Thursday, August 4, 2022

The Failure of Our Expert Class on China Cost Us Dearly

Now we face the consequences of 
when lucre (for a few) defeats strategy.


Henry Kissinger, the doyen of the foreign policy elite and the China engagement school, made the latest of his entreaties last month to the Biden Administration to avoid a U.S. confrontation with Beijing. This is well received by the administration, as it too seeks to hinder an effective U.S. response to the growing China threat. The most significant occurrence of the last 50 years has been the rise of China and the dispositive question of the 21st century is whether the United States or China will determine the rules, principles, and values of global politics in this century.

What Happened? 

The expansion of China’s power is one of the most remarkable developments of the second half of the 20th century, rivaled only by the Cold War remaining cold and its peaceful end. In 1980, China’s gross domestic product of $191 billion. In 2000, it was about $1.2 trillion. Today it is approximately $17.7 trillion and the equal or just a bit below the size of the U.S. economy. 

In 1980, China’s military was large but militarily ineffective, its nuclear forces were modest, and its power projection capabilities extended only to its borders. Today, China’s military is a rival of the U.S. military, its nuclear forces are expanding at a pace that Admiral Charles Richard, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, calls “breathtaking.” China is developing the ability to project and sustain military power far beyond its borders and possesses or is developing de facto bases in Cambodia, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Pakistan, and the Solomon Islands. 

The consequence of China’s expansion is a relative change in the balance of power in China’s favor and so the United States once again has a global rival, which it had not had since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. This expansion is a stark development and defines the end of the post-Cold War period which was unique and defined by unrivaled U.S. power and the genesis of the return to an era of great power competition, which is a return to the norm in international politics.

How Did This Happen?

China’s rise is an accomplished fact. That this occurred when its rise was clear to all, decade after decade, delegitimizes America’s foreign policy elite, its intelligence community, its political leadership, and its foreign policy foundations and think tanks. Their job was to prevent the rise of a challenger to the global position of the United States. They failed. If there were accountability, they would be fired, as few will admit their failure and resign. 

The three causes must be understood so that the United States never repeats its error: the victory of Deng Xiaoping’s strategy; the triumph of the foreign policy elite and Wall Street; and the failure of the U.S. strategic community. 

First, the architect of this epochal development was Deng Xiaoping. Deng is a strong candidate for the 20th century’s greatest strategic thinker. He took a desperately poor nation, still reeling from the disasters of Mao Zedong’s leadership, and placed it on the path to world domination without generating opposition from the United States, but, indeed, with the support of the U.S. elite. Deng’s strategy of hiding China’s growth while biding its time was uniquely successful. 

Chinese leadership under Deng was shaken to its core by the Tiananmen Square massacre and, more significantly, by the collapse of the Soviet Union. China was determined not to repeat Moscow’s mistakes. This included ensuring that there would be no political reform as Gorbachev had attempted and which had unleashed the desire for freedom, political change, and nationalism. 

Second, Deng recognized that isolation from Western technological progress guaranteed subordination in the world order. What China needed was technology, foreign direct investment (FDI), and knowledge and skill from the West. That, in turn, meant joining the rules-based trade system and ultimately the World Trade Organization. Even before China entered the WTO in December 2001, it prioritized export-oriented growth, the reform of state-owned enterprises and FDI, which provided a foundation for its economic miracle beginning in the 1990s. 

Consequently, the rise of China was met by a historically unique case of threat deflation in the United States. Regrettably, this remains. China’s deception started under Deng, projecting an image of itself as a benign and responsible great power that fully accepted the liberal international order. From the perspective of Beijing, the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership must be thanking its lucky stars and secretly amazed they got away with it for so long. 

Willing Allies in the West

But Deng could not accomplish China’s rise alone. The second cause was Western elites who were willing allies. The U.S. foreign policy elite and Wall Street’s elite willingly embraced and sustained China’s rise. They also profited handsomely from it. They consistently—and gravely—underestimated the dangers and implications of China’s rise, including its threat to U.S. interests and the security of the American people.  

Lamentably, the West’s failings were multiple and maintained for decades. While Deng provided the foundation, China’s success was made possible because the United States allowed it to enter the world’s free-trade system. For decades, China has used the West’s economic ecosystem to grow like kudzu. And like kudzu, it has come close to killing the indigenous flora in the economic and technological ecosystem. Western businesses gained access to, and thus lucre, through the PRC’s market. In exchange, they traded the transfer of industries, wealth, and knowledge to the PRC. Countless American CEOs and financiers profited from this sordid exchange. Through their actions they exposed the American people and economy, as well as the national security of the U.S. to enormous vulnerabilities. Few said anything to stop this while the PRC looted the intellectual capital and property of the West with the help of Western elites. 

Over 30 years, China has snatched an astronomical $4.4 trillion from the United States. Additionally, the United States has lost $200 billion to $600 billion annually because of China’s theft, not to mention the several million good-paying manufacturing jobs.  China achieved economic success in large measure by taking advantage of the working classes in both China and the United States. The Chinese working classes continue to pay a high price for the regime’s ambition: wages are artificially low, and labor conditions are Dickensian.  Once workers leave factories, they encounter other dangers for their health from chronic air and water pollution in Chinese cities. A consequence of China’s entering the West’s ecosystem has been to weaken the West’s manufacturing power and introduce dependency on China’s products. 

The United States helped to create its most powerful enemy by giving the PRC access to talent, markets, capital, technologies, and universities. This permitted China to build its economic might, which, in turn, allowed it to create a formidable military with an increasing capability to project its power globally. 

Washington supported Chinese economic growth and membership in the WTO, facilitating both with the expectation that they would be beneficial for the U.S. economy and that the integration of China into the Western economic ecosystem would compel China to democratize. 

This colossal blunder was rooted in the hubris and ignorance of Western political leaders from the 1990s until Donald Trump’s presidency. Predictions that China was on the wrong side of a Hegelian conception of history are painful reminders that our elites are far from grasping any teleological reality. In fact, their views easily lead to a hubris, ignorance, and conceit that is self-destructive. Instead of forcing its democratization, China’s economic growth fueled the CCP’s position and control, its aggressiveness, and its global ambition. Economic prosperity legitimized China’s flawed political system and made it possible for a dictator such as Xi to rise to power.  

The United States and European Union (EU) lost any hope of compelling change when both supported investment, trade, and WTO membership for China without linking these “carrots” to the “stick” of political reform and respect for human rights. In truth, the West never even insisted upon such measures as capital account convertibility and a floating exchange rate, which would have allowed adjustments, particularly in the financial system, to occur at the expense of the CCP’s control of the economy. Instead, Western elites naively accepted China’s willingness to accept the rules of the liberal international order and reform its political system to become democratic. 

That effort was doomed to fail as it did too little to compel compliance. In sum, the insouciance of the foreign policy elite and Wall Street was a result of their capture by the Party or their willful neglect to employ the tools they might have used to force political change in China.

Finally, the third cause was the defeat of American strategic thinkers. Far stronger during the Cold War, the defeat of the Soviet Union fractured their strategic focus, which turned to ethnic conflict and the breakup of Yugoslavia, terrorism, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost anything other than the rise of China. The defeat of America’s peer allowed finance to triumph, to place wealth creation before the national security of the United States. 

Those who warned about the profound and adverse strategic consequences of China’s growth, such as the late Andrew Marshall, who directed the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, were effectively ignored. It also hindered the ability of strategic thinkers to replace their ranks as universities and professional military education focused on other topics. Unfortunately, America’s strategic thinkers did not have the power to defeat the expansion of China’s influence and the financial, foreign policy, and political elite. They lost the fight. Now the country faces the consequences of when money (for a few) defeats strategy. 

The end of the Cold War disarmed the West strategically and ideologically. It yielded triumphalism, and, ironically, ideological disarmament, and allowed China to expand its power and influence in the West and globally without effective resistance.

What Is to Be Done?

Although we need a new elite, we are extremely unlikely to get one in the immediate or near term. The next steps require that the elite we have embrace a singular strategic focus on the China threat. This must be sustained and always first in order of priority for leadership, personnel, resources, and budget despite competing threats from other states. None are the equal of the China threat. 

This attention is also necessary for Wall Street. Funding the Chinese Communist Party should never have occurred. Regrettably, it has. It should have ended decades ago and the fact that it continues borders on criminal negligence. It is a painful reminder of how far Chinese influence has penetrated, the foreign policy elite’s and Wall Street’s continued threat deflation, and how much Americans must accomplish to compel their financial, business, media, and political elites to change course. 

The most pernicious aspect of threat deflation is the assumption of time—if a threat is on the horizon, there remains time to change course and address it. In fact, the United States is out of time. It must recapture its strategic focus immediately. This begins by recognizing that the Chinese Communist Party is the enemy and must be defeated. 

Cato the Elder always ended his speeches in the Roman Senate—no matter the topic—with the recognition that Rome’s peer competitor, Carthage, must be destroyed (Carthago delenda est). Carthage was finally vanquished after the end of the Third Punic War in 146 B.C., three years after Cato’s death. His focus on the peer competitive threat perpetually reminded Roman leaders of the danger to their position and of Carthage’s determination to defeat them. Today, Americans need to institutionalize Cato’s clear and powerful insight concerning the necessity of identifying and vanquishing the enemy.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 4

 



The very 1st big teaser for NCIS LA's Season premiere, simply must be of Hetty.

Why? Think of it, the first big teaser, after so much secrecy, being of the most beloved team member, who hasn't been seen since last October for some nefarious unknown reason. It would completely deafen the news of the utterly predictable crossover between 2 other NCIS's (which any dummy who follows BTS content knew was coming since late June)! And would offer everyone an actual REAL reason to actually look forward to an episode again for the first time since, um. March or February? I forgot when 'All the Little Things' aired.

Plus, it would give me something huge to talk about that isn't political.

LA needs something that's actually big to stand out from the other 2, and Hetty is their only real answer. I pray they know that.

Here's tonight's news:


Why We Lost Trust in the Expert Class ~ VDH

Elite experts and degreed professionals massaged and warped their knowledge to serve 
ideological masters rather than the truth.


For years, European policy makers had assured the world that the relatively rapid “transition” to “green” energy was the world’s preordained future—regardless of the costs. 

Accordingly, many European Union governments followed the advice of green experts. They eagerly shut down coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to transition immediately to “renewable energy.” 

Most citizens were afraid to object that in cloudy, cold Germany solar panels were not viable methods of electrical generation—especially in comparison to the country’s vast coal deposits and its large, model nuclear power industry. 

As a result, German government officials warn that this winter, in 19th-century fashion, families will have to burn wood—the dirtiest of modern fuels—to endure the cold. And there is further talk of “warm rooms,” where like pre-civilizational tribal people, the elderly will bunch together within a designated heated room to keep alive. 

Sri Lanka may be the first modern nation to adopt deliberate policies that have led to mass hunger and bankruptcy. The government for a variety of reasons listened to foreign advocates of back-to-nature organic farming, specifically outright abandonment of highly effective synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. 

The result was endemic crop failure. Cash crops for export failed. Widespread hunger followed. Without foreign exchange, it became impossible to import key staples like food and fuel. 

Sri Lanka once had a per capita income twice that of nearby India. Now it cannot feed or fuel itself. 

Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisors, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the woke darling of the “Environmental, Social, Governance” movement, and that way draw in unlimited Western woke investment. 

Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide. 

Recently, a group of 55 distinguished pro-administration economists assured us that Joe Biden’s massive borrowing and new entitlements agenda were not inflationary. In September 2021, these economists with 14 Nobel prize winners among them declared that Biden’s inflationary policies would actually “ease” inflation. 

Last month, inflation spiked to an annualized rate of 9.1 percent. None of these “blue-chip” economists have offered any apologies for lending their prestige to convince Americans of the absurd: that inflating the money supply, spiking new government spending, incentivizing labor non-participation, and keeping interest rates artificially low would not cause inflation. 

In late July 2021, General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed that the Taliban takeover “was not a foregone conclusion.” He bragged that 34 provincial capitals were still in Afghan government hands. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin nodded in approval. Less than a month later, the entire Afghan government collapsed. The American military fled in its most ignominious retreat in over 50 years. Milley had been parroting Biden’s earlier prompt that a Taliban victory after the American evacuation was “highly unlikely.” 

On the eve of the 2020 election, news accounts revealed some of the lurid contents on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop. Emails and photos began to incriminate the entire Biden family for leveraging millions of dollars from foreign grandees for access to a bought Joe Biden. 

Fifty retired intelligence officers, however, without evidence, swore that the laptop’s appearance could be due to “Russian disinformation.” Yet after authentication—Hunter himself never denied the lost laptop was his—few if any of those marquee “experts” apologized for their election-driven dissimulation. 

At the height of the massive 2020 enforced quarantine and lockdowns, some 1,200 medical and health “professionals” signed a petition claiming that thousands of left-wing protestors should be exempt from the very quarantine they had insisted on for others. The experts absurdly claimed that denying tens of thousands the right to break quarantines to protest in the street was a greater health threat than COVID-19. 

FBI Director James Comey doggedly pursued the “Russian collusion” hoax. At one point he hired the discredited Christopher Steele to supply the FBI with information from his fantasy dossier. Once called to account, on some 245 occasions before Congress, Comey swore that he could either not remember or had no knowledge about the questions asked of him. 

His successor FBI interim Director Andrew McCabe admittedly lied on four occasions to federal officials. Special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller himself swore under oath that he knew nothing either about the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS—the twin catalysts for his entire investigation. 

FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith admitted to altering a federal court document in efforts to convict an innocent suspect. 

All these depressing examples have one common denominator. Elite experts and degreed professionals massaged and warped their knowledge to serve ideological masters rather than the truth. 

In the process, they caused untold damage to their country and fellow citizens. They disgraced their profession. They tarnished the scientific community. And sold their souls to ideologues. 

Is it any wonder why the Western public has lost confidence in their degreed and credentialed elites? 



If Paxlovid Causes More Covid, Why Has The White House Spent Billions On It?

Is there some sort of unholy union between the FDA, Pfizer, and the Biden White House?



Shortly after President Joe Biden touted his recovery from Covid last week, he once again tested positive for the virus, in a rebound case that is often associated with the drug Paxlovid, which Biden was taking.

Countless Americans who have taken Pfizer’s Paxlovid following a Covid infection have experienced what everyone is calling “rebound Covid.” Rebound Covid is a recurrence of the virus that occurs in a person who has already recovered from Covid, many times shortly after completing Paxlovid.  

What does it mean?

Clinical scientists are offering all kinds of different theories, but no definitive explanations for the “rebound” Paxlovid phenomenon have been established. It’s a mystery and regardless of what it is, it can’t be good.  

Why Make High-Risk Patients Sick Twice?

Rebound Covid post-Paxlovid raises a critical public health and drug safety concern. According to the NIH, only high-risk populations are supposed to get Paxlovid, but taking Paxlovid sometimes opens those same high-risk patients to a rebound infection with Covid. In some cases, the rebound Covid symptoms are worse, placing the same high-risk patients in more severe danger.  

One doesn’t need to be a physician to know that having a high-risk patient get sick twice is worse than once.  

Why is Biden still advocating for Paxlovid’s use, as recently as last week? The White House doesn’t have a political option. It must either a) admit failure or b) ignore public health.  

The White House foolishly chose to pay Pfizer $10.6 billion for Paxlovid, based on a highly preliminary “pilot study” showing nearly 90 percent effectiveness which later dissolved into its study failing and being voluntarily discontinued by Pfizer prior to its completion. Paxlovid failed its trial endpoints when compared to a placebo group. Perhaps the Biden White House didn’t realize that informal preliminary pilot studies are never conclusive and “results” need confirmation with a formal clinical trial. Regardless, the White House did not wait until the formal trial was complete before committing $10.6 billion in taxpayer dollars. It’s a $10.6 billion fortune down the drain. 

Spending Billions on a Questionable Drug

The White House’s actions are inexcusable. Not only do they refuse to acknowledge that the drug was a failure and that they had prematurely and inappropriately spent a vast fortune on something ineffective and potentially dangerous, but they continue to promote Paxlovid’s use! 

Rather than protecting patients, the White House is choosing to sacrifice the well-being of at-risk patients and promote a drug that Pfizer itself gave up on before the clinical trial was even completed.  

The actual rate of Paxlovid rebound is hard to know. First, Americans were told it was “rare,” less than 1 percent. Then we were told it was 5.4 percent, then 10 percent. On July 30, 2022, one CNN medical analyst and professor at George Washington University stated that with the newest Covid strain it is “likely 20-40 percent or even higher.” Anecdotal reports from social media make it seem that a huge percentage of people who have taken Paxlovid have rebounded.  

The silence of the CDC, FDA, NIH, and Dr. Fauci (who also had a rebound case after taking Paxlovid) is deafening, but unfortunately predictable.  

A Similar Story to Vaccines and Boosters

In case this feels familiar, that’s because it is. Americans have seen the exact same thing before regarding Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects. While the federal government scolded Americans for not getting vaccines and boosters, they simultaneously remained silent on adverse events and deliberately complacent in suppressing them.  

Even if Paxlovid was effective, do patients need it? At this point, the same question goes for Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. The dominant variants today typically produce a milder infection; most people get minimal to moderate cold-like symptoms from Covid infections whether vaccinated or not.  

It’s also telling that many Americans aren’t interested in boosters. If they had been shown to work, people would be taking them — but they haven’t, so people aren’t. In the U.S. alone, the government has been forced to throw out more than 82 million vaccine/booster doses, yet Americans aren’t dropping dead everywhere. Even leftist academic centers can’t hide objective epidemiological evidence coming out of hospitals in recent months that illustrate record lows in Covid-19-related hospital ICU admissions.

Digging Their Heels in Deeper

Despite all of that, the White House is still endlessly seeking to purchase more vaccines. By July 29, the White House had committed to purchasing a total of 171 million Covid-19 vaccine doses for the new omicron mutations of Covid-19, despite having zero clinical trial evidence of safety or efficacy — e.g., exactly like they did with Paxlovid!  

The combination of promoting endless boosters of an vaccine that fails to prevent infection or transmission, along with promoting Pfizer’s Paxlovid despite its ineffectiveness and mysterious “rebound” pharmacology, makes me wonder about something that I have thought about for a long time, especially as a former senior FDA official: Is there some sort of unholy union between the FDA, Pfizer, and the Biden White House? Pfizer spends millions in lobbying and campaign contributions. Its revolving door with government health agencies is concerning. Would the Biden White House dare place Americans’ public health at risk in the name of politics? I pray the answer is no and also hope that I am wrong, perhaps missing part of the story, but a compelling amount of data points to my suspicions being accurate.  

The White House needs to be more careful about funneling fortunes to Big Pharma for unproven, and possibly unsafe or unneeded, drugs. Americans should very carefully consider what they are hearing from the White House, its officials, and all federal alphabet agencies about the Paxlovid “wonder drug.”  



Joe Biden Shreds the Constitution to Spend Your Money on Abortions


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

With the overturning of Roe vs. Wade has come one of the greatest leftwing freakouts in American history. Overwrought proclamations of women dying in the streets because they can’t remove ectopic pregnancies have become a favorite way to fearmonger. Reality tells a different story, with not a single state outlawing abortion procedures needed to save the life of the mother or to end a non-viable pregnancy.

Still, with Democrat electoral prospects in peril heading into November’s mid-terms, they have to keep pushing the issue. On Wednesday, President Joe Biden did his part by signing an executive order allowing the usage of Medicaid funds to support those seeking out-of-state abortions from places that otherwise ban the procedure for elective reasons.

Here was Biden signing the order after he celebrated the downfall of a Kansas amendment allowing stricter abortion restrictions during in his remarks.

According to CNN, Biden made this egregiously false claim to support the move.

“Emergency medical care being denied to women experiencing miscarriages, doctors uncertain about what they can do to provide for their patients, pharmacists unsure whether they can fill prescriptions that they’ve always filled before, a tragic case of rape survivors, including a 10-year-old girl forced to travel to another state for care,” Biden said before signing the order.

There is no law in any state that denies emergency medical care to a woman experiencing a miscarriage. Why would there be? A miscarriage isn’t even an abortion. As to any supposed uncertainty by doctors, that is self-inflicted by partisanship and dishonest activists. Again, there is no law in the nation that disallows a doctor from providing emergency medical care to a woman having complications from a pregnancy.

I’m also unable to find any legitimate reason a pharmacy would be unable to fill prescriptions they’ve always filled. In the case of Plan B, which is likely what Biden is talking about, it is considered a contraceptive and has not been affected by any abortion laws passed by any state. Lastly, his assertion about the 10-year-old girl is also false. While the girl was real, no law in Ohio prohibited her from getting the care she needed within her own state.

This executive order is built on a mountain of lies and mischaracterizations meant to spread fear among women, and it will ultimately cost lives by causing them not to seek the care they need that is readily and legally available. Further, and just as importantly, what Biden is doing is flatly unconstitutional.

Wednesday’s order also directs HHS to consider actions guaranteeing women traveling across state lines seeking abortions have access to health care services, including through Medicaid. Last month, a bill guaranteeing women the right to travel across state lines to seek abortions failed to pass the Senate after Republicans blocked the measure.

According to a senior administration official, that would allow states to provide care for out-of-state patients seeking abortions through a Medicaid 1115 waiver, permitting states to waive certain state-based requirements in providing care and assist in covering “certain costs.”

The Hyde Amendment, which is still currently in effect because no budget lacking it has been passed, expressly prohibits the use of Medicaid funds to provide for abortion services. Biden is attempting to an end around by vaguely allowing assistance with “certain costs,” including travel costs. Yet, that still results in taxpayer money being used to facilitate an abortion.

Democrats are attempting to violate one of the most common sense bargains in modern American history. The Hyde Amendment exists so that people (such as myself) who believe abortion is the killing of a child can not be made to participate in the practice. To the extent that the bargain was fairly shallow, it at least allowed for some degree of separation. What happens when you start forcing Americans, including devoutly religious ones, to pay for the abortions of other people? The answer is that you get dangerous divisions in a nation already in a tenuous spot.

This is playing with fire, and it needs to be stopped. Hopefully, a court challenge sees this EO struck down, and when a Republican gets back into the White House, it must be repealed immediately. No American should have to violate their own beliefs by being forced to pay for abortions. Period.




Biden Appoints Problematic Islamist With Muslim Brotherhood Ties To Religious Freedom Commission

Under the Biden administration, Islamist affiliations are résumé builders and genocide denial is no big thing.



Serving as an imam of a mosque that was credibly accused of serving as a conduit for terror financing and as the leader of a national organization with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood should disqualify someone from serving on a commission charged with monitoring abuses of religious freedom. And downplaying the horrors of a well-documented genocide fueled by religious animosity should also be a deal breaker. But under the Biden administration, these types of Islamist affiliations are résumé builders and genocide denial is no big thing.

This was demonstrated last month when the White House appointed Mohamed Hag Magid, a prominent imam from Virginia, to serve on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) last month. Established by Congress in 1998, USCIRF is charged with monitoring violations of the right to religious freedom throughout the world and makes recommendations on how to respond to these violations to the president, the U.S. State Department, and to Congress. According to its website, the nine-member commission is “appointed by either the President or Congressional leaders of each political party, supported by a non-partisan professional staff.”

In its announcement of Magid’s appointment, the White House highlighted his status as Executive Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center in Sterling, Virginia. In the early 2000s, the ADAMS center was named in a federal investigation as part of the SAAR network, an alleged terror finance organization funded by Saudi donors.

To further buttress Magid’s appointment, the White House invoked his tenure as president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981. During his time as president, Magid gave an award to Dawud Walid, the executive director of CAIR-Michigan. Prior to receiving the ISNA reward, Walid declared, “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah? They are the Jews.” ISNA, by the way, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Magid’s episode of genocide denial took place at a 2004 conference in Georgetown where he stated that reports about the mass-killings of Christians by the Islamist regime in Khartoum were “some kind of exaggeration,” and that “things escalated and people called it genocide.”

One of the groups that called what happened in Sudan “genocide” was USCIRF, the commission he now helps oversee. In 2001, USCIRF declared that religion was a major factor in Sudan’s civil war and that “the Sudanese government is committing genocidal atrocities against the civilian population in the south and the Nuba Mountains.”

This is not the first time a prominent Islamist activist has been appointed to USCIRF’s board. Kuwaiti-born Abou El Fadl, a professor from UCLA School of Law, served on the commission in the early 2000s after downplaying the aggressive expansionist agenda of Wahhabi extremists. In 2002, he declared that Wahhabis “do not seek to dominate — to attain supremacy in the world,” and that they “are more than happy living within the boundaries of Saudi Arabia.”

In the years since his time on USCIRF, El Fadl has been a vocal critic of specialists who raised the alarm over the Muslim Brotherhood, charging them with “Islamophobia.” This is not the behavior of someone intent on protecting religious freedom, but someone intent on weaponizing the principle to deflect scrutiny away from Islamist organizations.

Islamists have learned how to use USCIRF to harass their enemies. The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) has effectively lobbied the commission to condemn the mistreatment of Muslims in India. While inter-communal violence in India is a legitimate concern, the IAMC is simply not a credible source of commentary on religious freedom and peaceful interfaith relations.

In 2002, IAMC spokesperson Kaleem Kawaja lamented the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan asking his fellow Muslims if they could “spare a tear” for the organization. And on Sept. 11, 2021, IAMC had Islamist scholar Yasir Nadeem Al Wajidi spoke at its national retreat in Chicago, weeks after he celebrated the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, calling the event “an opportunity to present to the world an Islamic system based on justice and fairness.” The Taliban has subsequently evicted minority Shia Muslims from their homes in Afghanistan and denied girls their right to attend school.

And on August 15, 2020, IAMC celebrated 74 years of Indian independence with a webinar featuring Indian activist Harsh Mander, who was later reprimanded in India’s high court for instigating Muslim mobs to seek “justice on the streets.”

This is not to say that no Muslim can be trusted to promote the cause of religious freedom. The work of Rashad Hussain, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom for the Biden Administration, is a case in point. He has condemned blasphemy and apostasy laws used to justify Islamist violence. Hussain also condemned the murder of a Hindu tailor by Muslim extremists in India during his recent appearance on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

USCIRF is supposed to monitor abuses of religious freedom. Sadly, the commission itself needs monitoring.



WH Tries Shamefully Ignorant Gaslighting Effort Over SCOTUS Decision on Abortion


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

I think many on the left still have no understanding of what the SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v. Wade means.

Unfortunately, it looks like among the people who are ignorant on the subject are Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court or for that matter Congressional Republicans – who for decades have pushed their extremist agenda – have a clue about the power of American women,” Biden said. “Last night in Kansas they found out.” Biden was referencing the decision in Kansas that rejected an amendment that would have weakened protections for abortion.

Then there was White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

She said Biden had predicted that “people would turn out in record numbers to reclaim rights stolen from them, and they did.”

Um, guys? The Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson didn’t ban abortion, they sent it back to the states to decide. So Kansas, whether one likes the decision or not, did exactly what the Supreme Court decision allowed for. Not only didn’t the Supreme Court steal any “rights,” they ensured that the rights were back where they should have been all along — with the women and the others who voted. Neither Biden nor Jean-Pierre even understands the decision. Or they’re just trying to gaslight everyone about what it said.

Jean-Pierre didn’t leave it there. She doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of the Supreme Court or how the government works.

Noted legal scholar KJP even claimed, “From day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them.” It’s the Supreme Court’s job to determine what is constitutional, not Jean-Pierre’s job. The Supreme Court wasn’t extreme. Indeed, it was the Court that originally passed Roe that was the “activist” Court passing a right that didn’t exist in the Constitution. This was again just handing it back to state legislatures and the people where it belonged, to begin with. I don’t think she understands what a constitutional right is. I think she’s trying for the Paul Krugman award for how many times someone can just be incredibly wrong. If there was an award for shamelessness, this might win.

Jean-Pierre’s comment even sparked a reaction from Fox’s Bret Baier, who found it eyebrow-raising.

Hopefully, we can boot as many Democrats out of power in November as possible to put as much of a check on these crazy people as we can.