The New Patriots

posted by Vince Coyner at RedState 

Donald Trump and Elon Musk, two men who could easily play it safe, are putting it all on the line for American liberty. This is a first since our original revolution.

Rush Limbaugh used to talk about a story his father told about the signers of the Declaration of Independence:

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

The story had something of a resurrection in the early 2000s and was often shared in various iterations on social media. Not surprisingly, a minor industry emerged seeking to “fact-check” them. An example of such is this from Snopes, which first began fact-checking them back in 2005:

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

It is true that five signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British during the course of the Revolutionary War. However, none of them died while a prisoner, and four of them were taken into custody not because they were considered “traitors” due to their status as signatories to that document, but because they were captured as prisoners of war while actively engaged in military operations against the British.

Snopes concludes that the piece they reviewed (not the Limbaugh piece) was “Mixed” in its accuracy. They’re right. Accuracy matters. Particularly in matters of importance. Snopes then adds something that backhandedly drives home the basic premise:

So great is our need for simplified, dramatic events and heroes that even the real-life biographies of the fifty-six men who risked their lives to publicly declare American independence are no longer compelling enough.

This is the theme that most of the gotcha fact checkers miss and, indeed, a point that those who seek to debunk the audacity of what those 56 did largely ignore: These men were committing treason. They knew they were committing treason. They knew the penalty for committing treason was hanging. Yet, they did so, risking everything they had.

What’s more, they weren’t committing treason against just some random monarch with a few colonies to protect. No, they were committing treason against the most powerful nation on the planet, which had a navy that dominated the seas and a reach that stretched across continents and oceans.

Whether they ended up dying of old age as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams did—on the same day, exactly 50 years from the date of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1826—or died during the war itself, as nine of the signatories did, all 56 of them knew they were risking their fortunes, families and their lives if they signed that document. And they did it nonetheless.

Today, there are millions of Americans ready to sign a new Declaration of Independence from the tyranny America has become. Tyranny, you say?

The American government in 2024 is far more tyrannical than the British government under King George III ever was. And it’s not even close.

With the federal government having passed over 88,000 laws and rules just between 1995 and  2016, today, it’s almost impossible for the average American to get through a single day, never mind a single year or life, without breaking the law. In his book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate suggests that Americans commit three federal felonies daily without even knowing it. And that doesn’t include the countless state and local laws or other authoritarian fictions that tyrants create.

From a different perspective, consider this: In 1880, 30,000 prisoners were jailed in the United States out of a population of 50 million, for an incarceration rate of .06%. Today, there are 1.6 million prisoners in a population of 350 million, for an incarceration rate of .45%--and if one counts the additional 3.4 million others in the system via probation and parole, which didn’t exist in 1880—you get a justice system control rate of 1.45%. Are Americans somehow 25 times more criminalized today than they were 140 years ago, or are there simply more crimes for which they can be convicted?

As any conscious person knows, it’s the latter.

This makes what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing simply extraordinary. While there are millions of Americans who would be willing to sign a new Declaration of Independence if it came to it, those two are trying to avoid having that be a necessity. And they are risking everything in this fight.

Trump, unlike most politicians (presidents and members of Congress alike), has actually lost money since becoming president, to the tune of $1.6 billion! From the moment he announced in 2015 that he was running for president, the swamp used propaganda, lies, and lawfare to hamper his victory and prevent him from serving effectively. After he left the White House, the Swamp tried to imprison him. And now that he’s running again, the lies and propaganda are back. Beyond that official treachery, he was shot in a bungled assassination attempt and had at least one more thwarted.

Musk, while still the world’s richest man, has seen governments around the world target his businesses and threaten to put him in jail for purchasing Twitter and defending free speech. Indeed, just last week, California blocked one of his companies, SpaceX, from more launches from the state and explicitly identified his tweets as one reason for doing so.

And why is that happening? Because, as was the case with the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, Trump and Musk recognize that the American government has become a tyranny. They recognize the government has become bloated, inefficient, and stultifying to American freedom and prosperity. In contrast, simultaneously, its fellow travelers in the media, finance, pharma, academia, etc., have become wealthy and above the law.

The duo not only recognize that tyranny, they’re telling American citizens they will destroy it. Trump promises to eliminate the Department of Education,while Musk wants to help slash government by 80%! For the cabal of government apparatchiks and the sundry hyenas who feed alongside them on the body politic of America, this is a declaration of war. It threatens their very existence. And it must be stopped, whatever it takes.

This is exactly what makes what Trump and Musk are doing so brave. Neither man needs to become embroiled in politics to live a life of luxury or provide one to their progeny. Indeed, both have knowingly and willingly put their fortunes and their lives in the crosshairs of the most powerful tyranny in all of human history.

We’re seeing the kind of courage that animated the creation of the greatest republic in human history. That’s the kind of courage that inspired men from 13 separate colonies to put their differences aside and fight for freedom.

Ideally, the courage we see in these two modern-day patriots will inspire citizens across America’s 50 states to utilize the ballot box to save the nation those 56 founders bequeathed to us. One Declaration of Independence should be enough. It’s to be hoped that we won’t need another.

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 17

 

Where Trump and Harris Stand on China Policies

 Both candidates agree the Chinese Communist Party poses a threat to the United States, but they have different strategies on how to address it.

The next president will likely preside over one of the most consequential periods in the nation’s relations with communist China, an adversary that has the intention and capacity to displace the current U.S.-led world order.

Eight in 10 Americans view China unfavorably, according to a Pew Research Center report released in July.

Washington also has arrived at a consensus that the Chinese regime poses a threat as it closes the gap with the United States in the military, diplomatic, and technological domains.

The current approach to China began with former President Donald Trump. Identifying China as a “strategic competitor,” the Trump administration took a new approach to U.S.–China relations. It imposed broad tariffs on Chinese goods, controlled Chinese access to American semiconductor technology, and pivoted national security strategy from the Middle East to China and Russia.

The Biden administration continued many of these policies, and Washington’s China policy will likely continue to be hawkish. However, the two presidential candidates would likely pursue distinct approaches owing to their differing worldviews and depending on who they appoint to key positions.

Former President Donald Trump is broadly expected to resume the China policies he initiated in his first term.

Vice President Kamala Harris has indicated no sign of divergence from the Biden administration’s China policies.

Trade

The two candidates agree on controlling strategic goods and technologies, investing in innovation, reshoring supply chains, and combating Beijing’s unfair trade practices.

The aim is to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century,” Harris has said repeatedly.

Last month, the Biden administration finalized its tariffs, retaining all Trump-era rates and sharply increasing them on selected critical technologies and minerals.

During a speech on the economy in Pittsburgh on Sept. 25, the vice president vowed, “I will never hesitate to take swift and strong measures when China undermines the rules of the road at the expense of our workers, our communities, and our companies.”

The Trump-centered Republican platform also pledges to revoke China’s permanent normal trade relations status, which grants it free trade benefits with the United States; phase out imports of essential goods that include electronics, steel, and pharmaceuticals; and stop China from buying American real estate and industries.

Trump hinted at reigniting the trade war, suggesting that he may impose tariffs of more than 60 percent on Chinese goods.

Dennis Wilder, a former national security and intelligence officer who held several senior roles in the Bush and Obama administrations, believes that Trump’s threat of higher tariffs is merely a negotiating tool to achieve a trade deal similar to the Phase One U.S.–China trade deal signed in 2020.

Stephen Ezell, a vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation think tank, believes that Trump will take the pledges in the Republican platform seriously, particularly the pledge to revoke China’s permanent normal trade relations status, because Beijing has failed to comply with its commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization, he told The Epoch Times.

Beijing did not fulfill its pledge in the Phase One deal to buy an additional $200 billion in U.S. products over two years. During a meeting with farmers in Smithton, Pennsylvania, a borough near Pittsburgh, on Sept. 23, Trump said that if reelected, his first call would be to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, asking him to honor the deal.

During the final months of his term, Trump raised the idea of separating the United States and Chinese economies, known as decoupling. His former trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, a rumored candidate for the next secretary of the treasury, advocates for the same approach.

Harris and her Democratic Party have a different view; she believes in “derisking,” not decoupling.

James Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said decoupling is already happening.

As to whether a future Harris administration would differ in its policies from President Joe Biden’s approach, Lewis told The Epoch Times that he would watch the pace of decoupling and the measures adopted to reinforce it.

Security

Despite a growing consensus in Washington on the need to counter the Chinese regime’s aggressive actions, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, differences remain on how to avoid military conflict.

Trump emphasizes maintaining peace by showing military strength. During his term, he focused on modernizing nuclear weapons and halted the trend of making cuts to the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

A 2018 nuclear policy document listed one of the roles of nuclear weapons as “hedging against an uncertain future.” The Biden administration dropped this language in its 2022 update.

Biden’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review also canceled the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile program for cost reasons. However, Congress continued funding the program, although it was not included in the Biden administration’s defense budget requests. According to its proponents, the program enhances the credibility of U.S. deterrence.

A YouGov survey in June found that Trump supporters are more likely than Biden supporters to say the United States is safer because of its nuclear arsenal.

During a debate on the defense funding bill in 2020, then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) supported cutting the budget.

“I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding to communities in need,” she said at the time.

In May, Harris said U.S. air and space supremacy is essential to ensuring global peace and security and that the Biden administration has kept defense spending steady.

Trump started the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, which Biden continued. Both parties agree that the Indo-Pacific region is the United States’s primary theater. However, Trump and Harris may differ on the balance between the imminent dangers in the Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Hamas regional wars and the tense South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

Ivan Kanapathy, a senior vice president at advisory firm Beacon Global Strategies and former senior national security official under the Trump administration, believes the European Union, which has a much larger economy than Russia, should handle the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war while the United States should focus more on China and North Korea.

Elbridge Colby, a former senior Pentagon official and a top contender for the national security adviser position in Trump’s second term, shares this view.

In late September, Harris reaffirmed U.S. support for Ukraine as a way of “fulfilling our long-standing role of global leadership.” Earlier this year, in February, she touted having “invested heavily in our alliances and partnerships and created new ones to ensure peace and security” in the Indo-Pacific during the past 3 1/2 years.

The Biden administration has maintained that the Indo-Pacific is the “priority theater” for the United States. However, military assistance to Ukraine and Israel has strained the defense department and led to an arms sales backlog to Taiwan of about $20 billion, equivalent to the island’s annual defense budget.

Biden has said several times that the United States would defend Taiwan if Beijing tried to annex the island by force. However, his officials walked back those statements each time, saying U.S. policy is deliberately vague on what it would do.

In September 2022, Harris said that the United States would “continue to oppose any unilateral change to the status quo” and “continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense, consistent with our long-standing policy.”

Trump has recently sparked controversy by saying Taiwan should pay the United States for its defense.

Trump is also credited with forging closer U.S.–Taiwan relations, starting with his unprecedented phone conversation in 2016—the first such official call since 1960—with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who congratulated the U.S. president-elect.

Trump signed into law the Taiwan Travel Act in 2018, which encouraged engagements between U.S. and Taiwan officials at all levels, and the Taiwan Assurance Act in 2020, which ensured alignment of Taiwan guidelines in the State Department. During his term, several current U.S. cabinet-level officials visited the island nation.

In Smithton, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 23, Trump alluded to the possibility of getting into a war with China while speaking about protecting the U.S. steel industry.

“If we’re in a war—and we need army tanks, and we need ships, and we need other things that happen to be made of steel—what are we going to do? Go to China and get the steel?” he said.

“We’re fighting China, but ‘Would you mind selling us some steel?’ Think about it.”

According to the 2024 edition of the Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index—which ranks 27 states’ powers based on eight metrics, including military and economic capabilities—China’s power is plateauing at a level below that of the United States. However, for the first time since the index began in 2018, experts surveyed judged that China is better able to deploy rapidly and for a sustained period in the event of a conflict in Asia.

Fentanyl

Another sticky China-related issue is fentanyl overdose, the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. The United States has lost half a million people to the drug in the past decade. A vast majority of the chemicals or precursors needed for fentanyl production are shipped from China to Mexico, processed, and then smuggled into the United States.

In January, the Biden administration relaunched a U.S.–China counternarcotics cooperation program. According to a U.S. State Department spokesperson, Chinese authorities arrested one individual earlier this year in relation to U.S. charges brought in 2023. That remains the only known arrest made by Beijing as a result of its bilateral counternarcotics coordination with the United States.

On Sept. 1, China placed an additional seven fentanyl precursors under state control, which triggers limitations on purchases, sales, and exports.

Calling the drug a “scourge on our country,” Harris pledged last month, without mentioning China, “As president, I will make it a top priority to disrupt the flow of fentanyl into the United States.”

In Smithton, Trump said that if he were reelected, he would call Xi and ask the CCP leader to give death penalties to Chinese fentanyl dealers. According to Trump, while he was in office, he had a “handshake deal” with Xi on that issue.

Xi had previously promised Trump to rein in Chinese fentanyl traffickers and added more than 1,400 known fentanyl variations to the list of narcotics under Chinese state control in May 2019. However, the Trump administration saw no large-scale Chinese law enforcement actions to reinforce the regulation.

Engagement

While U.S.–China relations were more confrontational under Trump, the Democratic platform shows more willingness to engage with Beijing, advocating for a “tough but smart” approach to China.

Harris shares Biden’s view of “responsibly managing this competition” via “high-level, open lines of communication” to avoid conflict or confrontations, according to national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

Alexander Gray, CEO of American Global Strategies and a former senior national security official under the Trump administration, said dialogue and discussions need to have an objective.

He told The Epoch Times that the CCP has “a well-known historical reputation for manipulating foreign interlocutors and using those types of engagements for propaganda purposes rather than having any agenda that’s constructive.”

According to Kanapathy, Biden cautiously continued his predecessor’s China policy for two years before his administration shifted to “a more accommodative posture with less emphasis on competitive actions.”

Lewis, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes the current administration’s approach hinges upon an assessment of whether China has peaked. If it is believed that China has plateaued, he said, then U.S. policy responses can be more relaxed. If it is thought that China will continue getting stronger, then more pushback is needed, he said.

But this question is still under open debate and has resulted in a “sort of gridlock in the White House under Biden on China’s strategy,” according to Lewis.

China is facing a number of problems, including an aging and declining population, spiraling debt, shrinking foreign direct investment, and an exodus of the rich.

Lewis also pointed to the consensus that Chinese officials “fudge their numbers,” saying the pace of China’s economic growth is likely half of what Beijing claims it is.

However, he said the problems might be offset by Beijing’s “willingness to spend” and its deep research bench.

China has more than 6 million personnel to support Xi’s plan to develop new technology—such as batteries and solar energy—to achieve world dominance.

Human Rights

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have been vocal critics of human rights abuses in China.

In 2020, Harris told the Council on Foreign Relations that China’s “abysmal human rights record” must be prominently featured in U.S. policy toward the country.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 and the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, which sanctioned individuals responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong and China’s Xinjiang region.

Trump signed both bills into law.

While facing criticism for publicly praising Xi, Trump has also presided over several milestones in terms of opposing the Chinese regime’s human rights abuses.

On its last day, the Trump administration declared that the Chinese regime had committed ongoing “genocide against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.”

Several legislatures worldwide have backed such a determination with nonbinding votes, but Washington remains the only executive branch to do so.

Trump was also the first U.S. president to meet with a Falun Gong practitioner, along with other survivors of religious persecution from China and elsewhere. His administration sanctioned those involved in “gross violations of human rights” by being “associated with particularly severe violations of religious freedom of Falun Gong practitioners.”

The CCP perceives Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa—a spiritual practice that follows the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance—as one of the top threats to its rule, along with Taiwanese independence, Tibetan independence, Xinjiang “separatists,” and the Chinese democracy movement.

The Biden administration has continued the policy of opposing the regime’s oppression of Falun Gong members, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken imposing visa restrictions on another Chinese communist official for “arbitrary detention of Falun Gong practitioners for their spiritual beliefs.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/where-trump-and-harris-stand-on-china-policies-5714211?utm_source=China_article_paid&src_src=China_article_paid&utm_campaign=China-2024-10-17-ca&src_cmp=China-2024-10-17-ca&utm_medium=email&est=WJnE27AN5BDLtlvfBXnxfDW%2FxKyyZntLr%2FRcQNXfmh4tkYntEjeUJDZMXFRsOtESdI5s&utm_term=news4&utm_content=4