Phill Kline of the Thomas More Society told the Washington Post.

Since 2020, 17 states have effectively banned the private funding of local election offices either through new laws or regulations. Two other states, Alabama and Missouri, are awaiting the governor’s signature on similar bills.

The center and its defenders have argued that it is only logical that urban areas, which tend to support Democrats, would get more grant money, simply because they have more voters. But Doyle and Oliver’s analysis shows that those areas received more funding on a per capita basis.

While the grant size for urban areas might naturally be larger overall, they said, areas with high concentrations of voters should result in economic efficiencies where “substantial fixed cost of election administration is spread out over a relatively larger population, decreasing the per capita cost.” If anything, they said, per capita costs of running an election should be higher in more rural Republican areas.

The report showed that Georgia alone received 10 of the top 50 grants per capita, totaling $41 million — more than 10% of the $332 million CTCL spent across the country. Nine of those grants went to counties with an average partisan lean of 35 points in favor of Joe Biden.

The center awarded a total of $10.1 million in grants in Wisconsin, but $8.5 million of that went to the cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine — cities where Biden’s average margin of victory was over 37 points. All five cities ranked on CTCL’s top 50 per capita grants.

Similarly, Pennsylvania had four of the top 50 per capita grants, amounting to $16 million. Some $15 million of those grants went to Philadelphia and to Delaware and Chester counties in the Philadelphia metro area.

The Philadelphia vote favored Biden by 64 points, and Delaware and Chester voted Biden by 27 and 17 points, respectively. Biden won Pennsylvania by just 1.2 points, so the victory might have been sealed by the influx of cash from private sources to the Philadelphia region, the state’s biggest cache of votes, which also has a history of corruption and electoral fraud.

The CTCL did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ request for comment. Its executive director, Tiana Epps-Johnson, told the Washington Post in February that the grants given out “reflected where the requests for funding came from, not any bias on the part of her organization.” But the center has offered no insight into its internal process for awarding grants.  

An investigation by Broad and Liberty, a right-leaning publication dedicated to Pennsylvania politics, obtained emails showing that the office of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf coordinated with left-wing nonprofits to implement a secretive process that selectively invited Democratic counties to apply for “Zuck bucks” grants.

The center did not just award money to counties and cities that applied for grants. In many cases it embedded progressive activists into key local election offices to shape how elections were run. In Green Bay, Wisconsin, emails to the mayor’s office from the center touted its  “network of current and former election administrations and election experts available” to build up “vote by mail processes” and “ensure forms, envelopes, and other materials are understood and completed correctly by voters.”

In a July 13, 2020 email to the center, Celestine Jeffreys, chief of staff for Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich, wrote, “As far as I’m concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend.”

Eventually the center helped install an out-of-state operative named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein in Green Bay and other Wisconsin election offices, who engaged in activities unusual for someone other than a public official, such as asking for direct access to the Milwaukee Election Commission’s voter database and other sensitive data. Spitzer-Rubenstein became so active in running Green Bay’s election that City Clerk Kris Teske, unhappy with being replaced in her job, took leave a few weeks before the election and quit shortly thereafter. 

“I was verbally abused by the Mayor in front of everyone, ” she reportedly wrote in one email. “…He had agenda when it came to the election and I nor the Clerk’s Office were included even though it’s the Clerk’s job to administer an election. He allowed staff who were not educated on election law to run the election, along with people who weren’t even City of Green Bay employees.”

Though technically considered a nonpartisan organization, CTCL’s leadership team has an extensive history of working with the Democratic Party and leftist causes. Epps-Johnson founded the organization with Whitney May and Donny Bridges. All three previously worked together at the New Organizing Institute, which the Washington Post described as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry” and the “left’s think tank for campaign know-how.”

A further Democratic-Zuckerberg intersection: Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is listed as head of policy and advocacy at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the power couple’s philanthropy. In his 2020 book, “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump,” Plouffe wrote that the 2020 election “may come down to block-by-block street fights in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.”

Republished from RealClearInvestigations, with permission.



How to Confront China's Mounting Pacific Threat? We Could Try This


Andrew Malcolm reporting for RedState 

Here’s a stunning and impressive speech from a U.S. senator. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it despite the criticisms I anticipate for awarding it attention.

It’s a stunning speech because it’s full of hope — maybe even Hope — for an America deep in the doldrums now of buyer’s remorse over the dumb, accidental choice of a president so lost in self-importance and a senior fog.

It’s impressive because it’s crammed with common sense.  Which is uncommon nowadays. And – wait for it – new ideas.

Is that even possible when the stale politics of both parties today are so profoundly mired in the recurring recriminatory rhetoric of “Yes-you-did-No-I-didn’t-And-anyway-you-did-too”?

Of course, for a variety of disappointing and predictable reasons, nothing will come of these fresh ideas and hope – for now. But read about it, think about it. And I suspect these ideas and this man will have future impact on our public stage well beyond his home state.

The speaker was Ben Sasse, a 50-year-old former law professor and university president now in his second term as a senator from Nebraska. He’s an interesting guy, not one of the standard suits who walk the Capitol halls like robots with substance-free, programmed comments targeting select audiences.

Sasse has been a consistent critic of Donald Trump. In the second impeachment trial as a matter of “conscience,” the Nebraskan even voted with six other GOP senators to convict the 45th president. But apparently, Nebraskans agree or don’t mind all that much.

Sasse got just under 63 percent of the vote in 2020, which was four points more support than Trump drew in that staunchly Republican state that has not voted for a Democrat president since Willie Mays got a record $105,000 contract and some little-known British singing group got its first No. 1 U.S. hit (“I Want to Hold Your Hand”). As of May 2022, Sasse maintained a positive approval rating.

Anyway, back to the Reagan Library speech. Sasse had many good things to say, full of hope, if you can imagine such a thing during Joe Biden’s ongoing reign of error. I urge you to read the text here or watch the video here.

What struck me as intriguing was Sasse’s suggestion that the United States out of its own self-interest lead the assembly of a NATO of the Pacific. That would be an alliance of like-minded open societies against the looming military menace of Communist China, which will not go away just because it’s wishfully ignored.

The idea being that only together can the disparate Asian societies confront the massive economic and military menace that is Beijing and not get subsumed one by one. Currently, the Pacific has some scattered alliances and bilateral compacts, but nothing on the scale of NATO.

China is not waiting, however. It just signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands with hundreds of millions in “aid” and a future military base across a major Pacific trade route.

With U.S. leadership, NATO was founded in 1949 out of the smoldering embers of World War II Europe where Adolf Hitler had picked off individual countries to be conquered one by one for his Third Reich.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization now has 30 members with Sweden and Finland in line after abandoning their historic neutrality in the face of Russia’s brutal aggression in Ukraine.

Relying on Article 5 (an attack against one member is an attack against all) as a deterrent, NATO for decades faced down the Soviet Union’s expansionist Warsaw Pact and won the Cold War. The only time Article 5 has ever been used was to support the U.S. in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

Ukraine is not a NATO member. In fact, Vladimir Putin sees its proposed membership right on Russia’s southern border as a major threat to his dream of constructing some kind of greater Russia as his legacy.

Ukraine is massively outgunned and outmanned but has stymied Putin’s plan for a quick conquest to install a puppet regime. Kyiv’s forces are fighting for the country’s very existence.

They’ve been strengthened through an increasing flood of ammo, heavy weapons, and shared intelligence from NATO countries, who know that members like Poland or the Baltic states would be next on Putin’s conquest shopping list.

“It’s been a long time since this country did something big and hard together,” Sasse told a Reagan Library audience the other night.

He added:

We need allies to get back on the offensive against the CCP, and those allies need US leadership…As Chairman Xi looks to expand his sphere of influence, we need a new military alliance centered far out into the Pacific. This is our main foreign policy work…

Let’s arm the Taiwanese military to the teeth. Let’s amend the Taiwan Relations Act directly to make our security guarantee explicit. No more strategic ambiguity.

Let’s pair military partnerships with economic partnerships and end the nonsense anti-trade policies of the last two administrations. Pacific NATO should be a free-trade zone, too. Trade is a win-win because when Americans compete, we win.

Nobody out-thinks, out-hustles, or out-works the American people. We built an American order that saw us through the Cold War.

We can build a new American order that will see us through the coming conflict with the Beijing tyrant – that’s seeking to export his dehumanizing surveillance-state autocracy and the related technologies.

The idea of the United States actually providing international leadership once again to protect its own security offshore with others is exciting to imagine in stark contrast to the depressing drift of Joe Biden’s policies toward China.

For all we know, Hunter Biden maintains the large financial investments in China he established in 2013 after riding there with Dad on the vice-presidential plane.

How’s that for strategic competition?

There’s much more of refreshing interest in this Reagan Library speech. I urge you to scan it for yourself with an open mind keyed to the future. Let me know in the Comments what else struck you.



Kamala Harris' 'New' Plan to Combat Biden Border Crisis Is Misguided in Multiple Ways


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Welp, more than a year since Vice President Kamala “Root Causes” Harris has been anywhere near the Southern Border, our maladroit veep has announced a “new” plan to attack the Biden Border Crisis™.

New plan, as in same as the old plan.

The ever-clueless Harris on Tuesday announced that the Biden Administration’s plan to attract U.S. investment to Central America — part of the effort to reduce illegal immigration, you know — has generated $3.2 billion in private-sector commitments. As reported by the AP, Harris made the announcement during comments at the Summit of the Americas, which brings together countries from across the hemisphere.

We know the American people will benefit from stable and prosperous neighbors. And when we provide economic opportunity for people in Central America, we address an important driver of migration.

Not to nitpick, but the American people would benefit even more from a stable and prosperous American economy

As the AP further noted, Harris stressed she would focus on “empowering women who face poverty and violence in their home countries,” in particular, referring to the “In Her Hands” initiative, which, according to AP, “aims to connect more women to the banking system, help them participate in agriculture and provide them with training in coding and cybersecurity.” Said Harris:

When you lift up the economic status of women, you lift up the economic status of families, of her community, and of our entire hemisphere.

Meanwhile — again, not to nitpick — a caravan of at least 10,000 soon-to-be-illegal immigrants, which is expected to swell to roughly 15,000 before reaching the border, continues its drive to Joe Biden’s America. “Now we need him to keep his promise,” said one Haitian migrant.

The obvious questions abound.

Why are “we” responsible for providing economic opportunity to the people of Central America, Mexico, or any other country on the planet other than our own?

Incidentally, Central American poverty is far more to blame on decades of corrupt government than on the U.S. failing to provide adequate “investment” — U.S. taxpayer handouts — so how would sending even more money to corrupt politicians help end the corruption?

And where does it end, Kamala? Illegal immigrants “seeking a better life ” continue to stream into America from every corner of the world. Is it also up to “we” to “provide” economic opportunity for all of them, as well? Again, where does it end?

Finally — and most importantly — what happens in the meantime in our country, as untold millions of Americans suffer economic hardship while crushing gas prices — which Biden calls part of an “incredible transition” — continue to soar? And grocery store bills? The price of used cars? The list goes on.

The bottom line:

Biden’s approach — along with that of the entire Democrat Party — to both his self-created border crisis and self-created oil/gas price crisis are not dissimilar in one important aspect. Both are driven by the left’s long-term goals.

With the oil and gas crisis— evil “fossil fuels” — the overarching objectivity is “green energy.” In the case of the border crisis, the objective is to permanently change the political landscape in America, ultimately leading, Democrats wrongly believe, to a permanent Democrat majority.

Hence, in both cases, Democrats believe, the hardships that befall everyday America in the interim are little more than “necessary evils” at worst, and as Joe said about out-of-control gas prices, “incredible.”

And if you don’t like any of it? Let the fearmongering, ad hominems, and silly labeling begin.