Thursday, August 17, 2023

PRC’s Aggression in South China Sea Needs to Be Defeated

The Stand-Off at Second Thomas Shoal is a Moment of Historical Importance


A hard lesson from the 1930s and from the Cold War is that aggression must be checked when it occurs. Inevitably, aggressors start small, with narrow claims, that if unchecked escalate to major conflict. The world is witnessing this aggression today in the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has used brute force to assert their “territorial” claim over the South China Sea, a sea area 30% larger than the Mediterranean Sea, where some $5 trillion worth of goods transit each year. On August 5, Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) ships, the size of a U.S. Navy destroyer and with reinforced hulls for ramming, obstructed the Republic of the Philippine’s, an American treaty ally, resupply mission to their outpost aboard the ex-U.S. Navy WWII-era ship, the Sierra Madre, at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

As the U.S. State Department noted, the PRC’s CCG ships fired water cannons and employed unsafe blocking maneuvers which “interfered with the Philippines’ lawful exercise of high seas freedom of navigation and jeopardized the safety of the Philippine vessels and crew…by impeding necessary provisions from reaching the Filipino servicemembers stationed at Second Thomas Shoal.” Additionally, and for at least the second time, the State Department reaffirmed that “an armed attack on Philippine public vessels, aircraft, and armed forces—including those of its Coast Guard in the South China Sea—would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S. Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty” (MDT).

Unperturbed by the State Department’s announcement, the PRC’s Embassy in Manila has twice called on the Philippines to remove the ship that was run aground in 1999, which lies well within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as Beijing was threatening to seize it as well. For their part the new Chief of Staff of the Philippines Armed Forces, General Romeo Brawner, labeled the attack as an “act of war.”

The PRC’s barbarism at Second Thomas Shoal is not new or unexpected for anyone who has watched their actions in the South China Sea for the past three decades. Starting with Beijing’s illegal seizure of Mischief Reef, now a major Chinese Naval Air Station, from the Philippines in 1995 or their seizure of Scarborough Shoal in 2012, the PRC has not wavered from achieving its stated goal of territorial sovereignty over the South China Sea.

Beijing also has an established track record of violating diplomatic agreements for the peaceful resolution of the disputed sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. For instance, since 2000, when both the PRC and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the “Declaration on the Code of Conduct” (DOC), the PRC has violated every facet of that agreement.

Even in this most recent event at Second Thomas Shoal, the PRC violated the following elements of the DOC:  First, they did not “explore ways for building trust and confidence;” second, they did not “resolve territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means;” third, they did violate the agreement to not “resort to the threat or use of force,” fourth, they did not “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability;” fifth, they did not “ensure just and humane treatment of all persons who are either in danger or in distress.”  And sixth, the PRC violated the DOC’s most important agreement to “respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

Additionally, in 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled the PRC has no lawful claim to the South China Sea, to include Second Thomas Shoal. Since then, Beijing has scoffed at the court’s ruling as being a “farce” and flaunted its defiance of the ruling through deeds such as what the CCG cutters did when using water cannons to drive away the Philippine navy from conducting what was a humanitarian mission for the sailors and marines aboard the Sierra Madre.

The record of PRC’s duplicity and aggressiveness in the South China Sea is well established, but what makes this recent event at Second Thomas Shoal different this time is that Beijing is now able to assert direct military force to seize territory by force.

Over the past decade since their seizure of Scarborough Shoal, the PRC has built and militarized seven military installations in the Spratly Islands, three of which are major naval and air bases the size of Pearl Harbor. They have also built the world’s largest navy, equipped with the most lethal supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles designed to sink the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Today the PRC is the dominant military power in the South China Sea and their Navy (the PLA Navy) operates at a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. Navy, and allied navies, on any given day of the year.

In the face of this renewed effort to drive the Philippines from Second Thomas Shoal, the U.S. must take the following measures to defeat the PRC’s coercion:

First and foremost, the United States cannot be seen to again abandon its treaty ally, the Republic of the Philippines. Lamentably, this occurred in 2012 at Scarborough Shoal when the then State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific, Kurt Campbell, and now current Biden Administration’s Asia Czar, inserted himself into negotiations between Beijing and Manila and pushed an “agreement” whereby both nations would have their ships depart the shoal at the same time. Incredibly, and to his shame, Campbell took the word of the PRC’s Foreign Ministry representative Fu Ying that the PRC would abide by the agreement. As the world now knows, the PRC did not keep their agreement and since June 2012 has had de facto sovereign control over Scarborough Shoal, territory well within the Philippines EEZ–their sovereign territory.

Second, the U.S. failure to support its treaty ally at Scarborough in 2012 is precisely why, and in accordance with the intentions of Article IV of the MDT, Secretary of State Antony Blinken should go before the United Nations and demand the world condemn the PRC’s dangerous actions at Second Thomas Shoals as being an uncivilized violation of basic human rights.

Yet more significant action is necessary, the U.S. must take action to defend its ally.

Third, as was advised by one of the authors in 2014, when the PRC conducted a similar effort to stop the Philippines from resupplying Second Thomas Shoal, the U.S. Seventh Fleet must assist our treaty ally to provide food and water to the sailors aboard the Sierra Madre. A combined operation to resupply the Sierra Madre through vertical replenishment (VERTREP) from the decks of Philippine and U.S. Navy warships must be conducted in the face of Beijing’s bullying. Given the current state of the Sierra Madre, the U.S. should partner with the Philippines and provide the materials and security assistance that would allow Manila to materially improve their presence at the Shoal. With just a few VERTREP missions by this combined naval force, the grounded Sierra Madre could be transformed into a sustainable outpost that would secure the Philippines’ legitimate claims to the shoal.

Assisting the Philippines reclaiming a few hundred square meters of its territory at Second Thomas Shoal is an essential first line of defense against the PRC’s unfettered territorial aggression. It is valuable to recall that Beijing’s territorial aggression has encompassed 3,500 square kilometers in the Spratly Islands over the past 10 years. Most importantly, such an operation would reinforce to the Philippines, and other allies, that U.S. commitments are trustworthy and beneficial, which is a pillar of the alliance networks built by the U.S. after World War II.

The stakes are that high. Beijing’s strategic goal is to drive a wedge between Manila and Washington, and then to dominate the Philippines. As a result of the failure to support the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal in 2012, the Philippines elected former President Duterte who used that incident as justification for turning away from America and towards the PRC. However, now under a more nationalistic and pro-American President Marcos, the Philippines is once again seeking United States security assistance in the face of Beijing’s naked aggression.

The Philippines, and the rest of the region, are intently watching and waiting for America’s actions, not just their words.

If America’s response in the face of this barbarism is like what happened at Scarborough in 2012, then this will cause an irreparable rift between the United States and the Philippines and may very well be the final nail in the coffin of American influence in the South China Sea and East Asia. The broader implication will affect the lives of millions who similarly seek America’s protection.

This is a moment of historical importance and is akin to standing with West Berlin during the Cold War. The enemy is attempting to coerce an ally from its territory. The time is now to stand against the PRC’s aggression and with an ally of the United States. The Biden Administration, led by the State Department, must perceive that this matter will define Biden’s legacy, U.S. national security and the national security of its allies. As a result of Biden’s choices, Washington and Manila will either be vanquished by Beijing or win a victory by adhering to alliance commitments and thereby defeating Beijing’s aggression.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 17

 




Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan Joins the Trump Show Trial


Forget banana-republic comparisons, 
it’s full-on Stalinist now


“Trump is up against an ostentatiously hostile judge called Tanya Chutkan,” Roger Kimball observes. Judge Chutkan is indeed hostile to the former president, but there’s more about her that people should know.

The Jamaican-born Chutkan, a University of Pennsylvania law alum, is an appointee of the composite character David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. Consider Chutkan’s role in the case of Imran Awan.

Of all the IT people in all the IT firms in all the world, House Democrats thought Imran Awan was the best man for the job. Sometimes working from his native Pakistan, Awan and his family team accessed the computers of some 40 Democrats, including those on the intelligence and foreign affairs committees.

Without their consent, Awan and his team stashed the Democrats’ data on a server controlled by Xavier Becerra, chair of the House Democratic Caucus and once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate. Capitol Police wanted a copy of the server but the one Awan produced turned out to be a fake.

In February 2017, Awan and his team got booted off the House computer network, but Becerra had already fled to California where Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him state attorney general. In July of 2017, Awan attempted to flee the country but the authorities busted him for bank fraud.

For Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman, “this appears to be a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.” Some in Congress agreed, but the IT man had his defenders.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz charged that Awan was “put under scrutiny because of his religious faith and that “the right-wing media circus fringe” was jumping to conclusions. Awan’s attorney Chris Gowen, a former aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, said Awan’s arrest for bank fraud was “clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.”

The case landed with Judge Tanya Chutkan, once a partner in the law firm of Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, which represented Huma Abedin in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Judge Chutkan was a vocal opponent of President Trump’s travel ban and the judge shielded the national security aspect of the Awan case. Her frequent delays helped to protect Xavier Becerra in his run to remain attorney general in California.

In August of 2018, Chutkan sentenced Awan to time served, his one day in detention, and 11 months of GPS monitoring and three months’ supervision. Awan was never formally charged with unauthorized possession of government material or anything of the sort. In due time, the IT man would get his reward.

“Congress Pays $850,000 to Muslim Aides Targeted in Inquiry Stoked by Trump,” reads the November 25, 2020 New York Times headline. According to the story, the previously unreported settlement is one of the largest to resolve discrimination or harassment claims, in this case by people who “lost their jobs and endured harassment in part because of their Muslim faith and South Asian origins.”

Congress reportedly made the payment but the only House member quoted is Florida Democrat Ted Deutch, a leading figure in Democrats’ charge that candidate Donald Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia and a vocal proponent of impeaching President Trump. The former president is now up against the hostile Tanya Chutkan, already on a roll.

Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Chutkan wrote in one ruling. Like Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) in Being There, the Obama judge reveals herself to herself and she’s drenched and purged.

The ostentatious Tanya recalls judge Emmet Sullivan, who maintained the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for national security advisor, after the DOJ dropped it. Like Chutkan, Sullivan moved on to January 6, delaying the trial of defendant Robert Geiswein on several occasions.

Chutkan basically pardoned Awan and Sullivan persecuted Flynn. In effect, both judges are zampolits, political commissars working for the Biden Junta. If anybody thought that neither one should be on the bench it would be hard to blame them. The proceedings are shaping up as a Stalinist show trial, and the one to watch is former Attorney General William Barr.

As he explained in One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General, Barr started his career with the CIA. The author praises Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Robert Mueller to investigate Trump.  After all the irregularities in the 2020 election, Barr conducted no investigation or audit of the proceedings yet proclaimed he had seen nothing that would have changed the outcome.

After Trump’s classified documents indictment, Barr told reporters, “If even half of this is true, he’s toast.” Here we have a former Attorney General who suspends the presumption of innocence and judges a case before the trial.

Barr also backed the unprecedented FBI raid on Trump’s residence, proclaiming “it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, okay?” And in Barr’s view it was the government that was being “jerked around.”

Barr was recently asked if he would be willing to testify against Trump. “Of course,” Barr responded. Forget the banana-republic comparison. It’s full-on Stalinist now.



"I've never seen anything like it": Economic analyst stunned at sources of Jared Kushner's funds





Economic analyst Steven Rattner on Monday shared a pie chart showing that all but 1% of the $3 billion in investments in former President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's private equity firm Affinity Partners came from foreign sources after he "spent much of his White House tenure cozying up" to Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman. The Saudis invested $2 billion in Kushner's fund while the United Arab Emirates and Qatar each added another $200 million. About $625 million came from other non-U.S. sources while only $31 million came from sources inside the U.S. Rattner told MSNBC that he's "never seen this" in 40 years in the business.

"I've never seen somebody get two-thirds of their money from a single investor. Usually a single investor might be a few percent of the fund, might be 5 percent, occasionally 10 percent," he said. While Kushner has hired some people for his fund, "I've seen nothing else about what he's actually done with the money," Rattner continued.

"It is normal to invest this money over a period of several years, so I don't think we can draw a firm conclusion yet. But, again, we're going back to a guy who's a real estate guy, and frankly, not a particularly good one at that, who's suddenly got $3 billion trying to do private equity deals competing against people who've been in this business for a long time. And I wouldn't, if I were the Saudis, count on making a lot of money from this any time soon," he said, adding: "U.S. private equity firms still raise the vast bulk of their money from U.S. investors. This is extraordinary — unprecedented — I've never seen anything like it."

"I've never seen anything like it": Economic analyst stunned at sources of Jared Kushner's funds (msn.com)

Texas GOP Civil War Will Erupt if Impeachment Upheld

Paxton trial is the final play for the dying vestiges of RINO legislators


In Texas, liberal Republicans have been losing their power each election cycle. Every legislative session the state moves a little to the right, and the uniparty’s grasp loosens.

Texas is moving to the right in almost every arena due to the successful conservative takeover of the Republican Party of Texas, a historically conservative Texas Senate, as well as increasingly more sophisticated conservative activists and organizations. The GOP voter base is requiring Republicans, regardless of how conservative they actually are, to campaign on policies further right than the status quo. This moves the Overton Window beyond the control of moderate Republicans, who still hold power in the state’s lower chamber.

The increasing conservative victories have caused the Democrat caucus and liberal GOP leadership to reach a point of desperation. This session they hatched a plan to rush through a last-minute impeachment of the most conservative Attorney General in the nation.

Only 72 hours before the vote took place, GOP members were told if they dared vote against the impeachment, it would be interpreted as a direct vote against the speaker. The same speaker who was elected with Democrat support to bypass the process which requires the GOP caucus to choose a speaker. Two dozen Republicans ignored this threat and opposed the Democrat-lead effort to overturn an election. More Democrats voted for the impeachment than Republicans.

During the last session, after the Texas Senate passed a ban on sex-change surgeries for children, the Texas House cut a deal with Democrats and killed the bill. After the session ended, Greg Abbott started getting hammered for the failure of the legislature to pass the ban, the Governor declared the transitions as child abuse.

Ken Paxton published an official opinion providing Abbott with the cover he needed to take this action. This Attorney General opinion completely undid the deal cut by GOP leaders Dade Phelan, Dustin Burrows, Stephanie Klick, and the Democrats (all 3 of these Republicans voted to impeach Paxton).

The Impeachment of Ken Paxton has been a goal of Democrats since he led the nationwide effort to challenge the results of the presidential election of 2020. Paxton was one of the most active and vocal Attorney Generals in the nation. Chris Turner, the chairman of the Democrat Caucus, called for his impeachment over it.

So where does this leave us?

Now the impeachment heads to the Texas Senate, a chamber that, in recent history, has been far more respectful of the choices voters make. They’ve shied away from empowering Democrats and focused instead on passing a myriad of conservative policies, most of which were killed in the Texas House.

Following this legislative session, Dan Patrick rightfully criticized Dade Phelanfor running his chamber in a way that intentionally benefits the Democrat agenda.

The liberal media hates Dan Patrick and the conservative Senators that are pushing Texas to the right. They have begun an all-out assault on the chamber in an effort to declare anything short of impeachment a corrupt conclusion. They are gaslighting the upper chamber, in a final effort to take some amount of power back into more moderate GOP hands.

So why does this matter for the rest of the country?

Well, if Democrats can be the tail that wags the dog in Texas, then where can’t they use this tactic?

If you don’t think there are enough liberal Republicans in any given Red state who could undue every election they lose to conservatives, then you have a very poor understanding of the current state of GOP legislatures across this country.

This is the final play in the playbook for the dying vestiges of RINO legislators who have shared power with Democrats for a generation. Ultimately, they have to overturn election results. When the GOP voters turn on the establishment, and elect officials too conservative for them, they have to get rid of the opposition. Their only path is to team up with Democrats to keep their power.

Democrats in Texas used to think they had a chance at winning a statewide office. Those dreams have become less tethered to reality for them as Republican victory margins have grown. But I truly don’t think they expected to be handed such a strong win on a silver platter as the impeachment of Ken Paxton.

Now voters are speaking out aggressively. The Texas GOP is standing up against this sham impeachment, with many local Republican parties stepping up as well. Conservative activists and groups are calling out this charade and the people of Texas are increasingly upset.

If this impeachment is upheld in the Texas Senate, it will be the spark that ignites a bigger civil war than anything witnessed during the Tea Party battles in 2010 or the populist versus neocon battles of today. It will be a true revolt of patriots versus a uniparty system that seeks only its own survival, at the expense of the society it was meant to serve.



The Changing Face of Conservatism


Every political and social movement changes. Political parties change over time. Societal attitudes change over time. Over the last few decades, the Democrats have gone from the party of blue-collar, union labor and tradesmen (oh, and Southern segregationists) to the party of the coastal elites, academia, and the "progressive" Left. The GOP has captured much of that blue-collar vote, along with the rural areas and small businessmen, having gone, as someone once famously said, from "country club Republicans to Sam's Club Republicans."

Lately, it seems, these changes have been accelerating. The conservative movement has certainly changed since the Presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater, who is generally regarded as bringing modern conservatism to the mainstream. The movement is, in fact, going through some pretty significant changes - and challenges - at the moment. In the Eighties - the Reagan years - the GOP was still in "country club" mode, and what Democrats called the Religious Right was still very influential.

In a prior era, the sturdy “three-legged stool” model of conservatism, which Frank Meyer dubbed “fusionism,” successfully combined advocacy of free-market economics, traditional morality, and anti-Communism.

Then, in the Nineties and early Oughts, the first big change of the modern political era began to happen.

Then, toward the end of the twentieth century, things changed. The Soviet Union collapsed, the global economy emerged, and in place of the Cold War came futile interventionism and “nation building” in the Middle East. Big Business, once a champion of the national interest, put its muscle behind free trade and open borders. Republican elected officials followed suit, even if the GOP platform paid lip service to the importance of controlling illegal immigration.

Enter Donald Trump, and right-of-center thought had to adjust itself to a man who was the very definition of a bull in a china shop. President Trump wasn't part of the establishment, at least not at first, and in trying to apply Trump methods to our overbearing federal government and the depths of corruption that the denizens of that government were involved in, he (maybe inadvertently) shone some bright lights in many dark corners.

Post-Trump, conservatism is still trying to regain its bearings—unable to agree on what is worth conserving. The center-right coalition is busy re-inventing itself—or trying to. The Republican Party now appeals primarily to non-college-educated middle-class Americans in the heartland, while coastal elites, urban enclaves, and suburban women “belong” to the Democrats. What does this mean in terms of policy prescriptions? The once-united scribblers on the Right are now fragmented, and sometimes antagonistic to one another. Some of the suggested policy prescriptions deviate markedly from the Reagan-era paradigm, but that’s the point. New is better. Or is it?

Here's an important point: We are not, really, "post-Trump" yet. Donald Trump is still a major figure in the American political landscape, and he and his supporters will continue to be major figures for at least two more election cycles; probably more.

The question is this: Where does the conservative movement go from here?

Donald Trump did, at times, wield the apparatus of the federal government pretty heavily, most especially in the COVID actions that may have been the biggest miscalculation of his life.

Politics now is getting dirtier by the day. And the GOP is floundering. But increasing government power, and using the power to tax, regulate and punish for political purposes isn't the answer.

Which brings us to 2024.

If the GOP wants to win elections in 2024, they need a theme. They need to offer positives, a way ahead. Just being the anti-Biden (or, let's face it, the anti-whoever they run in his place; there's no way he'll be the candidate) won't be enough. And, yes, re-litigating the last election won't be enough.

So, what should they offer? How about liberty?

How about reducing the federal Colossus? How about taking a look at the Constitution and defunding and disbanding all of the many and varied federal agencies and institutions that are disallowed by the Constitution? How about auditing the Fed? How about bringing federal spending down to some limit, one based on, perhaps, sanity? Peruse the news sites and the talking heads in the media, and you won't see this put forth as a campaign issue by any of the major Presidential candidates. Oh, sure, they'll talk about nibbling around the edges; what Washington, D.C. and the American people need is for someone to go in swinging a meat axe.

Whether the GOP's candidate be Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or someone else, they need to look ahead, not back. Advocating for liberty and reducing government interference in the everyday affairs of citizens could be a strong message. There are signs that the political pendulum is starting to swing back to the right among the up-and-coming Gen Z, and the Republicans would be well-advised to take advantage of that.



Polling Trend Solidifying – Trump Over 60%, DeSantis Dropping Well Behind Ramaswamy


This is the fifth in a row of recent polls showing the complete collapse of Ron DeSantis.  Fortunately, there may be no further reason to discuss his election viability, and it may be well worth just waiting for his campaign withdrawal announcement.

As CTH suspected, DeSantis has followed a similar path as former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  Both candidates were driven by the financing of billionaire donors behind them.  A campaign created around the shell of a candidate  – devoid of personal intent or internal purpose for running, while being driven only by shallow self-interest and attached to the policy of the funding mechanism – is always a structure for failure.

[Daily Signal] – […] With support from 60% of Republican primary voters, Trump commands a 47-point advantage over his nearest competitor in Scott Rasmussen’s latest national survey.

The poll from RMG Research Inc. was in the field Aug. 11-14, before news of Trump’s indictment in Fulton County, Georgia. The margin of error for the full sample is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who tallied 13%, made the biggest gains over the past two months, rising from 3% in Rasmussen’s June 21-22 poll. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is third in the new poll with 8%, dropping 7 percentage points since Rasmussen’s Aug. 7-8 survey. (read more

DeSantis never had the skills to be a strong presidential candidate.  Additionally, he’s not that smart, and once the facade around him started to fall away, people saw the real person, the weakness, not the carefully fabricated image his handlers tried to create over the prior 3 years.

The most unfortunate outcome is not that DeSantis is failing, it’s that speaking from a position of freedom and liberty, Florida was a better place prior to his election in 2018.  While he managed the COVID-19 pandemic reasonably well, the state he governed has been messed up by DeSantis’ total control of the state legislature just to give him the illusion of social policy ‘wins’.  I don’t like the thought of what comes next in the big gov takeover using the tools he created. It’s a hot mess.


The Secondary Biden Administration Has Been Developed on Cable News


Brad Slager reporting for RedState 

The conduit between the Biden White House has been replaced with an actual pipeline.

There has been no mystery – none, whatsoever – that the press is all in for this Biden administration. The coverage of policies, the interpretation of events, the spinning of his errors, and the avoidance of true scandal all point to the media being in the tank for this government. But there is a building relationship between the two that is becoming borderline nefarious.

There is a long history of migration between any presidential cabinet and the media outlets. These insiders are valued as having a unique perspective, but they also deliver an inherent bias, of course. This was a manner of rigging the system journalistically, and it angered many in the news industry when Fox News rose up and began to mirror the practice with people emerging from Republican presidents. But this Biden administration is taking things to the next level.

Yes, Kayleigh McEnany is plying her trade on Fox. And sure, Mike Mulvaney was hired on at CBS News. But unlike those examples, and the years of other people who passed on into the journalism ecosystem, we are not seeing those who have landed roles after their tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Biden has developed a feeder system into the news outlets as a standing president, and this carries with it a new level of concern.

Last week it was announced that Jamaal Simmons had signed a deal with CNN to be an on-air contributor. Simmons was formerly the deputy assistant to President Biden and communications director to Vice President Harris. That is to say, he was formerly in those roles for the current President and Vice President. This comes just mere weeks when CNN landed another alum of “Biden University”, Kate Bedingfield. She served as Biden’s White House Communications Director.


It has been with regularity that the relationship between the Biden cabal and cable news has been exposed. Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was the most prominent as she landed a plum role on MSNBC. She followed the path of Symone Sanders after she stepped down as spokesperson for VP Kamala Harris. And just to encompass how intrinsic this incestuous relationship is, Psaki’s replacement, Karine Jean-Pierre, derived from MSNBC (and for further measure, her wife is former CNN vet Suzanne Malveaux).

All you need to see what this implanted spin merchant effort delivers is what comes out of Jen’s Sunday program, “Inside With Jen Psaki.” In recent weeks we have seen her have an embarrassingly chummy “interview” with John Kerry as they strolled the D.C. sidewalks and stopped to have an ice cream from a vendor. As for covering the Republicans, Jen had a recent segment when she claims the GOP is weaponizing Muslims against the trans community in a reboot of the racist Southern Strategy.

This kind of home team boosterism is expected (and frankly can be nearly unrecognizable from conventional journalists) but the bigger concern is that this type of established allies inside the news delivery system is ethically problematic with an election looming on the horizon. It is an amazing foundation for the current administration to have embedded mouthpieces within the news mainstream. This gives Biden Inc. a unique spread of favorable points of contact and reliable outlets for messaging. 

Just take a look at Bedingfield’s career arc in 2023, because it is rather notable. In February it was said that when she stepped away from her communications command post that she would segue into Biden’s reelection campaign. Instead, she makes the move to cable news, and many would say that this is basically a sideways step in that regard. A more cynical take? This is possibly the desired result of that very plan by the Biden team. 

These posts are as desirable as it gets for a candidate as flawed and underwater with the general public as Biden. The man whose prime campaign tactic in 2020 was to not be available at all will need these helpful surrogates should he go through with another presidential run. The press was perfectly fine with Biden not engaging with them on his initial campaign and tolerated his calling a lid on a routine basis. 

He will be less vibrant throughout this next campaign. That much is clear based on his inability to engage in a fruitful fashion today. For them to have literal administration players working on their behalf across a number of networks saves them from so much work and spares Biden from some of the rigors of a campaign. It is a clear advantage they will have in the coming year, and the media outlets appear accepting of this ethical breach. It is just another level of corruption in the industry in general.



When The Justice System Falls Apart, So Does The Republic

If we no longer uphold equal justice under the law, we still have a country, but not the one we thought we had.



Democrats’ crusade to weaponize the criminal justice system to put their chief political opponent in jail escalated again Monday night, with the release of an indictment pursued by Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against former President Donald Trump. The indictment, targeting not just Trump but 18 of his lawyers and advisers, is a clear message that if you’re a Republican, challenging election results — something Democrats have done after every GOP presidential victory this century — is now a criminal offense.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is tripping over itself to insulate Biden and his son from scrutiny or criminal consequences for their apparent scheme to get rich off of peddling American political influence abroad.

The hacks at DOJ, by the way, also indicted Trump over a classified documents dispute, after raiding his house and rifling through his wife’s closet. Soon after, Biden was found to have classified documents lying around in his garage, but in his case, the feds are content to play nice. Oh, and Hillary Clinton also had a classified records scandal — in which her team destroyed emails and devices with BleachBit and literal hammers — but enjoyed the protection of then-FBI Director James Comey.

Speaking of Hillary, her campaign shopped a fake dossier full of lies about Trump to the FBI, which media and intelligence agencies used to smear Trump as a Russian stooge during and after the 2016 election. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the one person handed criminal punishment for the operation, got 12 months probation.

Oh, and Hillary was one of many, many Democrats who screeched for Donald Trump’s entire presidency that the 2016 election was stolen and Trump’s win was illegitimate.

Lest you should think Trump is the only example of the double standard, remember that the DOJ raided the home of a pro-life pastor for pushing a threatening pro-abortion agitator away from his young son, while militant abortion activists firebombed Christian pregnancy clinics. Recall how they charged a man with homicide for defending subway riders from a threatening vagrant, but do nothing to stop criminals who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Think about the ongoing campaign to imprison anyone adjacent to a Republican protest that turned into a mob at the U.S. Capitol in 2021, after letting left-wing protests descend into fiery riots across the country for an entire summer. Excuse me, fiery but mostly peaceful riots.

The message couldn’t be clearer: Republicans can do nothing right in the eyes of the justice system, and Democrats can do nothing wrong. We have a two-tiered justice system, and 4 in 5 Americans know it.

Problems of hypocrisy are another day’s work in politics. The use of the criminal justice system — the leveler on which the basic functions of a society depend — to turn that hypocrisy into arrest warrants is something else entirely.

A functioning justice system is a citizen’s best peaceful defense of his liberty, assuring him that his lawful exercise of freedoms will be protected. There’s a reason four of the 10 original amendments the founders affixed to their newly minted Constitution regard the rights attendant to a fair trial. When the justice system forfeits citizens’ trust, trust in the integrity of the republic itself goes with it.

We don’t have real elections if candidates are jailed — or chilled by the threat of jail — to keep them from running. We don’t have real legal recourse if DAs indict lawyers until other lawyers become afraid to defend an ostracized client. For all Democrats’ pontificating about the rule of law, it doesn’t exist if it’s only applied and misapplied to half the country. If we no longer uphold equal justice under the law, we still have a country, but not the one we thought we had.

As my colleague Joy Pullmann wrote a year ago, “A country that harshly prosecutes people or lets them off Scot-free based on their political affiliation is a banana republic. A two-tier justice system is not a justice system. … Its purpose is not justice but population control.”

A fair justice system isn’t the first thing to crumble in a dying republic — there are plenty of warning signs — but it might be the hardest loss to come back from. After all, the law is supposed to be the authority to which Americans appeal when their rights are abused and trampled. What are they supposed to do when the law and its enforcers are doling out the abuse?