Elon Musk, “The Degree to Which Twitter Was an Arm of the Govt, Was Not Well Understood by the Public”

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Several people have pointed out this conversation between Joe Rogan and Twitter owner Elon Musk.   There are a couple of interesting aspects to the conversation; one of the more interesting is not generally being noticed.

The primary point, raised by many, is how Elon Musk discusses the scale and scope of U.S. government involvement in the operation of Twitter as an information and discussion platform.  Almost all of those making this note are unfamiliar with our multi-year research and outlines long before Elon Musk entered the picture.

As affirmed during the conversation, the FBI and various government agencies, under the auspices of the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), were in a direct relationship with Twitter offices to control information on the platform.  This is not a surprise to CTH readers.  The instructions on content removal, content moderation, and demands to remove accounts, were part of the DHS broader initiative to control information.  This part of the discussion begins at 05:46, prompted. WATCH:

While the govt involvement in the operation of Twitter is interesting, readers here will not be surprised.  However, there is a statement by Joe Rogan, at 11:40, that seems to fly under the radar, even to Elon Musk, that deserves an equal amount of attention.

In response to Musk saying the ratio of censorship on the Twitter platform was a multiple of 10 times greater for “right-wing” or centrist views, Rogan ponders how and why accounts like the Taliban were not removed.   Thus, yet again, the issue that brought me to the political sphere many decades ago surfaces.

The Taliban, as a totalitarian ideology, is not on the right side of the political continuum.  Totalitarianism, or the presence of big oppressive government, falls on the left side of the political continuum.  The far-left is totalitarianism.  The furthest right is the absence of government.  This is an ideological mistake that happens frequently and needs to be addressed when the mistake is made.

When the Chinese Communist Party cracked down on the student activists in Tiananmen Square, China, most of the political analysis and media pundits got it totally wrong in their discussion.  It was not a “hard-right” reaction by the Chinese government, it was an actionable shift to the far-left, toward total government control.

Like the Chinese communist regime, the ideology of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood et al, is left-wing extremism.  The government – or controlling, totalitarian, oppressive ruling authority – controls the lives of the people subjected to it.  This is a far-left big government worldview.

Oppressive government is on the left side of the freedom continuum.  That’s why the further left the Democrat Party goes, the more oppressive the government control becomes.  Democrats are leftists, and the leftists believe in socialism (big govt), communism (bigger govt), and eventually totalitarianism (total govt).  Each shift is a move further to the left, further toward oppressive government.

The absence of government, individual liberty and freedom, is on the right side of the continuum.  Federalism (local govt), Republicanism (limited federal govt), Libertarianism (even less govt), and eventually anarchy (no govt or control authority) are on the right side of the freedom continuum.

As noted by the reference point of Joe Rogan, almost every pundit makes this common and fundamental mistake.  That’s why Rogan was having difficulty reconciling the Taliban being allowed on Twitter, when the reality is – the Taliban are on Twitter because they are in alignment with big oppressive, controlling government.  That is their central alignment.

Understanding this core distinction, this fundamental flaw as espoused by so many, is what brought me into the world of politics a long time ago.

When “Republicans” want bigger government, they are “Democrats.”

X22, On the Fringe, and more- November 2nd

 

An America Without Gun Rights Would Look Like Mexico, Not Australia

If Americans allow their firearms to be outlawed and then confiscated, would we, in fact, become more like Australia or Mexico? The answer is clear.

posted by Aaron DeCorte at The Federalist

Every mass shooting inevitably leads those on the left to call for a ban on “assault weapons,” and this time is no different. Thus begins the barrage of calls for “sensible gun laws” on social media, from network pundits, and via Vice President Kamala Harris herself, using Australia or New Zealand as the models. These unarmed countries, they tell us, prove you can strip citizens of their ability to own firearms and live in a nonviolent utopia. Is that the likely outcome of such a ban in America?

Thought experiment, leaving aside the issue of a right enshrined in the Constitution: If Americans allow their firearms to be outlawed and then confiscated, would we in fact, become like Australia or New Zealand?

If we gave up AR-15s and then a mass shooting took place where a semi-automatic handgun was used, opponents of gun rights would take those too — the same with a shooter with a hunting rifle, then a shooter with a shotgun, and on and on. We know where this leads. It can’t end with “military style” firearms. A confiscation of AR-15s would eventually lead to a complete ban on almost every gun. How long would that take? Five years, 10 years? It wouldn’t take very long once the ball is rolling and mass shooters move to handguns and shotguns, which would quickly be banned as the public’s demand for “safety” would be too much for politicians to stand against.

Cut to a Republican senator being interviewed on CNN the day after a mass shooting where a 9mm handgun was used: Senator, just a few months ago you voted to ban AR-15s because scores of children were killed in a school shooting. Today, with more dead children, you won’t support the banning of semi-automatic handguns? How can you tell those parents why the shooter was able to legally obtain a Glock 19 that, like the AR-15s that you voted to ban, allowed the shooter to fire many rounds and reload in a matter of seconds? What’s the difference, senator? Do those dead children think it was better to be shot by a handgun rather than a long gun? Senator?

That lawmaker would crumble, and so would others. What would we be left with? A technical right to keep and bear arms that practically renders that right meaningless.  

How do we know this? We know this because we have seen this before in Mexico.

Mexico’s Experience

California has more people than Australia and New Zealand combined, in addition to a plethora of other geographic and population traits that make those countries a silly comparison. As an aside, ask any leftist if they would adopt those countries’ immigration policies in return for their gun policies. Mexico is the best example of what the U.S. would look like if the banning of firearms were to take place. Both countries have a long history of their citizens owning firearms, as they have been constitutionally guaranteed since their founding. Mexico is also a more similar country in terms of population, size, and current crime issues.

In 1857, Mexico had a constitutional right to bear arms, then in 1917 the country excluded weapons that were reserved for military branches only and added additional restrictions, and today the right to have a firearm is restricted to your home. In 1968, in response to civil unrest, the Mexican government established a Federal Arms Registry that resulted in the following: handguns in .380 or smaller, and 12 gauge (or smaller) shotguns and rifles that use less than .30 caliber are legal. Citizens have to go to a military base to apply for a permit and if one is issued, guns can only be purchased at one store in Mexico City run by the Mexican military.

I bet there isn’t a cartel member in Mexico whose gun conforms to restrictions, let alone that he has a permit. In a country of more than 100 million people, only 4,300 permits have been issued. No surprise they are reserved for the wealthy, the politically connected, and the bodyguards who protect them.

Has the tradeoff in Mexico made the country safer and more law-abiding? Hardly. The murder rate per million people is 218.49; that’s five times higher than the United States. For a never-ending parade of statistics regarding gun violence in Mexico versus the United States, click here.

It’s not just the gun stats. Mexico is a corrupt nation, held hostage by drug cartels and compromised politicians. The average citizen cannot legally possess a firearm to deter the criminal who possesses a firearm illegally. Corrupt law enforcement and the bribed politicians will protect the criminal, not the average law-abiding citizen. Honest law enforcement officers live in constant fear of reprisals on themselves and their families for good reason.

The AP reported in May of 2021, “The cartel kidnapped several members of an elite police force in the state of Guanajuato, tortured them to obtain names and addresses of fellow officers and is now hunting down and killing police at their homes, on their days off, in front of their families.” Judges, prosecutors, and politicians face the same: See examples here and here. 2022 was reportedly the fourth year in a row that Mexico was ranked the most dangerous country for reporters. The Wall Street Journal also shed light on the state of elections here as a result of rampant cartel influence.

What Would Happen in the U.S.?

If there were a successful effort to ban the majority of firearms in the U.S., it would eventually turn us into Mexico. Only criminals, the wealthy, the politically connected, and the bodyguards who protect them would own firearms. Well-armed criminals would operate with impunity, and inevitably corruption would encroach on every law enforcement agency in the country and then into the courts.

Like Mexico, our rate of murders and violent incidents would rise, not fall, as a result of gun bans. The reason cartels flood the U.S. with people and fentanyl and not guns is because there is no money in smuggling weapons — until we ban them, and then Mexican cartels would become the unofficial supplier of firearms to America. Times change, human nature does not.

Law-abiding firearm owners in America know the left isn’t concerned about criminals owning and using guns during the commission of crimes. We know this because left-leaning district attorneys routinely reduce the very gun charges they championed to make sure repeat offenders avoid lengthy prison sentences. Don’t think for one minute they won’t do the same if firearms become illegal. If Republican politicians had half of a brain, they would demand that any restriction on firearms be paired with a zero discretion policy, meaning the charges could not be reduced.

The right likes to invoke the memory of Jews being disarmed under Hitler before the atrocities began, but a better comparison is found by gazing over the unbuilt fence at our southern neighbor.

Senator Rand Paul Opening Statement During Senate Homeland Security Hearing

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

During yesterday’s Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took the opportunity to confront the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI with the recent history of their activity.

As noted by Senator Paul, the past several years exhibits clear and irrefutable evidence of the DHS and FBI working collaboratively to conduct surveillance on American citizens, while simultaneously violating the first amendment by coordinating with big tech social media companies on censorship.  WATCH:

Everything Rand Paul says in that statement is factually correct.  However, highlighting just how the game of pretending is conducted in DC, at the end of hearing Senator Rand Paul -joined by Senator Lindsey Graham- voted to approve Jack Lew as Joe Biden’s ambassador to Israel.   Quite a shift in ideological priority considering that Jack Lew was the primary cover-up official responsible for protecting Obama from exposure to the IRS targeting operation against conservatives.

Additionally, prior to his job as Treasury Secretary, and prior to his position as President Obama’s Chief of Staff, and prior to him being Obama’s Budget Director (comical considering Obama never had a budget) Jack Lew served as State Department Director under Hillary Clinton.    It was Lew’s influence that shaped and positioned the failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy toward the Middle East.   Specifically, toward Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya during their upheaval, the Arab Spring.   How did that work out for our interests?

For those who believe the bankers control everything, Jack Lew is a case study.

President Obama’s first chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, he sat on the board of troubled federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac.  Obama’s second CoS was Bill Daley, a previous top executive at financial firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.   Next came Jack Lew.

From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank’s alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting “U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments.”

Lew  made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just  a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer  rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government.    Jack Lew was CEO of Citibank’s hedge fund of “credit default swaps“,  the financial tool that devastated the housing equity market and created the subsequent economic collapse.

Notice the pattern?

I digress…

Hey, at least Senator Paul can talk eloquently about the constitutional protections being usurped in real time.   Doing something about it, not so much.

Speaker Mike Johnson Isn't Rich: Democrats Demand to Know Why

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

We're learning some significant facts about the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (R-LA), and here is perhaps the most shocking piece of information uncovered to date:

He isn't rich.

Over the course of seven years, Johnson has never reported a checking or savings account in his name, nor in the name of his wife or any of his children, disclosures show. In fact, he doesn’t appear to have money stashed in any investments, with his latest filing—covering 2022—showing no assets whatsoever.

Of course, it’s unlikely Johnson doesn’t actually have a bank account. What’s more likely is Johnson lives paycheck to paycheck—so much so that he doesn’t have enough money in his bank account to trigger the checking account disclosure rules for members of Congress.

Of course, the Daily Beast immediately assumes some kind of malfeasance on the part of Speaker Johnson while turning a blind eye to, say, Nancy Pelosi's enormous wealth. But then, straining at gnats and swallowing camels seems to be a required job skill for the leftist media these days:

Jordan Libowitz, communications director for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, offered a more blunt assessment, saying that if Johnson truly doesn’t have any assets, it “raises questions about his personal financial wellbeing.”

"It’s strange to see Speaker Johnson disclose no assets,” Libowitz told The Daily Beast. “He made over $200,000 last year, and his wife took home salary from two employers as well, so why isn’t there a bank account or any form of savings listed?”

Johnson has also carried debts over for several years, which Libowitz said would sharpen the question.

The only thing these people have to go on is information disclosed by Johnson himself, including information on his mortgages, personal loans, and, of course, his $223,500 salary as Speaker. (That is considerably better than the average 2023 U.S. salary of $74,580). But that hasn't stopped even Twitter/X from casting aspersions:

If Matt Fuller had bothered to engage his brain and perhaps a tiny little bit of curiosity, he may have discovered that Mike Johnson has served in the House of Representatives since 2017, that being six years, and that Congress members (for better or worse) are covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System, which works like this:

As of 2019, members who participated in the congressional pension system are vested after five years of service. A pension is available to members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age. A reduced pension is available depending upon which of several different age/service options is chosen. If Members leave Congress before reaching retirement age, they may leave their contributions behind and receive a deferred pension later.

That, Mr. Fuller, is presumably Speaker Johnson's retirement plan. It's a far, far better plan than most Americans can hope for, but it's safe to assume that 1) Speaker Johnson won't be missing any meals in his retirement, and 2) Matt Fuller needs to attend an Investigative Journalism 101 class.

Granted, corruption is rampant in government right now; worse, equal treatment under the law is a dead letter. There seem to be two major ways people view the law. Some people understand that things like bribery and graft are illegal because they are wrong. Those people don’t obey the law from fear of punishment; they behave the way they do because it’s the right way to behave. Then there are people who believe that things like bribery and graft are wrong because they are illegal, and all too often, people like that will attempt something if they think they can get away with it, because they don’t see the act as wrong in and of itself. Too many pols are of that second sort, and that leads too many people to assume all of them are, even when some of them are not.

It's far too easy for the left to assume some illegal or immoral activity to explain the apparent discontinuity between Speaker Johnson's income and his apparent net worth. But there's an easier option; one could apply Occam's Razor and simply realize that for whatever reason, the Johnsons live within their means, occasionally suffer financial setbacks, borrow money to buy homes and vehicles, and so on.

In other words, just like most Americans do.

We, as a people, as a country, have no doubt become jaded by the shenanigans of the political class. (It's also absolutely shameful that we even have a political class, but that's a story for another day.) It's sad that we so automatically assume the worst of these people, and it's sadder still that we are so often justified in assuming the worst.

But casting the shadow of suspicion on someone, a younger political figure with a growing family, because their net worth/perceived wealth is less than expected? That's a new one.

5 Questions We Should Be Asking About the $40,000 in Laundered Funds Paid to President Biden

Jeff Charles reporting for RedStateVIP 

Those paying attention to the ongoing saga involving President Joe Biden and his family’s shady business dealings will get even more acquainted with the phrase “follow the money.” It was recently revealed that the House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY), discovered that the president allegedly received yet another hefty sum of money through illicit means.

This revelation, if it turns out to be accurate, could have serious ramifications for Biden, his family, and the American political landscape. It also raises questions that the American public should be asking.

RedState’s Bonchie gave us the rundown:

According to Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, bank records show that Biden received $40,000 in laundered money from China through his brother James Biden. The money was paid in the form of a personal check.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said President Biden, in 2017, received $40,000 in "laundered China money" from the bank account of his brother and his sister-in-law in the form of a personal check, while claiming the president has "exposed himself to future blackmail" from Beijing.

Comer, R-Ky., detailed his findings in a video posted to X Wednesday morning. The findings come after Comer subpoenaed personal and business bank records belonging to both James Biden and Hunter Biden as part of his investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings and whether the president was involved.

"Remember when Joe Biden told the American people that his son didn’t make money in China? Well, not only did he lie about his son Hunter making money in China, but it also turns out that $40,000 in laundered China money landed in Joe Biden’s bank account in the form of a personal check," Comer said. "And the Oversight Committee has it."

Comer said Biden "benefited from his family’s shady deal" with Chinese Communist Party-linked CEFC.

Is There Proof of Intent?

The first question that might be on people’s minds is whether Comer discovered proof that the president intended to launder money. Receiving a check — or checks — from one’s brother isn’t a crime, per se, even if the money funding the check came from China. However, what matters is whether the president knew about the money’s dubious origins. If it can’t be proven that he knew he was receiving funds that were laundered through China, then there might not be anything actionable here.

On the flip side, if investigators can establish that Biden was aware of the nature of the money he received, it could open up a Pandora’s box of criminal or impeachable offenses. This would toss the president deep into ethical quicksand from which he might not be able to extricate himself.

Who Else Is Involved?

The case surrounding the Biden family has several moving parts in the form of his individual relatives. His son, Hunter, has faced a slew of allegations, and there could be more coming. Recently, questionable information regarding his brother James also surfaced during the course of the investigation.

Moreover, several individuals associated with Hunter have been charged with violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which means they are being accused of illegally lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

To summarize, we now have a $200,000 and $40,000 payment sent to Joe Biden, with the latter coming from CEFC Energy, a Chinese company. Multiple Hunter Biden associates have been charged with FARA violations regarding the enterprise. Clearly, the president directly benefited from his family's influence-peddling operation, including from China, something that Biden patently denied during the 2020 election.

Could this point to a larger, more systematic operation involving influence peddling? If this is the case, the investigation could widen its net, engulfing multiple individuals who might have played a part in the alleged scheme.

What About Biden’s Political Future?

House Republicans have been sounding the impeachment clarion call since they took back the lower chamber in the 2022 midterm elections. Indeed, Comer and several other Republican leaders have signaled that they plan to impeach the president in the future. Under House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republicans launched an impeachment inquiry to look into the president’s alleged involvement in his family’s business dealings.

If additional evidence of wrongdoing emerges, it could give House Republicans the smoking gun they need to push further into an all-out effort to impeach Biden. This would almost certainly affect the president’s chances of winning reelection in 2024.

What’s Coming Next?

The China payment is only the latest in a series of revelations indicating that the Biden family has been engaging in funny business. As the investigation continues, there will likely be more information that comes out. There could be plenty of other evidence showing how involved the president was in the family’s business operations – or even evidence of other forms of wrongdoing.

So, what will Congress do next? In this particular case, Comer and his team had better deliver the goods. If it is established that Biden was intimately involved in his family’s business, House Republicans will use it to further damage his chances of serving a second term. Indeed, even if they go through with impeachment, a Democrat-controlled Senate is not going to vote to convict Biden no matter what he’s done. Still, the hearings would be a valuable opportunity for Republicans to air out the dirty laundry. If this is going to work, Republicans will need to continue bringing each bombshell to the public as Comer did with this revelation to continue building momentum for the eventual impeachment effort.

Biden’s Defense?

The White House will have to do some serious damage control if Comer finds even more evidence that the president played a role in the family’s operations. Currently, they are maintaining that James Biden’s payment to his brother was a repayment of a loan (as they claimed previously regarding the $200,000 payment revealed in October). Yet, House Republicans have seen no evidence indicating that the president ever gave James a loan.

Still, it is also worth noting that the president won’t have to do as much to defend himself as a Republican would. We can count on the elite media to run interference for Biden and to do everything they can to convince the public that there is no “there” there. However, if House Republicans deliver the goods, even the once-vaunted Fourth Estate won’t be able to cover for the president.

So, there you have it – a whirlpool of questions America should be asking about the issues surrounding President Joe Biden and his family members. The answers could lead to a maelstrom of possibilities that might reshape today’s American politics. One thing is for sure: The coming months will likely bring even more bombshell revelations.

It’s Time To Trade Biden’s Feeble Iran Strategy For Escalation Dominance

If the U.S. truly wishes to deter Iran, it must shift from a focus on hitting Iran’s proxies to targeting the disease itself.

posted by Chuck DeVore at The Federalist

Recent events have underscored the urgent need for a reconsideration of America’s Iran policy. In response to constant drone attacks on American bases, which resulted in injuries to more than two dozen U.S. military personnel and one fatality, the U.S. dispatched an F-16 and F-15 to bomb weapons and ammunition storage areas in Syria connected to Iran’s chief terror arm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

But this anemic response has not stopped Iranian aggression via its proxy forces, and will likely lead to further escalation by Iran — at a time and place of Iran’s choosing. 

The United States has historically responded to such provocations with a proportional strategy driven largely by State Department fears over broadening a conflict. But merely proportional measures are insufficient. The concept of escalation dominance offers a paradigm shift in how the U.S. should approach Iran.

When President Joe Biden’s foreign policy awakes from its dilatory slumber, it either falls into a desultory rut or a destructive real-world application of an academic theory that should have stayed in the lecture hall. 

Understanding Escalation Dominance

Escalation dominance is rooted in the idea that a state should possess both the capabilities and the will to control the escalation of hostilities. By controlling the pace and scope of escalation, a state can effectively deter aggression and neutralize threats. One cannot exercise escalation dominance by merely responding to symptoms or by playing a tit-for-tat game with adversaries. Real dominance requires addressing the source of the problem directly.

Consider the strategy the U.S. has employed against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or various militias in Syria. These strategies perpetuate a never-ending cycle of violence without addressing the central issue: Iran itself. While limited strikes against Iranian proxies might offer temporary tactical gains, they do not influence Tehran’s strategic calculus — after all, Iran’s mullahs are more than willing to fight to the last Hamas or Hezbollah militant. In some cases, these actions can even play into Iran’s hands, allowing it to perpetuate a narrative of victimhood and rally its base around nationalist sentiments.

If the U.S. truly wishes to deter Iran, it must shift from a focus on hitting Iran’s proxies — merely symptoms of Iran’s revolutionary aims — to targeting the disease itself. Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 serves as a potent example. The naval operation, gamed out the year before, anticipated an Iranian military response to the U.S. Navy starting to escort U.S.-flagged oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

There were two schools of thought on how to respond to Iranian attacks. The State Department’s view was one of proportional response. The Defense Department recommended a rapid and violent escalation to show the Iranians they could not control the pace of escalation.

As Iran continued laying mines in international waters and attacking neutral shipping, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was severely damaged by a mine that wounded 10 sailors. Only four days later, Operation Praying Mantis saw the U.S. Navy attack some nine Iranian naval vessels and militarized offshore oil platforms, sinking five vessels while killing 56 Iranian personnel at the loss of two American helicopter crewmen. This contributed to a rapid change in Iranian behavior for the better.

By crippling the Iranian Navy, the U.S. demonstrated the kind of direct action that could yield a significant effect — on its own terms, playing to America’s strength at sea.

Economic Warfare as a Complement

The U.S. should also deploy economic measures directly against Iran’s critical assets. This means going beyond sanctions that hurt its proxy networks and instead focusing on its oil exports, which are the lifeblood of its economy. Creating internal economic pressures can catalyze domestic unrest, which in turn would curtail Iran’s vast regional ambitions.

The Trump administration had successfully implemented this policy. Biden unraveled it. 

One of the more vexing aspects of Iran’s portfolio of trouble is its nuclear program. Here too, a strategy of escalation dominance should apply. Rather than engaging in drawn-out negotiations that allow Iran to buy time, the U.S. must present Tehran with unambiguous consequences for its nuclear pursuits, up to and including seizing its oil exports. 

Changing the Dynamics Inside the Beltway

Finally, a revamped U.S. approach must also root out Iranian influence within American policy circles. Personnel decisions can be critical in determining the direction and effectiveness of America’s Iran policy. The U.S. needs decision-makers who understand the imperative of escalation dominance, rather than those who advocate for appeasement or proportional responses — or, as has been shown, may even harbor a degree of loyalty to the mullahs in Tehran. 

The Biden administration’s proportional response strategy toward Iran can be attributed to an ideological commitment to diplomatic resolution and multilateralism. The is latter rooted in the rejection of American exceptionalism, meaning American interests are no more important than the interests of other nations or groups — and likely less so, given the inherent American sins of slavery, racism, capitalism, etc. This approach aligns with the broader Democratic foreign policy framework, which favors negotiation and consensus-building over unilateral military action.

The administration likely views a proportional response as a middle-ground strategy that allows it to show strength without shutting the door on diplomacy. The hope is that by responding but not over-responding to Iranian aggression, they maintain the moral high ground and keep alive the possibility of bringing Iran back to the negotiating table, especially concerning its nuclear program — even though history since 1979 shows that to be a futile hope.

However, this strategy is interpreted as weakness by Tehran. A proportional approach fails to disrupt Iran’s long-term strategic calculations, allowing it to continue its aggressive regional activities with minimal risk. In contrast, a more robust strategy that employs the U.S. Navy directly against vulnerable Iranian assets would signal a willingness to challenge Iran’s escalatory behavior. This latter approach would fit more closely with the traditional realist American foreign policy doctrine, which prioritizes the assertive use of military power to defend national interests. 

In the intricate chess game of geopolitics, a strategy of mere proportionality falls short against an adversary like Iran. Adopting a policy of escalation dominance allows the U.S. to seize the initiative, destabilize Iran’s grand strategy, and potentially bring Tehran back to the negotiation table under terms favorable to American and allied interests. Such a strategy, coupled with economic warfare and vigilance in internal policy formation, can forge a new path toward stability in the Middle East.

FBI Director Goes Deer in the Headlights When Asked if Nation Is Safer Under Biden

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) recently stumped FBI Director Christopher Wray during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. The discussion centered around potential threats to national security amid elevated concerns about terrorist activity.

During the hearing, Scott asked Wray if the United States is “safer from foreign threats today” than the country was before President Joe Biden took office.

In response, Wray took a pause that was so pregnant one might think it was giving birth to quadruplets. After what seemed like an eternity, Wray finally managed to eke out an answer: 

What I would say to you is that the terror threats have elevated. But I also think there are a lot of things the country has done throughout law enforcement to be better prepared to deal with them.

Wray’s remarks came against the backdrop of heightened risks of terrorist attacks against Americans because of the current conflict in the Middle East. Some have expressed worries that the war between Israel and Hamas could spill over into other nations and inspire terrorist attacks – especially in Western nations.

The ongoing border crisis has only added to fears about potential terrorist attacks carried out by radical extremists who manage to sneak into the country through its porous borders. Indeed, this has been a concern since the problem started. But now, it is receiving more attention from lawmakers.

The San Diego Field Office of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department’s Intelligence Division issued a stark warning for law enforcement agencies close to the southern border. It cautioned them to expect terrorists aligned with radical Islamic extremist groups to attempt entry into the U.S. through the southern border amid the ongoing immigration crisis the nation is experiencing.

In the advisory, which is marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," the agency says that people in the U.S. who are sympathetic to Hamas and are attempting to join the group in the area of the war may attempt to leave through the southern border. In addition to this, they further warn that foreign fighters associated or sympathetic with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad will most likely attempt to conceal their travel or transit to the United States by coming through the open southern borders.

The Biden administration has failed repeatedly to curb the influx of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants into the country, which has placed a burden on border towns and major cities across the country. And with the flow of people trying to get into the country comes potential threats from terrorists.

Indeed, last month it was revealed that Border Patrol had apprehended a record number of illegal immigrants with ties to terrorist groups at the southern border.

According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics released on Saturday, border officials arrested 18 people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list in September alone, making fiscal year 2023 a record year for terrorist-related encounters at the southern border.

Moreover, 169 illegals on the watch list were encountered between ports of entry at the border in the past 12 months, exceeding not only the record-setting total (98) of 2022; but the number of encounters also exceeded the last six fiscal years combined.

Of course, this raises the obvious question: If CBP caught 169 of these individuals, how many more managed to slip through the cracks? In light of this, it can be no wonder that Wray had such a difficult time answering Scott’s question. This wasn’t nearly as much of a concern under former President Donald Trump. Unfortunately, when the U.S. has an administration that does not take the border issue seriously, it places people in grave danger.