Friday, February 3, 2023

OVERNIGHT OPEN THREAD Spy Balloons


On Thursday afternoon the Pentagon announced that a “high altitude surveillance balloon” had been located over the continental United States over the last two days, and that steps had been taken to ensure that sensitive military and government information was not at risk of being intercepted, but that the balloon was still drifting over the country. While the official didn’t state which country the Pentagon believes owns this weapon of war, a “senior official” said they’re “confident” it belongs to China.

Many excuses have been given about why the balloon hasn’t been intercepted or shot down, and now  Bill Melugin of Fox News reports that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is requesting a “Gang of Eight” briefing on the issue.

The “Gang of Eight” are the eight members of Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the Executive Branch, specifically, the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Republican and Democrat leaders of the House and Senate. Currently, that would be McCarthy, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT), Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It’s extremely consequential that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is no longer eligible to receive this briefing.

In our original story we reported that a “senior official” confirmed to Fox News that the US government is confident that the spy balloon belongs to the CCP/PRC. That same senior official provided the outlet with additional information about the its location and actions taken by the military:

“You did see reports yesterday of a ground stop at Billings Airport and the mobilization of a number of assets, including F-22. The context for that was that we put some things on station in the event that a decision was made to bring this down while it was over Montana. So, we wanted to make sure we were coordinating with civil authorities to empty out the airspace around that potential area. But even with those protective measures taken, it was the judgment of our military commanders that we didn’t drive the risk down low enough. So, we didn’t take the shot,” the official said.

A separate source told Fox News that the military is considering a number of options regarding how to “deal” with the balloon, including shooting it down if it’s believed there would not be civilian casualties.

This isn’t the first time such a balloon has entered US airspace, sources said, adding that “They’re trying to fly this balloon over sensitive sites, one of which was just mentioned to collect information,” but that it’s likely not collecting “information of significant value” to the CCP.

Jesse Watters reported that the balloon first went over Alaska then into Canadian airspace before entering the United States.



China Floats High Altitude “Spy Balloon” Over U.S. Airspace

This is a little goofy, and likely another expression of the Beijing dragon doing the propaganda dance.  According to multiple media sources a high altitude “spy balloon” is drifting over U.S. airspace and the Pentagon has discussed options for shooting it down yet they didn’t.

It’s goofy because the balloon is floating well above commercial airline routes and, well, what could China capture via balloon that they are not already capturing via satellite surveillance.  It’s just odd.  {Direct Rumble Link}

I can understand not shooting it down – after all, that approach would likely then involve bits of the thing falling to the ground, which then would pose both a hazard and a need to collect all the debris.  It seems more like a Beijing propaganda effort than an actual risk to any U.S. military interests.


Washington DC – House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Thursday night called for a briefing of the “Gang of Eight” — the group of lawmakers charged with reviewing the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information — following reports of a Chinese spy balloon flying over Montana.

“China’s brazen disregard for U.S. sovereignty is a destabilizing action that must be addressed, and President Biden cannot be silent,” McCarthy tweeted. “I am requesting a Gang of Eight briefing.” (read more)

Have no fear, the Pentagon is investigating with their best men, whoops – I mean people, or people-kind, or non-binary persons who are within what we previously called the U.S. military, or defense dept.  Whatever all that is now….



An American Hugo Chavez Is Coming

Chavism promises the realization of multicultural America.


Every day, the media tells Americans that the Right poses a unique threat to Our Democracy.  Donald Trump is just like Hitler, and the Republican Party has embraced “fascism.” Democracy would have literally died if the GOP won a few more seats in the midterms. This hysterical nonsense is taken seriously by the “adults” in our country, including the current Oval Office occupant, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the FBI.

But it’s also regurgitated by a growing subset of conservative media personalities who fantasize about a coming “Red Caesar.” Like their liberal counterparts, they predict the emergence of a right-wing, charismatic strongman who will upend the present regime. 

That assessment isn’t grounded in reality. Far from it. Any authoritarian political movements will almost certainly come from the Left. 

America may soon face one of two kinds of left-wing authoritarianism. One is the soft despotism of liberal technocracy. This authoritarianism wouldn’t overthrow the present structures of our society or upend the economy. In fact, it would have the support of the regime’s major institutions. It would seriously curb civil liberties, such as free speech and gun rights, and feel much less democratic. More people would be arrested over memes, but much would remain the same. Political life in America would look more like contemporary Western Europe.

The other is a radical populism in the mold of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan socialist who turned his resource-rich South American nation into a hellhole. This authoritarianism would threaten America’s institutions and overthrow the economic order. It would not be supported by the powers that be and would crush civil liberties to enact massive wealth redistribution programs. 

Unlike liberal technocracy, where the guiding principle is that “experts” should be in charge, this radical populism would be motivated largely by race resentment. The desire for revenge against “white supremacy” would inspire a movement to destroy the old America. 

Today, an American Chavist movement looks more likely than Red Caesarism. Americans are primed to support its message thanks to popular media and real-world conditions. Plus, Chavism has a natural economic base that consists of gig workers, people stuck in the service sectors, low-skilled immigrants (both legal and illegal), the “lumpenbourgeoisie” (failsons who can’t achieve the lifestyle of their parents), and others who feel left out of American abundance. These growing demographics are turning to left-wing champions as seen in “the squad,” whose constituency will only grow with time.

This is the multiracial working class. Chavism would unite them in a coalition of have-nots. It is one charismatic leader away from becoming a dominant political force.

American Chavism may have similar policies to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign platform, but it would have a very different style. It would be aggressive and hostile to the Democratic Party establishment, where Sanders was civil and easily capitulated. Sanders also refused to lean into minority identity politics. His 2020 campaign lukewarmly attempted to incorporate that tendency into his agenda, but it wasn’t his chief focus. By contrast, minority identity politics would be as central to Chavism as wealth redistribution. The economic policies would be both socialist and anti-white. 

This radical ideology would tamp down some of the excesses of wokeness. It would be pro-trans, feminist, and accept all the latest fads, but it would treat these as side issues. American Chavists would not let these issues distract from their core message of wealth redistribution. Excessive wokeness hinders successful far-left movements. You can’t get anything done if you’re obsessed with gender pronouns, and you can’t attract a mass following if you look like a freak show. Chavists would stick to what’s popular: anti-white socialism.

And make no mistake about it, anti-white racism is popular. It informs education curricula throughout the country. Two of 2022’s biggest blockbusters, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Avatar: The Way of Water, were silver screen denunciations of white settlement. Whites are the butt of every joke, from advertisements to late-night comedy. Politicians love to rail against rich white people. Celebrities can go on hate-filled rants against whites with social media’s approval and fear no consequences. Libraries are now filled with anti-white titles.

Anti-white racism combined with wealth redistribution undergirds support for reparations. Reparations supporters want to use the state to redistribute white wealth to blacks. A majority of Democrats now support this idea. 

By focusing on black America, reparations somewhat awkwardly exclude other nonwhites from white wealth. American Chavism would rectify that. Here, the rest of the BIPOC coalition would get their respective “reparations” for whatever injustice they claim. Hispanics deserve reparations for immigration enforcement, Indians for European settlement, Asians for colonialism, etc. Left-wing populism would simply expand this concept to make it more “inclusive,” yet equally anti-white. 

Venezuelan Chavism was originally anti-white. Chavez vowed to end the dominance of Venezuela’s white castizo elite and distributed their wealth to the nation’s indios, blacks, and mestizos. Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro made good on that promise, turning Venezuela into a tyrannical dump. Former Bolivian President Evo Morales followed this example, promising to empower the nation’s downtrodden indios at white expense. Moderate forms of this racial socialism can also be found in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, and Peru. Left-wing populists throughout Latin America know that racial resentment is a potent political weapon.

An American version of this movement won’t be exclusively nonwhite. It will have plenty of white “allies.” Some will join due to their own nihilistic hatred for whites, parents, or surroundings. Others will join for the promises of more welfare and entitlements. Left-wing whites are not scared off by anti-white hatred; they often agree with it and amplify it.

We already saw this “mutliracial” anti-whiteness during the riots of 2020. Many whites joined in the destruction. In some places, like Portland, whites were the majority of rioters, even though the cause was a revolt against “white supremacy” on behalf of black lives. There are enough white Americans stupid enough to back Chavism here.

To be sure, Chavism isn’t imminent. It’s unlikely that we see it emerge on the presidential stage in 2024, as Joe Biden is certainly not a Chavist nor are any of his mooted competitors. But it’s possible that someone would run on this agenda in 2028 or in the 2030s. Radicals are doing much better in Democratic primaries than ever before. Latino socialist Chuy Garcia leads primary polls for Chicago mayor. “The squad” adds more members with every election cycle. Democrats will probably campaign on reparations in 2024. The Chavist message is more popular than ever.

The establishment will not welcome a serious Chavist presidential candidate. It’s fine with reparations, racial quotas, critical race theory, hate speech laws, and new holidays like Juneteenth. None of these things threaten the economic and political order. Chavism would threaten that order. The establishment does not want America to turn into Venezuela. It does not want a leader who would diminish American global power. The elites do not want to lose their homes and possibly be sent to prison for not paying their “fair share.”

Some on the Right may relish this prospect. Anything that upsets the establishment must be good, right? That’s only true when our own people don’t end up paying the price. The redistribution scheme would not be limited to billionaires. The entire white middle class (and much of the white working class) would pay more taxes, surrender their basic liberties, experience more crime, face anti-white racism, and possibly lose their property. Chavism may stick it to the establishment, but we’d also be poorer and more oppressed than before. 

The only possible upside is that American Chavism would make the middle class more receptive to the real Right. When threatened by a radical Left that’s openly anti-white, the white middle class will realize that multicultural America is not a utopia. Threats to livelihood are more powerful than any other form of political persuasion. Americans accept the excesses of wokeness because it doesn’t threaten their livelihoods. Transgender ads and a new Wakanda movie do not threaten someone’s house or job. Chavism would.

Chavism promises the realization of multicultural America. It would reject everything great about the old America and turn our nation into a giant favela. Mass immigration and the popularization of anti-whiteness make that future more likely. We can only reject it by restricting immigration and ending anti-white racism for good.




X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 3rd

 



If you're looking for something refreshing to watch, check out some of PBS's British shows. There's quite a bit of goodies out there.

Here's tonight's news:

The 2024 Test for the New American Right


After former President Donald Trump formally launched his 2024 presidential run in November, a favorite parlor game of the chattering class has been to guess the identity of his first formally announced challenger for the Republican nomination. This week answered that question: Nikki Haley. The former governor of South Carolina and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is set to declare her candidacy for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination in Charleston, South Carolina, on Feb. 15. (N.B. deeply unpopular former national security adviser John Bolton made an offhand remark to a British television station last month that he would also run, but since then has merely intimated he is considering such a bid.)

Haley's announcement will likely open up the floodgates for additional Trump challengers. Just as Haley had barely made an effort of late to contain her 2024 presidential ambitions, so too might we expect announcements to soon follow from other not-so-thinly-veiled aspirants, such as former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and perhaps former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. Later this spring or early summer, numerous other candidates are poised to also enter the fray: chief among them Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and perhaps also Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, 2016 GOP presidential primary runner-up Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has also been teasing a possible presidential run, despite his rather dubious credentials.

All of this will be sorted out in due time -- by June or July of this year, at the latest. And as we approach that time, the key question facing the Right, and the Republican Party that is the Right's natural partisan vehicle, is whether it will seize upon the Trump phenomenon and move forward, or instead move backward to the pre-2016 GOP status quo ante. Put another way: Was "Trumpism" a one-time flash in the pan based around an eponymous larger-than-life personality and universal celebrity status, or was it a substantive wake-up call for the GOP to ditch its outmoded bromides and sober up on issues pertaining (especially) to trade, immigration, and foreign policy?

There is at least some reason for optimism that the latter formulation is correct.

In the current way-too-early 2024 polling for the presidential nomination, DeSantis consistently polls by far the best of any non-Trump alternative. DeSantis also happens to embody the tenets and overall ethos of the more nationalist- and populist-infused "New Right" movement better than almost any other current elected officials in America. He is a fiery culture warrior who dives headfirst into the fight against woke-ism, with a clear appreciation of the governing imperatives to wield power in the service of good political order and to recapture institutions previously lost to woke-ism. His well-publicized fight last year against The Walt Disney Company was straight out of the "New Right" playbook: Wield political power to punish a woke corporation pushing insidious gender ideology and to protect parental rights and the innocence of children.

More recently, DeSantis claimed a huge scalp from the College Board when it revised its AP African American Studies curriculum after the Florida governor objected to the initial course framework's pervasive indoctrinatory leftism, including its suffusion of critical race theory pablum. His latest much-publicized moves with the New College of Florida's board of trustees, furthermore, perfectly demonstrates how one can prudentially wield power to recapture and reorient woke-addled institutions. Even on his signature issue, COVID-19, DeSantis did not reflexively defer to private-sector actors, as many libertarians or right-liberals might have; rather, he properly wielded power to preclude private-sector vaccine mandates, demonstrating a recognition of the manner in which professional-managerial class elites weaponized such mandates against dissenting "deplorables."

President Trump, along with some of his loudest social media supporters, have recently taken to smearing DeSantis as a clone of former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who perfectly personifies the older chamber of commerce-friendly GOP. That is laughable; Ryan, now a distinguished visiting fellow at the neoliberal American Enterprise Institute, would object to most, perhaps all, of DeSantis' moves mentioned above.

On the other hand, there are a number of possible 2024 candidates who do embody the failures of the pre-2016 GOP status quo ante.

The foreign policy-centric Pompeo, for instance, has recently sounded a lot like Bush-era Donald Rumsfeld when he has opined on the Russo-Ukrainian war, defining America's purported national interest at a cartoonishly high level of abstraction and urging for ever-more taxpayer-funded weapons shipments. Haley, for her part, gives off the strong impression of a "market can do no wrong"-style laissez faire fundamentalist, denigrating "hyphenated capitalism" -- such as Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) proposal for "common good capitalism" -- and hilariously tweeting in March 2020, on the precipice of the COVID-19 lockdowns, that "as we are dealing with changes in our economy, tax cuts are always a good idea." Hogan and Suarez, for their part, both encapsulate the Republican National Committee's infamous advice found in its post-2012 presidential election "autopsy": namely, to soften on immigration, avoid those icky "culture war" issues and focus on economic issues more palatable for suburbia. Trump's win four years later single-handedly proved the myopia of such thinking.

Assuming most of these likely 2024 contenders do indeed make the plunge, Republican primary voters will face a big decision. Let's hope they choose to move forward, not backward -- in terms of repeating either discredited public policy or, as the case may be, repeating sullied candidates.




Joe Biden as the Doddering King of Spain


As I recently had to prepare a lecture series on the kings of Spain, I stumbled upon a striking parallel between the United States today and Spain 300 years ago.

In the fifty years between 1665 and 1715, the collapse of Spain's monarchy led to the War of the Spanish Succession.  In that war, Winston Churchill's ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, became an unforgettable historical figure.

So much of what I found in studying this conflict reminds me of the United States today, especially because of the global anxiety caused by Joe Biden's apparent fragility of mind and body.  Perhaps some lessons can be learned here, or at least we can amuse ourselves by reflecting on Spain's history and recalling the lines from Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun."

"El Rey Hechizado" or "The King Who Had a Hex on Him"

At the center of Spain's dramatic decline was one of the most tragic monarchs in history: Carlos (or Charles) II of Spain.  In 1665, his father, King Felipe IV, died.  Carlos II was only four years old.  His mother, Mariana of Austria, had to rule as regent.  Because of the sexual escapades of Carlos's father, he had an out-of-wedlock brother named Juan José de Austria; this person would militate against Carlos in attempts to gain power.  But Carlos's most lethal enemy was his own DNA.

This was part of Carlos's family tree:

Notice anything unusual?

Inbreeding and generous papal dispensations to marry cousins (as a reward for warring against the Protestants, Jews, and Muslims) had kept the vast territorial positions of this empire away from outsiders.  But it denied these monarchs genetic diversity. 

Since Carlos's death in 1700, a consensus has formed among scholars that the generations of inbreeding caused his heartbreaking physical ailments.  Many articles like this one in the "Vintage News" have focused on the autopsy performed by Spanish doctors after the king died:

[T]he physician who carried out the autopsy of the king's body reportedly noted that the corpse "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."

Other scholars have perpetuated the centuries-old gossip about Carlos's sexual identity, with some people claiming he may have been hermaphroditic.  He could not father heirs with either of the two women he married.

The king's infertility featured on a long list of deficiencies.  According to the scholars who collaborated on this excellent miniseries, he did not walk until about age seven or speak until about age ten.  Other history buffs point out that he never learned to read or write and "was totally dependent on those around him."  He could not eat most foods because his lower jaw protruded so far that he could not chew.  Ministers manipulated him just as his mother and wives dominated him.  Some records indicate that reforms under Carlos II were actually popular with the people, which explains why his reign ended with his death rather than by an overthrow.  But this is due, ironically, to the fact that his weaknesses left a space for various reformers to make changes that appeased a populace traumatized by centuries of war, disease, and a turbulent economy.

The most lasting legacy of Carlos II was failed succession.  Even if some changes in Spain alleviated popular discontent in the short run, his failure to produce an heir meant that the whole system on which Spain had depended broke down.  He left conflicting wills before his death.  In 1698, he had left a will naming a Hapsburg as his heir, but in 1700, one month before his death, he named a Bourbon.  With no clear way to decide between the Austrian Hapsburgs and the French Bourbons, neither of whom was actually Spanish, the only way to settle the matter was war.

This was exactly what happened.  The War of the Spanish Succession occasioned the legendary heroism of the Duke of Marlborough but rivals other wars for its absurdity and senselessness.  According to author James Falkner:

After a period of military success, with Spanish armies within striking distance of the walls of Paris at one early point, Spain had lapsed from being a world power, despite its vast empire, and her ruling classes had sunk into commercial and intellectual indolence induced by the steady flow of treasure, unearned and therefore taken for granted, from the New World. (223)

Who Are We to Judge These People?

As I went down the rabbit hole studying the War of the Spanish Succession, I often had to remind myself that these events took place over 300 years ago.  So many parallels to our own day emerge when you think of "had lapsed from being a world power, despite its vast empire ... and her ruling classes had sunk into commercial and intellectual indolence induced by the steady flow of treasure, unearned and therefore taken for granted[.]"

Joe Biden stands befuddled and confused at a microphone, propped up by his peroxide blonde wife, muttering something unintelligible when asked why his son was making millions of dollars from companies whose directors were promised meetings with the vice president.  Frail, fading, and often absent from the public eye, he is the aging version of Carlos II, a nerve-racking and incompetent figure who everyone knows isn't running the country.

Who is running the country?  In Spain, the Inquisition had functioned as the original Deep State for hundreds of years.  By the dawn of the eighteenth century, people had become exhausted by pious religion.  The prayerful enthusiasm for Isabel la Católica, mother of Carlos's ancestress Juana la Loca, had long since passed.  The Thirty Years' War, which left Spain the worse for wear, had seemingly shocked the religious fanaticism out of people everywhere, including in Spain.  There's a haunting similarity to our own situation, as people no longer observe the taboos against "conspiracy theories" largely because conspiracies are too often real.  One finds a weakening of the old pieties that compelled Americans to trust the FBI, CIA, and DOJ because communism and fascism were worse.

Instead of inbreeding and incest, we have massive gender confusion and an upper class so detached and self-enclosed that Ronna McDaniel, easily the most unlikable Republican in America, can get elected as RNC chair in a landslide after overseeing several cycles of electoral failure.

Like Spain, we are in massive debt and find our currency unable to stay dominant in the global economy of an encroaching century of change.  Like Spain, we slowly grapple with the reality that it has been an enormously long time since we have actually won a serious war.  Just as Spain had to face the humiliating reality that she could get the daylights beaten out of her by a flooded hamlet of Calvinist merchants like Holland, we can no longer deny that Taliban thugs were too much for the American empire to handle.  "World power," indeed.

Like the United States, once upon a time, Spain was the leader in human rights.  The Burgos Laws of 1512 and the "New Laws" of 1542 had extended the crown's legal protection to the native people of lands that Spain claimed to rule.  For the sixteenth century, this was an incredibly important development, sometimes touted by Hispanophiles as the first time since Rome that an empire extended the legal rights of the homeland to acquired territories.  But like Spain, the United States now finds itself in an impossible dilemma when it comes to ethnic diversity.  The United States has invited the whole world to come to the U.S. to enjoy constitutional rights, in a sense accomplishing the inverse of what Spanish kings did.

Ethnic diversity is part blessing and part quagmire.  In the time of Carlos II, the unity of an empire was crumbling as revolts from territories ranging from Italy to Catalonia to Flanders broke out.  Meanwhile, Portugal, having been part of Spain only 100 years earlier, remained an irritant to the country's west.

Back in the twenty-first century, a debt-laden America has announced "the largest aid package yet" sent to Ukraine, a land only dimly understood by people here.  Antiwar Americans deserve some grace for finding themselves bewildered by how many overseas conflicts our country is entangled in.

Like Spain, our military is depleted.  Like Spain, the sexual bedlam of our ruling elite is wreaking havoc on family structures in the country as a whole.

And yet the single most salient parallel is succession.  Spaniards in 1700 had lived for hundreds of years with the assurance that monarchy worked, God favored it, and there would always be an heir.  One can imagine the chaos they felt when Carlos II died childless, a doddering wretch even more shaky than Biden, and there was no heir.  It is no coincidence that the Americans and the French rejected monarchy entirely in the century following.  Spain's catastrophe in 1700 had delivered an unforgettable lesson.  Whatever arguments people might propose in favor of monarchy, it simply didn't work.

And now we hear more about the January 6 Committee.  There is nothing new under the sun.

For hundreds of years, like Spaniards, we Americans have lived with the assurances that our system was the best one.  We never doubted that periodic elections would work, and there would always be a way to transfer power from one leader to another legitimate leader.  And yet, like the people shocked that a king could die without a prince to survive him, we are slowly facing the reality that elections might not work anymore.  There are too many reasons to cheat and too few ways to stop cheating.  Is it possible — dare I even say it? — that the Constitution just won't work in a country this big, with this many loopholes, and this many people who don't believe election returns anymore?

All the grand ideals of liberal democracy depend on counting 160,000,000 ballots without cheating.  It turns out that's just as risky a presumption as assuming there will always be an heir apparent.

Perhaps 2020 was our version of Spain's 1700.  By December 2020, there was no heir.  Biden's our leader but not our president, for a whole host of reasons.  He's obviously too feeble to be running the country.  Nobody can claim with 100% certainty that he won the election.  If he isn't in charge, someone is, and it isn't anyone we elected, nor anyone we trust, so there is no president, because we don't have a Constitution.

Where do we go from here?  Studying the last days of Carlos II scares me because that's a question that Spanish history cannot answer.  A war that lasted until 1714 decided who would be the next Spanish king (the Bourbons won).  But I don't think we can even decide America's future with a war.  The vast holdings of America's empire are indeed up for grabs, just as Spain's were, but it seems more likely that a wild propaganda maelstrom and corporate raiding will decide who gets the riches and who is stuck with famine, sickness, and penury.  After monarchy, there was an Enlightenment and liberal democracy to take the lead.  After liberal democracy, what is there?

Your guess is as good as mine.




Weapons-Stealing Can Win Wars


One of the hazards of war is the likelihood that at some point, one country's most advanced weapon will inadvertently fall into the hands of its enemy, revealing all its secrets and enabling the adversary to build its own superior weapon, thereby tipping the battlefield advantage in the enemy's favor.

Throughout history, this has happened many times.  Here are two notable examples from World War II:

The German Focke Wulf Fw-190

World War II began in Europe in September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.  In 1940, Germany defeated France, pushed the Allied armies off the Continent at Dunkirk, and then began an air assault against Britain that came to be known as the Battle of Britain.

Britain survived the German air attacks, fighting them to a costly stalemate, but as 1940 came to an end, Germany still held all of continental Europe, and Britain stood alone against Germany, bottled up on its home island.

As a way of fighting back before the Allies were actually strong enough to invade Europe in 1944, Britain conducted a campaign of night aerial bombing attacks and daytime "fighter sweeps" against German targets.  The Brits would send their excellent Spitfire fighter planes over France and rouse the Germans into air battles in the hopes of inflicting losses on the Luftwaffe (German Air Force).

But in the summer of 1941, things went bad for the British.  A new German fighter plane made its appearance: the Focke Wulf Fw 190.  It was so stunningly superior to the Spitfire (which had generally been regarded as the world's best fighter plane up until then) that the British were aghast, shocked into thinking that this one new German plane could derail all their plans for winning the war.  Noted aviation historian William Green called the Fw 190 "as close to perfect [at the time of its debut] as any warplane has ever been."

It went on like this for a full year.  The British suffered huge Spitfire losses, with no answer to the Fw 190.

But on June 23, 1942, a Luftwaffe pilot became disoriented after combat and accidentally landed his Fw 190 on a British airfield, perfectly intact.  The Brits, amazed at their good fortune, quickly analyzed the German fighter.  They incorporated some of its technology into future versions of the Spitfire and devised new tactics for combating the plane based on their evaluation.  This was a perfect example of a wartime stroke of good fortune that turned history around.

Here's another example of wartime weapon-stealing, completely different from the Fw 190 scenario, but no less astounding:

The American Boeing B-29 Superfortress

The B-29 Superfortress was by far the most technologically sophisticated four-engine strategic bomber of World War II.  With such advanced features as a fully pressurized crew compartment, remote-controlled radar-guided defensive armament, and a top speed at least 50 mph faster than the American B-17 or British Lancaster bomber, the B-29 was in a class by itself.  This was the plane that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945.  No other plane could complete that mission.

Prior to the atomic weapons, B-29s were carrying out long-range attacks on Japan using conventional bombs.  For all of its modern design, the B-29 was a complicated aircraft, and it suffered from frequent engine and ancillary system breakdowns.  On one such mission to Japan in late 1944, a flight of B-29s sustained debilitating mechanical issues, such that three planes had to land in eastern Russia because they couldn't make it back to their home base in China.  A fourth crashed.

The Russians were enamored with the B-29.  Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted to have his own long-range strategic bomber, but the Soviet aviation industry wasn't capable of designing one.  So Stalin ordered that the B-29s be impounded, using the Soviet's then-neutrality with Japan as a flimsy pretext for not returning the planes to American hands.

What happened next is truly astonishing.  Russian aviation designers reverse-engineered the B-29, rivet for rivet, producing the Tupolev Tu-4 clone.  It took three painstaking years, but they were successful.  When the Tu-4 made its first appearance in 1947, American observers were in disbelief.

The Russians produced nearly 1,000 Tu-4s, and the plane served well into the 1950s.  Luckily for America, the B-29 was superseded by a significantly improved version called the B-50 and other more advanced bombers like the Convair B-36, and the North American B-45 — our first jet bomber — entered service before 1950.  The Boeing B-47, our first truly modern jet bomber, was in service by 1951, rendering the Tu-4's dramatic appearance in 1947 a less power-altering event than it might have been.  Nonetheless, we were lucky that the Tu-4 didn't have as big an impact as originally feared.

For America today, the lessons of history should be crystal-clear.  As the U.S. gets involved in more and more proxy wars, propping up erstwhile "allies" with our latest military technology and weaponry, the danger of our best and latest military hardware falling into enemy hands increases exponentially.

Whether those conflicts occur in the Middle East, Europe, or the Asia-Pacific theater, it's incumbent on U.S. leadership — if that leadership is truly forward-thinking and responsible — to weigh the supposed benefits of arming any given nation with state-of-the-art American technology against the incalculable damage to American national security that would result from the capture of our technology by the enemy.  We have to ask ourselves if Country A's fight against Country B is truly worth giving away the secrets to our latest and best tanks, targeting systems, anti-aircraft missiles, and attack helicopters.

Distant borders can and do change all the time, but the national security of the United States must always be sacrosanct.




Biden Laptop Repairman Blasts Biden Attempt To Sic DOJ On Hunter’s Foes

Biden’s lawyer says he isn’t admitting the laptop is Hunter’s, while demanding DOJ investigate the dissemination of ‘his personal computer data.’



High-priced attorneys for Hunter Biden dispatched letters on Wednesday to the Delaware attorney general and the Department of Justice pushing them to launch investigations into a slew of individuals who had shared information allegedly retrieved from the laptop abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. But yesterday’s transparent attempt to sic top state and federal law enforcement officials on those exposing the Biden family pay-to-play scandal is already backfiring, with Biden’s clarifying the letters are not an admission that the laptop was Hunter’s.

In two detailed, 14-page letters penned by Winston & Strawn attorney Abbe David Lowell, the Hunter Biden attorney requested the attorney general of Delaware and the Department of Justice investigate whether John Paul Mac Isaac, Robert Costello, Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Bannon, Jack Maxey, Garrett Ziegler, and Yaacov Apelbaum committed state or federal crimes. “There is considerable reason to believe” those individuals violated various laws “in accessing, copying, manipulating, and/or disseminating Mr. Biden’s personal computer data,” Hunter’s attorney opened his Wednesday missive.

The lengthy letters then detail each of the individuals’ purported actions that Lowell claims provide “considerable reason to believe” they committed various state or federal crimes, which the Winston & Strawn attorney then identifies and analyzes.  

Starting with John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the Delaware repair shop where the laptop was left for repairs, Lowell asserts, “Mr. Mac Isaac has admitted to gaining access to our client’s personal computer data in Delaware without Mr. Biden’s consent.” 

“Mr. Mac Isaac has admitted to copying that data without Mr. Biden’s consent, and Mr. Mac Isaac has admitted to distributing copies of that data from his place in Delaware,” the letter to the Delaware AG continues.

Given that Mac Isaac has maintained from day one that the “computer data” he copied was contained on a laptop abandoned at his repair shop by an individual he believed was Hunter Biden, yesterday’s letters to the Delaware attorney general and the DOJ appeared as an apparent admission by Hunter that yes, the laptop was his.  

But when asked whether Hunter “now acknowledge[s] he or someone on his behalf dropped off his laptop for repairs at Mac Isaac’s store,” Lowell told The Federalist, “These letters do not confirm Mac Isaac’s or others’ versions of a so-called laptop. They address their conduct of seeking, manipulating and disseminating what they allege to be Mr. Biden’s personal data, wherever they claim to have gotten it.”

In an exclusive interview with The Federalist, Mac Isaac’s attorney Brian Della Rocca seemed flabbergasted by the continued obfuscating by Hunter Biden’s legal team. “Is Hunter denying that he was in Delaware in April of 2019 then? To this day, he has not denied being in Wilmington at that time,” he said. “Nor has he ever denied dropping off the laptop with John Paul. Is he denying doing so now?”

“John Paul has not, nor will he ever manipulate the data on Hunter’s hard drive. That is just not who he is,” Della Rocca told The Federalist. And it would be easy to confirm the authenticity of the data, Della Rocca explained, stressing that “the data on the drive he has can be compared to the laptop, which is in the possession of the FBI, to show he has not made any changes to the information.”  

Della Rocca also condemned the letters’ attempt to suggest Mac Isaac lied to law enforcement officials.  

“Mr. Mac Isaac has insisted that he did not make a bit-by-bit copy or clone of the hard drive,” page eight of the Biden attorney’s letter maintained, continuing:

Nor could he make such a copy because the hard drive was soldered to the laptop’s mother board, and he could not stay logged into the waterlogged laptop long enough to copy the entirety of the hard drive because the waterlogged laptop would periodically turn off. Instead, Mr. Mac Isaac chose what he wanted to access and copy from Mr. Biden’s personal data that Mr. Mac Isaac unlawfully obtained. Thus, any representation by Mr. Mac Isaac to law enforcement that what was in his possession was the entire hard drive would have been a knowing false statement. Moreover, the absence of a true clone of the hard drive created the opportunity for mischief—namely, the addition of files to this “hard drive,” the manipulation of files on this “hard drive,” and the destruction of files from this “hard drive.”

Mac Isaac’s attorney told The Federalist this passage represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the process for retrieving data from a damaged MacBook Pro 13. “Due to the damaged condition and poor stability of the MacBook, John Paul had to manually recover the user data,” Mac Isaac’s attorney explained. “John Paul was able to recover the entire contents (220GB) [of] the folder named, RobertHunter.”

Per Hunter’s request, no attempt to recover the remaining system files or applications was made because they did not include personal data,” Mac Isaac’s lawyer stressed. Della Rocca added that “the only law enforcement agency to which John Paul has provided a copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop was the FBI,” and that the FBI also took custody of the laptop at the same time, making it possible for the FBI to compare what Mac Isaac recovered from the “RobertHunter” folder on the original laptop. “There would be no difference,” Mac Isaac’s attorney emphasized.  

The accusation that Mac Isaac accessed Hunter Biden’s personal data without his consent is also “absolutely false,” Della Rocca told The Federalist.  

While Della Rocca did not elaborate, the signed repair contract stated that if the laptop was not retrieved within 90 days of “notification of completed service,” it would be treated as “abandoned.” Hunter Biden’s attorney did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiry on whether it was his position that Hunter Biden had “not abandoned the property under the repair contract,” with the Winston & Strawn attorney instead stressing the letters do not confirm Mac Isaac’s “versions of a so-called laptop.”  

The repair contract further provided that the owner of the equipment agreed to hold Mac Isaac “harmless for any damage or loss of property.”  

Yet, here we are, with “another privileged person hiring yet another high-priced attorney to redirect attention away from his own unlawful actions,” Della Rocca scoffed. “This is entirely a P.R. move,” he added, telling The Federalist he first saw the lengthy letters from Hunter’s attorney when CBS contacted him for comment.

The public relations move, however, is already backfiring, with the general public interpreting the letter as an implicit acknowledgment that the laptop from hell was Hunter Biden’s. And things may only get worse, if the FBI is forced to confirm that, yes, the damning documents publicly circulating are authentic copies of the material contained in the MacBook’s “RobertHunter” folder.