Friday, December 27, 2024

Since When Did We Republicans Start Being Against Punishing Criminals?


Oh no, we are not going to forgive and forget. There is a time for forgiving, but it’s not now. If we’re going to forgive, we need to get something out of it and see some contrition. You don’t just give it away because you’re nice. But there are a lot of nice Republicans out there who think that we should just let bygones be bygones. They want us not to deport, prosecute, or otherwise sanction the illegal aliens who haven’t been yet caught committing any crimes after they committed the crime of being here illegally, those who imprisoned us for being their political opponents, and those who abused us with censorship and COVID decrees. We’re supposed to give them all a pass for some reason.

How about a hard pass instead?

No, they need to pay. I am not sure when the conservative principle of righteous retribution – punishment – for wrongdoing suddenly became unfashionable. I certainly wasn’t consulted. I believe wrongdoers should be punished, and that includes criminals who happen to be part of the regime media, the bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. They abuse us, and they need to answer for it. You can’t be the party of law and order if you shrug when your enemies break the law and engage in disorder. But the media and the Democrats are demanding that we forgo holding them to account. We must tell them, in no uncertain terms, to go pound sand. They’re going to pay. They have to, or it will happen again.

I don’t know why I have to repeat it to fellow Republicans, but punishment serves important purposes. For one thing, it deters future misbehavior. You're less likely to do it if you know you’ll be punished for it. However, if you reward wrongdoing by allowing the wrongdoer to benefit from it, whether it’s some Third World peasant who snuck into the United States being allowed to stay or a fascist prosecutor who persecuted innocent political prisoners keeping his job, you’re going to get more of it. If you want to relive the atrocities of the last few years, make sure nobody ever gets held accountable for them.

Punishment is an essential component of justice. We need to see justice happen after wrongdoing has happened. The people demand it. You cannot have a free society that doesn’t provide justice, and you cannot be a leader of free people if you do not dispense justice. Your supporters will desert you, and rightly so. They will find someone else to do justice, and he might not be nice. As I’ve said many times, Trump is not our last chance. Trump is our enemies’ last chance.

Justice is not revenge. It is not vengeance. It is righteous retribution, and that is key to a functioning society. Yes, there are times when you forgive your opponents, give them amnesty, or let them off. But those situations are unusual. Those wishing to do so must establish that it is to our benefit to do it. You just don’t give forgiveness away. When you propose to allow illegal aliens to stay here, whether labeled “Dreamers” or whatever, the first question has to be, “What’s in it for us?” How does it help America? I don’t care if it helps the wrongdoers. That’s not a consideration. Nor is it being a nice thing to do a good enough reason. They weren’t nice when they broke our laws and disrespected us. They haven’t earned it. Niceness is too often just the vice of weakness dressed up as a virtue.

A minimum requirement for earning forgiveness is a confession of wrongdoing. The Democrats and their allies are now terrified that they’re going to be held to account for their hideous wrongdoing, but are they admitting that they were wrong? Have you seen any of them concede that maybe it was a bad idea to use the government to censor and oppress their political opponents? Are any of them saying, “You know, it was wrong of us to manipulate the justice system to create two tracks, one for leftists and another for Trump-affiliated defendants, with the Trump-affiliated defendants being denied bail, tortured in jail, and sentenced to lengthy terms based on shaky legal theories, while leftist were not even charged?” Where are the Covid people admitting that they were totally wrong? They aren’t doing that. That’s because they don’t think they did anything wrong. 

And that means they’ll do it again, given the chance. So, we must demonstrate that it’s wrong, and the way to do that is through the pain of punishment. Again, when did Republicans stop thinking that criminals should suffer the consequences of their crimes? And that goes for political opponents. No one is saying frame them – it’s holding them to account for framing us among other crimes. They are afraid because they know they broke the law. We would be prosecuted if we broke the law. We were prosecuted even when we didn’t break the law. Why do they get off scot-free?

Is prosecuting political opponents optimal? No, but it’s the New Rule. The norm was to lean over backward to avoid using government power, including the justice system, against political enemies. Well, that norm has been tossed out the Overton Window and it’s fallen like Hans Gruber from Nakatomi Plaza.

If you want to reestablish a norm, you do that by imposing consequences for violating it. No accountability, no norm. The wrongdoers have not earned their forgiveness, and if we give it to them for free, they’re just going to do the same thing again, given the chance. So don’t.

Make them pay.



X22, And we Know, and more - Dec 27

 




Making the Arctic Great Again?


It was just over five years ago, in August 2019, that President Trump spontaneously proposed purchasing Greenland from tiny Denmark, making waves around the world as members of the diplomatic and national security community grappled with the sudden, unexpected prospect of an American Arctic territorial expansion, which would be the first since 1867. Trump’s Greenland proposal was quickly and soundly rejected by both the Danes and Greenlanders, the latter famously responding, “We’re open for business, not for sale.” Most felt that way about William H. Seward’s earlier vision for America’s global expansion to both the tropics and the polar regions -- which then, like Trump’s, was widely dismissed as “folly” but is now universally recognized for its strategic prescience.

With President Trump’s triumphant electoral mandate and forthcoming return to power next month, America and the world can once again witness his unorthodox diplomatic vision for the Arctic. Progressive critics unfairly portrayed Trump’s 2019 vision to expand America to include Greenland – which America has defended since World War II after Denmark fell to the Nazis – as a neo-imperial land-grab against a defenseless native people. But Greenlanders, while rebuffing Trump’s first overture to purchase the island, welcomed the renewed American interest that fueled Trump’s overture, and which led to a $12.1 million American investment the next year and the reopening of an American consulate in Nuuk for the first time since 1953.

Green activists have long taken aim at Trump for his dedication to America’s energy independence and commitment to the development and utilization of its own domestic energy resources (“drill, baby, drill!”) -- all natural prerogatives of an independent sovereign state all too often thwarted by America’s very own “green colonizers” intent on keeping Alaska’s vast reservoir of natural resources frozen for all time. But Greenlanders aspire to much the same, courting the energy and mining industries to help develop their own vast reservoir of untapped resources, whether under its retreating ice cap or beneath its increasingly open coastal waters. What they never understood or refused to acknowledge was that Trump’s strategic interest in Greenland reflected his recognition of the profound climatic transformation under way, most notably in the Arctic, as a result of climate change. They opposed the practicality of Trump’s approach, preferring instead to keep Greenland colonized, its resources undeveloped, and its peoples trapped in poverty and dependent on external subsidies.

Greenlanders instead want to be independent and secure, and to bring their resources to market for their own prosperity. Donald Trump wants the same for America, and believes becoming an American state is in both Greenland’s and America’s mutual interests. It should come as no surprise that when naming his pick to serve as ambassador to Denmark yesterday, President-elect Trump resurrected his Greenland ambitions: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” This signals an intensification of Trump’s Greenland interest and his vision for a more united North American Arctic. When juxtaposed with his earlier comments mocking Canada’s prime minister as “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada,” we can detect hints of a more ambitious, expansive – and perhaps to Canadians, ominous – American Arctic expansion.

But at the same time, we can also find in Trump’s renewed interest in our northern neighborhood hints of a new opportunity for a more robust alignment of American, Canadian, and Greenlandic strategic interests and a renewed commitment to the security of Arctic North America, as well as a mutual recognition of the strategic implications of Arctic climate change -- the very reason for Trump’s renewed interest in this oft-ignored corner of our world. This could present a diplomatic opening for our joint development of the region’s resources, and our joint enhancement of the region’s security -- something of interest to us all.

Greenland now has a chance to reconsider Trump’s offer for it to become part of the American constitutional family. This time, Nuuk could demand a seat at the table, as called for in its first Arctic strategy, “Greenland in the World: Nothing About Us Without Us,” released earlier this year. But Trump has never been opposed to that. How might talks with Greenland over its constitutional future play out? Perhaps its conversation with Trump can start with his vision for American territorial acquisition, and evolve from there to support Greenland’s own vision for sovereign independence in partnership with America, and conclude, as Trump’s relationship with Greenland grows, to his extension of more robust American protection to Greenland in support of its sovereign aspirations.

This conversation is only just getting started, and we have another four years to watch it unfold (and as many as 12, if vice president-elect J.D. Vance embraces Trump’s vision for America’s Arctic expansion). Perhaps, in time, we will witness the sovereign restoration of North America’s first and only truly indigenous state, and a true alignment of indigenous and state interests at the top of the world as democracy displaces colonialism -- providing a robust and enduring foundation of a true North, strong and free.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Trump is a nightmare for the EU in more ways than one

 For a man his age, incoming US president Donald Trump has a knack for cultivating a bad-boy image.

Refreshingly direct to the point of rude honesty, or dishonesty, as the case may be, he has no time for polite circumlocution. His threats are harsh, his demands unvarnished, including toward Washington’s so-called allies in Europe, which really are, at best, clients, and, more realistically, just vassals. In that spirit of candid, no-frills domination, Trump already has a long record of threatening NATO, which he sees – plausibly – as a scam in which European members fleece the US to free-ride on its insane (but that’s a different story…) military spending.

Or, in the genteel English still cultivated at The Economistthrough NATO, America is the guarantor of the continent’s security. Yeah, right, by firing missiles at Russia… The problem with Trump is that he is uncouth enough to know the real relationship is much more like Don Corleone “protecting” your funeral parlor. And he behaves accordingly: Even during his first term in the White House between 2017 and 2021, he started scaring other NATO members into higher military spending, while never allowing them to feel safe about his commitment. Art of the tough deal: Keep ‘em guessing, keep ‘em on their toes. And it worked, too: the European spongers began to pay more. So, there will be more of that, rest assured. If, that is, there will be a NATO to speak of.

Even less noticed is the fact that the new old US president – and thus capo dei capi of the West – is not much kindlier disposed toward the EU. And yet there it is: Trump’s frank, open, and long-standing dislike for that strange bureaucratic behemoth that is about as democratic as the former Soviet Union, less efficient than the Habsburg Empire, and so full of its global “norm-setting” mission that even American “indispensability” looks oddly old-fashioned by comparison.

As early as the beginning of 2017, when the great American bruiser gate-crashed the White House for the first time, The Economist warned its European readers to “be afraid” of Trump, a man harboring “indifference” and “contempt” for the EU. Really? How unheard of! The raunchy-tycoon-turned-peremptory-president, the British establishment Pravda of neoliberalism and Russophobia explained, would seek to shatter the EU by playing “bilateralism.” That, of course, is Euro-babble for respecting individual countries’ governments by taking their sovereignty more seriously than power-grabbing delusions of grandeur in Brussels. And – oh, horror! – he might even try to talk Russia. (Spoiler: back then he did not – big mistake.)

That, however, was 2017. Now, things have moved on. Even before Trump won his second presidential election by crushing his Democratic opponents, The Economist admitted that “’Trump-proving’ Europe” is a notion doomed to fail, which means EU leaders may well become geopolitical roadkill.” How so, you may wonder?

Well, first of all there is Russia. Regarding Moscow, Trump seems ready to talk, and in a substantial manner we have not seen since the end of the Cold War: He has publicly signaled that he does not believe in trying to coerce Moscow by further escalation; his freshly appointed advisers Mike Waltz and Keith Kellogg, though known for ambiguous signals in the past, will fall into line, as they should as public servants. And if not, they’ll be fired, Trump-style, fast and without remorse.

To say the least, Trump no longer feels as restrained by Washington’s deep-state, deep-freeze Cold War re-enactors as during his first term. Sure, it’s the US: there is always the possibility someone might try to murder him, again. But if he stays among the living, which is likely, then it’s payback time: Talking to Russia now is one delicious way in which he will dish out well-deserved retribution for both the media-lawfare circus of Russia Rage (aka ‘Russiagate’) in which his opponents weaponized slander and disinformation against him. And, more importantly, Russia has been winning the war in Ukraine, not only against Kiev but also, in effect, against the West. In sum, Trump has less reason to be afraid of his own backstabbers at home, and Washington has more reason to be much more careful about Russia.

Moscow, meanwhile, has made it clear repeatedly that any new agreements would have to be mutually beneficial. The time of Gorbachevian naivete will never return. Yet, at the same time, Russia does seem open to – serious – talks: The Russian leadership does not merely carefully watch Trump, as you would expect. It also sends back calibrated pings that signal cautious appreciation of his overtures, as recently over his criticism of firing Western missiles at Russia.

Hence, nightmare number one for the EU: Trump is serious about ending US support for the failed project of inflicting a geopolitical demotion on Russia via a proxy war in Ukraine. That will leave not only the regime of Ukraine’s past-use-by-date leader Vladimir Zelensky high and dry but remaining fanatics in the EU as well. In the best-case scenario, the US will leave the European vassals with the cost of the postwar, whatever shape that may take. Trump has already said as much. In the worst-case scenario, EU elites could try going it alone. That is, worst-case for them, in every (un)imaginable way: economically, politically, and yes, militarily, too.

And behind Trump’s willingness to make good on his election promise to end the American cluster-fiasco in and over Ukraine, lurks the possibility of a much larger turn toward – wait for it! – diplomacy in the US-Russia relationship. Perhaps it is early days to mention that other long-forgotten D-word – and it would also take two to tango, of course – but a phase of dΓ©tente cannot be excluded. If it were to take place, America’s European vassals would come to regret burning their bridges with Moscow to please Washington.

Then, nightmare number two, there is the economy. The US-EU relationship is the single largest trade connection in the world, worth about $11 trillion per year. That, you may think, constitutes a lot of common interest and thus reasons for treating each other if not gently then, at least, cautiously. Nope, that’s not how this works, because the relationship is lopsided, and Trump is furious about it. For him, the EU’s trade surplus with the US is yet another way in which shifty Europeans have been milking America. His weapon of choice to retaliate and rectify the situation are, of course, tariffs, the higher the better. Even before his re-election, Goldman Sachs warned that his rule could cost the EU as a whole a full percent of GDP. And yes, that’s a lot, especially for a continent already largely economically depressed, demographically declining, and with badly squeezed public finances.

What can EU leaders, those sadly submissive vassals about to be abused even worse than usual by their hegemon, do now? Frankly, not much. It’s already too late: They have made themselves dependent as never before on whoever happens to win the strange event Americans call “elections” and gets to mess with the world from the White House. And that is not at all Trump’s fault, by the way. (No, and not “the Russians!” either…).

Take, for instance, the EU’s wannabe despot Ursula von der Leyen. Building her own power grab – like Stalin, as it happens – on a mix of executive apparat overreach, crony networking, and ideological bigotry, she has made one serious mistake that may cost her dearly: She has cozied up so shamelessly to the outgoing Biden administration that, serious rumor has it, Trump cannot stand her. So, alternatives are in demand: Maybe he likes Italy’s Giorgia Meloni better? Or originally the Netherlands, now NATO’s Mark Rutte, who is constantly praised for his alleged “Trump-handling” skills?

But here is the problem with that, frankly, silly approach: Trump is not an idiot. Attempts to “handle” him are insultingly obvious and, if he tolerates them temporarily, then it’s only to handle his would-be handlers back. And then the irony is, of course, that the only EU leaders Trump respects, such as Viktor Orban of Hungary, are outcasts among their own: Good luck recruiting them now to make up for how much he disrespects all the others. Maybe they’ll even help, a little, Ursula, Olaf, and Emmanuel. But it’ll cost you, because they will – rightly – set their own conditions and gain great leverage.

What about Danegeld perhaps? Danegeld, you must know, was what the hapless inhabitants of the British Isles paid the seaborne Viking marauders in the Dark Ages. The system was simple: pay up or be plundered and slaughtered. You think that sounds a little primitive for today’s sophisticated Europeans? Never underestimate how low they will stoop. Ursula von der Leyen has already suggested that one way to mollify Trump might be to just buy even more perversely expensive LNG from the US. Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, has gone even further, pleading for a whole ‘Buy American’ program, including – surprise, surprise! – arms to assuage Trump’s ire.

Desperate? You bet. Humiliating? Obviously. Yet what’s worse, it’s not going to work. Here’s why: Even if Trump condescends to accepting such tributes from his European subjects, he will never lose sight of the one thing that really interests him (apart from his own money, power, and fame): American advantage. Whatever the Europeans will offer and however low they will kowtow, in the end, any deal will be good only for one side, the US. 

That’s ironic, because Russia, for one, and possibly China as well can expect the minimum of respect that makes mutual benefit at least possible. That’s because they have stood up to American bullying. For the Europeans, though, it’s a Catch 22 now. One way or the other, they will pay even more dearly than before for their historic failure after the Cold War: When they should obviously have emancipated themselves from the US, they sold out worse than ever. And without need. To paraphrase a past master of politics: It’s worse than a crime, it’s self-abuse.


https://www.rt.com/news/609361-trump-eu-nightmare-punishment/



Bird Flu Fears on the Rise as Virus Shows Evidence of Mutation That Could Make It Easier for Humans To Contract

IMO: Here we go again!  Get ready for lockdowns! CDC rises up!

 ‘The situation remains grim. There has been an explosion of human cases … we need fewer humans infected, period,’ one virologist said.


Samples from human patients infected with bird flu show the virus has mutated in ways that could make it easier for humans to contract, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. 

The virus already has been blamed for a series of animal deaths in America. In a Washington state animal sanctuary, more than 20 wild cats recently died from the virus. The Wild Felid Advocacy Center of Washington said its team was “grieving” the loss of the large cats, which included a Bengal tiger, four bobcats, and four cougars. 

“Cats are particularly vulnerable to this virus, which can cause subtle initial symptoms but progress rapidly, often resulting in death within 24 hours due to pneumonia-like conditions,” the center said on Facebook.  

In a zoo in Arizona, five animals died earlier this month from the virus, including a mountain lion and a cheetah. Meanwhile, Northwest Naturals issued a recall of its raw and frozen cat food after a house cat died in Oregon after it consumed cat food that tested positive for bird flu.

The CDC said on Thursday that samples from a patient in Louisiana, who became the first person in America to have a severe case of bird flu, showed the virus has mutated in a way that helps it bind to the cells in the upper airways of humans. A similar mutation was found in a sample from a teenager in British Columbia. 

Bird flu viruses will typically bind to cells that are generally not found in the upper airways, one of the reasons scientists say it is rare for humans to contract the virus and for human-to-human transmission to occur. 

A professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, Scott Hensley, told STAT News that the public should not be too alarmed by the news. However, he said it is “enough to raise my eyebrows” and “not great news.”

The CDC said the “changes observed were likely generated by replication of this virus in the patient with advanced disease rather than primarily transmitted at the time of infection.”

A virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization in Canada, Angela Rasmussen, posted on X that it was “good news” that the mutation of the virus occurred in a human because it “reduces the risk of transmission to another person and suggests ‘human-adapted’ viruses aren’t emerging in birds.’”

She also pointed out the CDC said the virus did not “show evidence of mutation at known sites needed for more efficient replication in a human host or resistance to antiviral drugs.”

However, Ms. Rasmussen wrote, “While this sounds like good news, the [bird flu] situation remains grim. There has been an explosion of human cases… More sequences from humans is a trend we need to reverse — we need fewer humans infected, period.”

“We don’t know what combination of mutations would lead to a pandemic H5N1 virus and there’s only so much we can predict from these sequence data. But the more humans are infected, the more chances a pandemic virus will emerge,” she added.

The CDC said the risk to the public from the mutation is low. It also said there has not been a person-to-person transmission of the virus from the patient in Louisiana. It did not provide an update on the patient’s condition.

On December 18, the CDC confirmed that an individual older than 65 in Louisiana had contracted a severe case of bird flu, the first severe case in America. 

The director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, said, “It is believed that the patient that was reported by Louisiana had exposure to sick or dead birds on their property. These are not commercial poultry, and there was no exposure to dairy cows or their related products.”

The Louisiana patient was identified as having the D1.1 variant of the virus, which is the same type of bird flu found in other human cases in Canada and Washington state. It has also been found in wild birds and poultry in America. 

More than 60 human cases of bird flu have been reported in America in 2024, and 34 of those cases were in California. Symptoms of the virus in humans can include pink eye, fever, fatigue, cough, vomiting, diarrhea, and shortness of breath.

The bird flu can lead to severe illness and death, but as of Friday morning, there have not been cases of human deaths connected to the bird flu in America. 

https://www.nysun.com/article/bird-flu-fears-on-the-rise-as-virus-shows-evidence-of-mutation-that-could-make-it-easier-for-humans-to-contract

What Will Become of MAGA, Post-Trump?



It's been a humdinger of a year, hasn't it?

The inauguration is now only a handful of days away. With this remarkable 2024 election in the rearview mirror, and with Donald Trump having essentially assumed the role of "Acting" President of the United States - I mean, someone has to act like they are president, because Joe Biden, other than commuting the death sentences of some heartless murderers, sure isn't doing anything - it's interesting to look back to 2016, and see just how different this all is.

Of course, in January of 2017, Trump wasn't taking over the presidency from a senile old fool; just a leftist ideologue. But yes, a lot has changed.

American treasure Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has some of the details:

Trump’s inauguration in a few weeks likely will not resemble his 2016 ceremony.

In the 2016-7 transition, Democratic-affiliated interests ran commercials urging electors to become “faithless” and thus illegally reject their states’ popular votes and instead elect the loser, Hillary Clinton.

Massive demonstrations met Trump on Inauguration Day.

But now, today, after Trump's decisive victory, in the electoral vote and the overall vote count? A victory so decisive that even the most partisan Democrats are having to swallow hard at the notion that you just won't find a more decisive "will of the people" election?

In contrast, during the 2024-2025 transition, Trump has all but assumed the presidency. Over 100 foreign leaders have elbowed each other to be invited to Mar-a-Lago or to phone in their congratulations to the newly elected Trump.

Remember that in 2016 the left screamed “Logan Act” if a Trump transition appointee even talked with foreign officials.

One of the more remarkable aspects of this whole thing is, as Dr. Hanson points out, how Donald Trump is essentially the acting president; but then, well, he's done it before, and somebody has to act like they're in charge.

But Donald Trump can serve one more term. In the first two years, he will be working with a hair-thin GOP majority in the House, and a marginally more comfortable GOP lead in the Senate. What happens next? And what happens to the Republican Party and to the MAGA movement after Trump leaves office? Well, it's kind of early in the game for speculation, but I have some thoughts.

First: The Make America Great Again (MAGA) and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movements are here for a while, forming a dominant force in Republican politics for a generation - maybe longer. Donald Trump has shown that it's possible to leverage those into a coalition of business owners and entrepreneurs, of blue-collar union laborers, of parents worried about boys in their daughters' locker rooms, and about the endless deluge of woke, woke, woke, to form an election-winning majority. The Democrats have become the party of the dependency class, of ivory-tower academics and coastal elites, and that's not enough to win, not at the presidential level. But will the GOP stay on this course? Or will they slip back into the establishment role of the Republicans as "the loyal opposition," the Washington Generals to the Democrats' Harlem Globetrotters?

Second: Much will depend on Congress. Some of Trump's second-term agenda can be handled largely within the Executive branch, such as much of his illegal immigration and mass deportation plans. But for more, and any long-term fix, he will need Congress on his side. As noted, he can count on a razor-thin GOP majority in the House, and a non-veto-proof majority in the Senate; and he can only count on that for two years. If the Democrats manage to wrest back control of either house, much of Trump's second-term agenda will be scuppered, and that will affect what happens next. Success is its own reward, but failure, even if it's just the failure to achieve success, is often its own punishment.

Third and finally: Much will depend on Trump's successor. We can presume that Vice President-elect JD Vance will be the heir apparent, but there's no guarantee. He may elect not to run; he has a young family, and the presidency is the most stressful job on the planet; some of that stress surely rubs off. He may also face a primary challenge. Among others, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is also popular with MAGA voters, is sooner or later going to want to take another crack at the job. 

Think also on this; it's rare for a party to hold the White House for more than two terms. While this is Trump's second term, it's also a non-consecutive term, so we are sort of in uncharted waters here. But a GOP nominee, we can expect, will be a MAGA standard-bearer, unless for some reason Trump's second term crashes and burns. While I don't find that likely, if the Democrats manage to seize either or both houses of Congress, every glove ever made will come off.

Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.

Donald Trump has remade the Republican Party in ways most of us never expected when the man came down the golden escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy. His effect on national politics will be lasting as well; whatever else anyone can say about Donald Trump, no one can deny that the man has grit to spare. He has drive, determination, uncanny stamina, and always, always an eye on the main chance. He throws out ideas like confetti, some of them even serious, and he cracks jokes, many of them off-color, but people have to take him seriously; the way world leaders are reacting to his reelection certainly tells us that.

In January 2029, though, he will leave the White House for the last time and move into a well-deserved retirement, and the Republican Party will have to find a new standard-bearer. And the conservative agenda, MAGA, MAHA, and all, will have to be fought for, again and again. In matters such as this, there is no victory; there are only temporary reprieves. Donald Trump, in defeating Kamala Harris, has won us a reprieve. But what happens next? That remains to be seen. It is in the nature of government to grow ever larger and more intrusive, and there are many other factors, including our disastrous national debt.

Trump's reelection, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, isn't the end. It isn't the beginning of the end. But it may well be the end of the beginning.




Report: China Rapidly Builds Up Weapons And Psychological Warfare Operations

 China’s military buildup and cognitive warfare strategy are clear indications of its intent to defeat the U.S. and its allies by any means necessary.


The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is undertaking an unprecedented military buildup aimed at challenging America and its allies, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. And, like Nazi Germany’s buildup in the 1930s, the militarization program ordered by the Chinese Communist Party isn’t simply a great power buildup — it’s a weapon in service of a deadly ideology.

The 2024 Department of Defense China Military Power Report and recent analysis by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times reveal this buildup as part of a broader strategy by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to position itself as a global superpower. Meanwhile, the U.S., having spent $5.4 trillion on the global war on terror and attendant, futile nation-building, has left itself strategically vulnerable by diverting critical resources while underestimating the threat from China.

Missile Expansion and Strategic Modernization

China has rapidly expanded the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) arsenal, adding, that we know of, some:

  • 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of striking the continental U.S., for a cumulative total of 400.
  • 300 medium-range ballistic missiles and 100 long-range cruise missiles.
  • More than 600 operational nuclear warheads, projected to surpass 1,000 by 2030.
  • Hypersonic missiles like the DF-27, capable of evading U.S. missile defenses and targeting Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska​.
  • China’s navy, already the largest in the world with 370 ships and submarines, is expected to grow to 435 by 2030.

Cognitive Warfare and Psychological Operations

Beyond its conventional forces, China’s adoption of “cognitive warfare” poses a significant threat. This doctrine focuses on manipulating information to undermine adversaries’ decision-making processes. Cognitive warfare features tactics right out of a sci-fi film, all enabled by powerful AI tools. For instance, deepfakes to mislead military and political leaders during crises and psychological warfare to demoralize U.S. troops and polarize society — the latter including efforts to erode trust in U.S. leadership among regional allies via tool such as TikTok.

PLA researchers are also developing advanced voice synthesis tools for low-cost, high-impact disinformation campaigns​. These operations reflect a strategy designed to win conflicts without direct confrontation, targeting the minds of adversaries rather than their forces — Sun Tzu would approve.

Questionable Timelines and Strategic Deception

The CCP’s stated military objectives include readiness for action against Taiwan by 2027, achieving strategic dominance by 2035, and fielding a world-class military by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the CCP’s victory over the Nationalists in China’s civil war. However, these timelines should be treated with skepticism. They are likely deliberate deceptions aimed at lulling adversaries into complacency or disguising China’s actual state of readiness. The pace of China’s missile expansion and cognitive warfare preparations suggests that Beijing’s capabilities likely exceed what is required for these projected milestones.

Unfortunately, the DoD’s China report featured a special section on corruption in China’s military that was seized upon by those who have consistently downplayed the China threat.

America’s Fiscal Crisis and the Need for Budget Reform

While China accelerates its military growth, even as it faces what appears to be a weakening economy, the dire state of American finances threatens our national security. The federal deficit and ballooning national debt place immense pressure on defense spending. To effectively counter China’s ambitions, the U.S. must rebuild its fleet, modernize its nuclear arsenal, expand missile defenses, and restore maritime lift capability. However, this cannot be achieved without serious budget reform and strategic cuts within the Pentagon itself. These necessary actions will likely face strong opposition from some in Congress who seek to defend the status quo.

In short order, President-elect Donald Trump’s national security team must start to rebuild the Navy with more surface combatants, submarines, and support vessels to counter China’s maritime dominance. America’s aging nuclear arsenal requires upgrades to ensure credible deterrence against China’s rapidly growing stockpile of advanced warheads and delivery systems.

Lessons learned from Israel and Ukraine show that we must also invest in next-generation missile defense systems to protect the homeland and key assets in the Indo-Pacific. And, lastly, we must invest in strategic sealift capacity to ensure rapid deployment and sustainment of forces during a conflict. This will require a decade of focused effort to rebuild America’s shipbuilding industry, including training tens of thousands of highly skilled workers.

Finding Savings Within the Pentagon

Despite the need for increased capability, the solution is not simply more spending. The Pentagon’s budget, currently burdened by inefficiencies, mismanagement, and bloated bureaucracy, must be scrutinized. It will be difficult, as every dollar cut will have an advocate as well as friends in Congress, but support for the needed investments will be hard to come by without serious savings in the Pentagon.

Savings can be found in cutting redundant programs and eliminating outdated or overlapping initiatives. Reforming the acquisition process will likely be a big lift as Congress will need to approve enabling legislation, but a proper streamlining of procurement can prevent cost overruns and delays and, if done right, can greatly accelerate weapons acquisition and innovation. And lastly, reducing the DoD’s bureaucracy, including the massive bloat in generals and admirals, will not only save money but also speed up decision-making.

The Strategic Realignment Imperative

China’s military buildup and cognitive warfare strategy are clear indications of its intent to defeat the U.S. and its allies by any means necessary. Ignoring this threat or trusting Beijing’s stated timelines risks leaving the U.S. unprepared for a conflict that may arise sooner than anticipated.

To safeguard national security, the U.S. must adopt a strategy of fiscal discipline and targeted investment. Reallocating resources within the Pentagon to prioritize naval strength, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and logistics will ensure the United States remains ready to meet the challenge posed by China.

Strategic competition demands both financial responsibility and military readiness — two imperatives that cannot be delayed.

Fortunately, President-elect Trump has assembled a team that understands this threat. With Pete Hegseth at the helm of the Pentagon, and other key positions filled by people who understand the danger and the urgency of the situation, it comes down to whether Congress will join in the effort to preserve peace through strength.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/27/report-china-rapidly-builds-up-weapons-and-psychological-warfare-operations/